Gay J - Who Was The Beloved Disciple? - The J of History

Contents:

• WAS J GAY? PROBABLY
• 'WAS J GAY?’: THE CLASS UNVERG HIDN QUEER HISTORI
• J AS AN OPENLY GAY MAN
• 7 REASONS J WAS GAY
• WAS J GAY?—AN EXAMATN OF THE SECRET GOSPEL OF MARK
• WAS J GAY?
• THIS “WAS J GAY?” TTHER BRGS UP SOME TERTG POTS ABOUT THE RELIG IN’S PAST
• GAY J – WHO WAS THE BELOVED DISCIPLE?
• THE TWISTED FATE FOR MEN WHO CLAIMED J WAS GAYLOVE THY NEIGHBORWHILE THE MOST FAMO (AND MON) CLAIM IS THAT J HAD A RELATNSHIP WH MARY MAGDALENE, MAJOR WAV HAVE BEEN MA THROUGHOUT HISTORY ARGUG THAT J WAS GAY.CANDIDA MOSSUPDATED MAR. 23, 2020 4:57AM EDT / PUBLISHED MAR. 22, 2020 5:07AM EDT PHOTO ILLTRATN BY ELIZABETH BROCKWAY/THE DAILY BEAST/PIERO LLA FRANCON MAY 30, 1593, THE PLAYWRIGHT AND POET CHRISTOPHER “K” MARLOWE WAS FOUND BTALLY MURRED. ACRDG TO AN TOPSY REPORT AND SEVERAL EYEWNS REPORTS, MARLOWE HAD SPENT THE DAY AT THE HOE OF MRS. ELEANOR BULL DEPTFORD, SOUTH LONDON, BEFORE BEG FATALLY STABBED THE EYE. THE DAGGER STCK SLIGHTLY ABOVE HIS RIGHT EYE AND DROVE TWO CH TO HIS BRA. THOUGH HE WAS NOT EVEN 30, MARLOWE HAD ALREADY MA HIS IMPRSN ON THE ENGLISH LERATI WH HIS DOCTOR FST. HIS EXCLAMATN “WAS THIS THE FACE THAT LNCHED A THOAND SHIPS?” LIV ON LERARY AND POP-CULTURAL FOLKLORE EVEN TODAY. SO, WHO WOULD WANT TO KILL HIM? QUE A FEW PEOPLE, AS TURNED OUT, AND NSPIRACY THEORI ABOUND. ONE EXPLANATN IS THAT MARLOWE’S ATHEISM AND HIS SNDALO BELIEF THAT J WAS A HOMOSEXUAL RELATNSHIP WH THE DISCIPLE JOHN PLAYED A ROLE HIS MISE. IF RRECT, THIS WOULD MAKE MARLOWE ONE OF A CLTER OF DIVIDUALS WHO HAVE FACED STRONG, SOMETIM FATAL, OPPOSN FOR ASKG QUTNS ABOUT THE SEXUALY OF J.THE MORE NVENTNAL-YET-INOCLASTIC THEORY ABOUT J’S ROMANTIC LIFE IS THAT HE WAS A RELATNSHIP WH MARY MAGDALENE. SOME SAY THEY WERE EVEN MARRIED. THIS THEORY IS MOST FAMOLY ARTICULATED THE BTSELLG DA VCI CO BUT THERE ARE SOME AMICS WHO HAVE MA SIAR CLAIMS. ONE MAN, WALTER FRZ, EVEN FED AN ANCIENT DOCUMENT TO TRY TO ADD WEIGHT TO THE CLAIM THAT J AND MARY WERE MARRIED. THERE IS SOME GOOD EVINCE FOR THKG THAT THE RELATNSHIP BETWEEN MARY MAGDALENE AND J WAS PLAYED DOWN BY LATER CHRISTIAN THORS, BUT THERE’S NOTHG THE EARLIT TRADN THAT NCRETELY SUGGTS THEIR RELATNSHIP WAS ROMANTIC.   NEWSLETTERSBEAST TRAVEL DIGTGET THE ENTIRE WORLD YOUR BOX.SUBSCRIBEBY CLICKG "SUBSCRIBE" YOU AGREE TO HAVE READ THE TERMS OF USE AND PRIVACY POLICY WHAT THIS POPULAR NSPIRACY THEORY NVENIENTLY OVERLOOKS IS THE TENSY OF J’S RELATNSHIPS WH HIS RE GROUP OF DISCIPL. THE CLOSE RELATNSHIP OF J AND THE “BELOVED DISCIPLE” (TRADNALLY INTIFIED AS JOHN THE EVANGELIST) HAS LED SOME TO SUGGT THAT THEIR RELATNSHIP WAS HOMOEROTIC. THE EVINCE IS SUGGTIVE; AFTER ALL THERE IS A DISCIPLE WHO IS REPEATEDLY SCRIBED AS A PERSON WHOM J “LOV.” THERE’S A NVERSATN BETWEEN J AND PETER WHICH J ASKS PETER THREE TIM IF HE LOV HIM AND, WHEN PETER RPONDS, ASKS HIM TO RE FOR HIS FLOCK (JOHN 21:15-17). A MAN WHO SPENDS MOST OF HIS PERSONAL TIME ALONE WH 12 OTHER MEN? YOU MIGHT SAY THAT THERE’S SOMETHG CREDIBLY HETERONORMATIVE ABOUT THKG THAT J WAS TERTED MARY MAGDALENE.WHILE THE SCRIPTURAL TEXTS SOUND QUE SUGGTIVE ENGLISH, THE EROTICISM EVAPORAT OUT OF THE NVERSATN WHEN YOU READ THE ORIGAL GREEK. GREEK HAS MULTIPLE WORDS TO SCRIBE DIFFERENT KDS OF LOVE. AND, AS ISMO DUNRBERG, A PROFSOR OF NEW TTAMENT AT THE UNIVERSY OF HELSKI, HAS SHOWN, THE GREEK DO NOT SUGGT EROTIC RELATNSHIPS. IN JOHN 21 THE WORD J IS “AGAPE” A WORD THAT NNOT BROAD AFFECTN AND RE FOR OTHERS. THE WORD FOR SEXUAL LOVE OR SIRE IS “EROS” (OM WHICH WE GET THE ENGLISH WORD “EROTIC”), BUT THAT LANGUAGE IS NEVER ED TO SCRIBE J’ LOVE FOR ANY OF HIS PANNS.BUT IF JT SPENDG TIME TOGETHER IS ENOUGH TO BUILD A WHOLE THEORY ABOUT THE RELATNSHIP BETWEEN J AND MARY MAGDALENE, THEN CERTALY THE ARGUMENT J WAS SEXUAL RELATNSHIPS WH OTHER MEN HAS AT LEAST AS MUCH PLSIBILY? FOR MARLOWE, AN OUTSPOKEN CRIC OF ELIZABETHAN ENGLAND’S STRONG PROHIBNS AGAST HOMOSEXUALY ( WAS A PAL CRIME), THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVINCE OF HOMOEROTICISM. THE SAME MONTH THAT MARLOWE DIED A POLICE RMANT AND ON-AND OFF-SPY RICHARD BA PILED A DOCUMENT OF K’S “MONSTRO OPNS.” THE POT OF THE BA NOTE, AS HISTORIAN AND THOR CHARL NICHOLL HAS WRTEN, WAS “TO CRIMATE MARLOWE.” ACRDG TO BA, MARLOWE WAS AN ATHEIST WHO DOUBTED THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, THOUGHT THE BIBLE WAS “FILTHILY [I.E. POORLY] WRTEN,” AND BELIEVED THAT THE SACRAMENT OF MUNN WOULD BE GREATLY IMPROVED IF THE BREAD AND WE WAS REPLACED WH A TOBAC PIPE. HIS MOST SHOCKG STATEMENT, HOWEVER, WAS THAT “ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST WAS BEDFELLOW TO CHRIST AND LEANED ALWAYS HIS BOSOM, THAT HE ED HIM AS THE SNERS OF SODOM.” THE FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE OF LEANG TO THE BOSOM IS ACTUALLY ANCIENT AND IS ED THE WRGS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY CHURCH HISTORIAN EEBI WHO SCRIBED JOHN AS “THE ONE WHO LAY ON [J’] BREAST.” IN ANCIENT TEXTS THIS IS AN IMAGE FOR NON-SEXUAL TIMACY, BUT YOU N SEE WHAT MARLOWE WAS GETTG AT.MARLOWE WASN’T THE ONLY RENAISSANCE-ERA FIGURE TO ASK QUTNS ABOUT THE RELATNSHIP BETWEEN J AND JOHN. JT 40 YEARS EARLIER A YOUNG VEIAN IAR NAMED FRANC CALGNO WAS EXECUTED FOR BLASPHEMY FOR CLAIMG THAT JOHN WAS J’ TAME (A PUBCENT BOY WHO ENGAGED A SEXUAL RELATNSHIP WH AN OLR MAN). FOR CALGNO, LIKE MARLOWE, HIS BELIEFS ABOUT J’ SEXUALY ARE NNECTED TO A PARTICULAR FORM OF 16TH CENTURY ATHEISM THAT FOCED ON THE IA THAT J WAS HUMAN. HE APPARENTLY SAID THAT CHRIST “WAS MERELY HUMAN, AND THAT HE OFTEN HAD RNAL KNOWLEDGE OF ST. JOHN,” THAT HE HAD MORE NFINCE THE LAT POET OVID THAN THE BIBLE, AND “THAT HE WOULD RATHER WORSHIP A PRETTY LTLE BOY THE FLH THAN GOD.” ONE OF CALGNO’S ACQUATANC TTIFIED AT HIS TRIAL THAT CALGNO SLEPT WH A BOY “ALMOST EVERY NIGHT” BUT ’S UNCLEAR IF THIS WAS SLANR. IN 1550, AT THE AGE OF 22, CALGNO WAS TERROGATED BRCIA, AND WAS EXECUTED VENICE TWO DAYS BEFORE CHRISTMAS.MORE THAN ONE NEW TTAMENT SCHOLAR HAS SHARED MARLOWE AND CALGNO’S VIEW THAT THE GOSPEL OF JOHN IS RIPE FOR HOMOEROTIC READGS. SJEF VON TILB, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS WRTEN THAT “ACRDG TO MORN DISURSE” THE FOURTH GOSPEL IS “POSIVELY ATTUNED TO THE VELOPMENT OF POSSIBLY HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR.” BUT THE KDS OF SCHOLARLY NFIRMATNS PALE NEXT TO COLUMBIA ANCIENT HISTORIAN MORTON SMH’S EXPLOSIVE 1960 ANNOUNCEMENT THAT HE HAD DISVERED A “SECRET GOSPEL OF MARK.” TWO YEARS EARLIER, SMH CLAIMED, HE HAD DISVERED A PREVLY UNKNOWN LETTER WRTEN BY THE LATE SEND/EARLY THIRD CENTURY THEOLOGIAN AND TEACHER CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA THE GREEK ORTHODOX MAR SABA MONASTERY, 20 KILOMETERS TO THE SOUTH-EAST OF JESALEM. SMH PHOTOGRAPHED THE LETTER AND PUBLISHED HIS STUDY OF THE TEXT 1973.WHAT SHOCKED THE WORLD WAS THE NTENTS OF THE LETTER WHICH CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA SCRIBED AS AN EXTEND VERSN OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK. IN THIS VERSN J RAIS A YOUNG MAN OM THE AD AND THGS GET TERTG OM THERE ON. QUOTG WORD FOR WORD, THE SECRET GOSPEL READS: “BUT THE YOUTH, LOOKG UPON [J], LOVED HIM AND BEGAN TO BEECH HIM THAT HE MIGHT BE WH HIM. AND GOG OUT OF THE TOMB, THEY ME TO THE HOE OF THE YOUTH, FOR HE WAS RICH. AND AFTER SIX DAYS J TOLD HIM WHAT TO DO, AND THE EVENG THE YOUTH TO HIM, WEARG A LEN CLOTH OVER HIS NAKED BODY. AND HE REMAED WH HIM THAT NIGHT, FOR J TGHT HIM THE MYSTERY OF THE KGDOM OF GOD. AND THENCE, ARISG, HE RETURNED TO THE OTHER SI OF THE JORDAN.” THERE’S NOTHG EXPLIC ABOUT A SEXUAL ENUNTER BETWEEN J AND THE YOUNG MAN, BUT THE REAR DON’T GET THE IMPRSN THAT THEY SPENT THE NIGHT JT CHATTG, EHER.AS YOU MIGHT IMAGE, THE DISVERY OF THIS SECRET GOSPEL SHOCKED THE WORLD AND DIVID AMICS. SOME BELIEVED THAT SMH HAD FED THE DOCUMENT, AND OTHERS FEND SMH’S IMPECBLE REPUTATN AS A SCHOLAR. SOME OF THE ACCATNS OF FERY TURNED PERSONAL WH SOME ACCG SMH, HIMSELF A GAY MAN, OF FG THE LETTER HIMSELF. THE MOST SUGGTIVE EVINCE WAS THAT THE ORIGAL LETTER, PHOTOGRAPHED BY SMH, HAD BEEN LOST (FOR ALMOST 60 YEARS NOW!) AND WHOUT THAT DOCUMENT THERE IS NO WAY TO TT S THENTICY G SCIENTIFIC MEANS. THE WEIGHT OF THE CURRENT EVINCE SUGGTS THAT IS A FERY, AS SCHOLAR STEPHEN CARLSON CLEARLY ARGUED HIS THE GOSPEL HOAX, BUT FOR MANY THE JURY IS STILL OUT. IF HE DIDN’T FE THE TEXT WHAT PETER JEFEY LLS “AN ASTOUNDGLY DARG ACT OF CREATIVE REBELLN” THEN THIS ENORMOLY EDE AND DISTGUISHED SCHOLAR WAS LLED A FER PURELY ON THE BASIS OF HIS PERSONAL LIFE.WHAT’S TERTG ABOUT THE ATTACKS ON THOSE WHO HAVE QUTNED THE PRUMPTIVE HETEROSEXUALY OF J IS HOW QUICKLY THEY ARE NNECTED TO THE PERSONAL LIV OF THOSE ASKG QUTNS. THE SEX LIV OF CALGNO, MARLOWE, AND SMH HAVE ENTERED THE NVERSATN WAYS THAT THE SEXUAL ORIENTATN OF THOSE WHO THK J AND MARY MAGDALENE WERE MARRIED HAS NOT. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO ONE HAS EVER SAID THAT DAN BROWN IS BIASED BEE HE’S HETEROSEXUALLY PARTNERED. IN NEW TTAMENT SCHOLARSHIP THERE’S AN ALMOST CLICHéD OBSERVATN THAT EVERY SCHOLAR SE THEMSELV J: IF YOU’RE A LIBERAL J IS A LIBERAL, IF YOU’RE A FEMIST J IS A FEMIST, AND SO ON. “BUT,” AS TAYLOR PETREY AN ASSOCIATE PROFSOR OF EARLY CHRISTIANY AT KALAMAZOO COLLEGE, TOLD THE DAILY BEAST, “WHEN TO J’S SEXUALY THE SCHOLARS WHO ARGUE FOR A NON-NORMATIVE J HAVE BEEN PUNISHED PECIALLY HARSHLY, WHILE THOSE WHO ARGUE THAT J LIVED A NVENTNAL LIFE OF MARRIAGE HAVE BEEN TREATED AS DISPASSNATE OBSERVERS.”THE REASON FOR THIS, PETREY OBSERVED, IS THAT “J’S SEXUALY IS MORE THAN JT A HISTORIL QUTN. IT SUPPOSEDLY THORIZ OR UNTHORIZ CERTA KDS OF RELATNSHIPS AND SEXUAL EXPRSNS.” FOR RELIG LEARS, PECIALLY THOSE NOMATNS THAT SEE HOMOSEXUALY AS A S OR “TRSILLY DISORRED,” THE ASSUMED HETEROSEXUALY OF J IS EASY TO EXPLA: RNATE GOODNS NNOT BE DISORRED. BUT ’S NOT SO CLEAR WHY OTHERS ASSUME THAT J WAS HETEROSEXUAL, PECIALLY WHEN SCRIPTURAL EVINCE SCRIB ONLY HIS CELIBACY AND NOT HIS SEXUAL ORIENTATN. IN TTH, AS PETREY SAYS, “THE AMBIGUY OF THE EVINCE OF J’S SEXUALY IS ENTICG TO SPECULATE ABOUT NOT JT BEE IS AN UNANSWERABLE MYSTERY, BUT BEE WE TEND TO THK THAT THE ANSWER UNLOCKS SOME GREAT TTH ABOUT RELIGN, SEX, AND OURSELV.” CANDIDA MOSS
• IS J GAY: DIVG INTO THE CONTROVERSIAL SPECULATN OF J’ SEXUAL INTY
• J IS GAY ON 'THE WALKG DEAD.' HERE’S WHY THAT MATTERS.

WAS J GAY? PROBABLY

I felt I uld not pe the sufferg of gay and lbian people at the hands of the church, over many that divisive issue a subject for Good Friday? He dared to suggt that possibily and was met wh disda, as though he were simply out to much reflectn and wh certaly no wish to shock, I felt I was left wh no optn but to suggt, for the first time half a century of my Anglin prithood, that J may well have been homosexual.

Although there is no rabbic tradn of celibacy, J uld well have chosen to rea om sexual activy, whether he was gay or not.

'WAS J GAY?’: THE CLASS UNVERG HIDN QUEER HISTORI

I saw as an act of penence for the sufferg and persecutn of homosexual people that still persists many parts of the church.

What matters this ntext is that there are many gay and lbian followers of J – ordaed and lay – who, spe the church, remarkably and humbly rema s fahful members. The article was ocsned by a story about a gay teenager Oh who was sug his high school after school officials prohibed him om wearg a T-shirt that said, “J Is Not a Homophobe.

While ’s reasonable to assume that J and his fellow Jews first-century Palte would have disapproved of gay sex, there is no rerd of his ever havg mentned homosexualy, let alone exprsed particular revulsn about ....

J AS AN OPENLY GAY MAN

Orem seems to suggt that sce J never explicly mentned homosexualy, he mt not have been very ncerned about . In Romans 1, Pl nounced gay sex as unnatural—an egreg example of pagan nce—and said would brg the wrath of God. Wh clary and passn, this book sets forth the Bible’s teachg on sexualy om a plementarian perspective, alg wh ntroversial issu such as homosexualy and polygamy.

It seems clear now that this is ls a negative repudiatn of fay and more a posive exhortatn to jo affirmatn of a gay liftyle and is at least one new parable, that of the two young men. Before, one might have thought that, given Mary's virgy, Joseph's attu was reflectg the ambigui of his stat the fay; but now seems more probable that we have here a classic example of the Frdian triangle: over-posssive mother, hostile father, gay have we known so ltle about all of this before? The classilly ted Pl, who was himself gay, saw that same-sex activy was imil to the succs of Christiany the highly homophobic societi which he lived.

This isn’t the first time Pope Francis has shown himself to be a progrsive lear when to, among other thgs, gay Catholics. As a biblil scholar, I would suggt that church lears who e their cultur and theology to exclu homosexuals don’t read Scripture refully.

7 REASONS J WAS GAY

Those who would exclu homosexuals om God’s kgdom choose to ignore J, turng stead to the Old Ttament – most particularly to Genis 19, the stctn of the ci of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Levic 18:22 and 20:13, for example, are not about “homosexualy” as we now unrstand – as the rg, lovg and sexual relatnship between people of the same sex. Christians – no matter which church they belong to – should follow Pl and extend to the heterosexual-homosexual distctn. Many who support same-sex marriage and gay rights argue that, sce J never mentned homosexualy, He did not nsir to be sful.

WAS J GAY?—AN EXAMATN OF THE SECRET GOSPEL OF MARK

It is technilly te that J did not specifilly addrs homosexualy the Gospel acunts; however, He did speak clearly about sexualy general. The pot is that J did not need to emize s, pecially when the further revelatn ntaed the Epistl remov all doubt as to homosexualy’s sfulns. Christians are lled to pray for those who do not know Christ, to serve others love, and to share the msage of J wh all people, cludg those volved homosexualy.

The rerd is also silent on J’ view of slavery, pal punishment, spoal abe, sex traffickg, racism, child abe, and gay bashg, to name a few.

Conversely, all forms of sex exprsly prohibed the Bible—adultery, fornitn, homosexualy, and btialy—are each tomatilly disqualified by J’ reasong. For the sake of discsn, Christians uld be wrong on the homosexualy qutn, et al., but crics will get no fort om Christ. Intertgly, the homosexual muny feels that the tradnal “hetero-normative” J is a reflectn of heterosexual Christians who have read to J their own sexualy, while ignorg the possibily that J was a homosexual.

WAS J GAY?

Rollan McCleary, an Atralian amic who recently wrote a book argug that J and His discipl were gay, was asked if his own homosexualy tated his rearch. You uld also say that heterosexual people have their ey wi shut on the matter, that they don’t want to see that J would have been of a gay disposn…. You maybe have to be gay to read the signals and to see thgs and rearch thgs which other people wouldn’t” (as quoted Johns, 2001).

Lately, gay scholars have seen many thgs the Bible that heterosexuals have apparently missed for the past 2, 000 years. Robert Williams, the first actively homosexual prit the Epispal Church, penned a book tled Jt As I Am: A Practil Gui to Beg Out, Proud, and Christian.

Six years later, gay playwright Terrance McNally wrote the play Corp Christi, which featured a gay J (named Joshua) and his “sexual adventur wh his 12 discipl” (“Was J Gay? The popular works have been followed by several scholarly vtigatns that attempt to argue J’ homosexualy om biblil and theologil evince.

THIS “WAS J GAY?” TTHER BRGS UP SOME TERTG POTS ABOUT THE RELIG IN’S PAST

The same year McNally’s play went up, Fnish scholar Martti Nissen released his book, Homoeroticism the Biblil World, judged by some to be the bt work yet published on the subject.

Theodore Jenngs looks to liberatn and femist theologi to nstct a more “homocentric” gospel narrative his 2002 volume, The Man J Loved: Homoerotic Narrativ om the New Ttament. Queerg Christ, Robert Goss’ semi-tobgraphil tellg of his homosexual guilt and expulsn om the Roman Catholic Church, might also be mentned. The marked crease the typ of publitns the last five years is an ditn of Wtern society’s growg acceptance of homosexualy.

Typilly, the books beg by dispensg one way or another wh the five explic biblil junctns agast homosexualy (Levic 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:27; 1 Corthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10). J’ life is nstcted to shed “new light” on His attu toward same-sex relatnships and His own homosexualy—postmorn hermentics at their bt.

GAY J – WHO WAS THE BELOVED DISCIPLE?

Tatchell’s quote illtrat that the argument for J’ homosexualy fds s strongt support, not Scripture, but s silence. Homosexual advot argue that the absence of any explic mentary on J’ sexualy ought to remove the ancient assumptn that He was heterosexual. Demonstratg to their own satisfactn that there is nothg the New Ttament that necsat J’ heterosexualy, the scholars move on search of passag favorg J’ homosexualy, the “signals” that McCleary mentned.

THE TWISTED FATE FOR MEN WHO CLAIMED J WAS GAYLOVE THY NEIGHBORWHILE THE MOST FAMO (AND MON) CLAIM IS THAT J HAD A RELATNSHIP WH MARY MAGDALENE, MAJOR WAV HAVE BEEN MA THROUGHOUT HISTORY ARGUG THAT J WAS GAY.CANDIDA MOSSUPDATED MAR. 23, 2020 4:57AM EDT / PUBLISHED MAR. 22, 2020 5:07AM EDT PHOTO ILLTRATN BY ELIZABETH BROCKWAY/THE DAILY BEAST/PIERO LLA FRANCON MAY 30, 1593, THE PLAYWRIGHT AND POET CHRISTOPHER “K” MARLOWE WAS FOUND BTALLY MURRED. ACRDG TO AN TOPSY REPORT AND SEVERAL EYEWNS REPORTS, MARLOWE HAD SPENT THE DAY AT THE HOE OF MRS. ELEANOR BULL DEPTFORD, SOUTH LONDON, BEFORE BEG FATALLY STABBED THE EYE. THE DAGGER STCK SLIGHTLY ABOVE HIS RIGHT EYE AND DROVE TWO CH TO HIS BRA. THOUGH HE WAS NOT EVEN 30, MARLOWE HAD ALREADY MA HIS IMPRSN ON THE ENGLISH LERATI WH HIS DOCTOR FST. HIS EXCLAMATN “WAS THIS THE FACE THAT LNCHED A THOAND SHIPS?” LIV ON LERARY AND POP-CULTURAL FOLKLORE EVEN TODAY. SO, WHO WOULD WANT TO KILL HIM? QUE A FEW PEOPLE, AS TURNED OUT, AND NSPIRACY THEORI ABOUND. ONE EXPLANATN IS THAT MARLOWE’S ATHEISM AND HIS SNDALO BELIEF THAT J WAS A HOMOSEXUAL RELATNSHIP WH THE DISCIPLE JOHN PLAYED A ROLE HIS MISE. IF RRECT, THIS WOULD MAKE MARLOWE ONE OF A CLTER OF DIVIDUALS WHO HAVE FACED STRONG, SOMETIM FATAL, OPPOSN FOR ASKG QUTNS ABOUT THE SEXUALY OF J.THE MORE NVENTNAL-YET-INOCLASTIC THEORY ABOUT J’S ROMANTIC LIFE IS THAT HE WAS A RELATNSHIP WH MARY MAGDALENE. SOME SAY THEY WERE EVEN MARRIED. THIS THEORY IS MOST FAMOLY ARTICULATED THE BTSELLG DA VCI CO BUT THERE ARE SOME AMICS WHO HAVE MA SIAR CLAIMS. ONE MAN, WALTER FRZ, EVEN FED AN ANCIENT DOCUMENT TO TRY TO ADD WEIGHT TO THE CLAIM THAT J AND MARY WERE MARRIED. THERE IS SOME GOOD EVINCE FOR THKG THAT THE RELATNSHIP BETWEEN MARY MAGDALENE AND J WAS PLAYED DOWN BY LATER CHRISTIAN THORS, BUT THERE’S NOTHG THE EARLIT TRADN THAT NCRETELY SUGGTS THEIR RELATNSHIP WAS ROMANTIC.   NEWSLETTERSBEAST TRAVEL DIGTGET THE ENTIRE WORLD YOUR BOX.SUBSCRIBEBY CLICKG "SUBSCRIBE" YOU AGREE TO HAVE READ THE TERMS OF USE AND PRIVACY POLICY WHAT THIS POPULAR NSPIRACY THEORY NVENIENTLY OVERLOOKS IS THE TENSY OF J’S RELATNSHIPS WH HIS RE GROUP OF DISCIPL. THE CLOSE RELATNSHIP OF J AND THE “BELOVED DISCIPLE” (TRADNALLY INTIFIED AS JOHN THE EVANGELIST) HAS LED SOME TO SUGGT THAT THEIR RELATNSHIP WAS HOMOEROTIC. THE EVINCE IS SUGGTIVE; AFTER ALL THERE IS A DISCIPLE WHO IS REPEATEDLY SCRIBED AS A PERSON WHOM J “LOV.” THERE’S A NVERSATN BETWEEN J AND PETER WHICH J ASKS PETER THREE TIM IF HE LOV HIM AND, WHEN PETER RPONDS, ASKS HIM TO RE FOR HIS FLOCK (JOHN 21:15-17). A MAN WHO SPENDS MOST OF HIS PERSONAL TIME ALONE WH 12 OTHER MEN? YOU MIGHT SAY THAT THERE’S SOMETHG CREDIBLY HETERONORMATIVE ABOUT THKG THAT J WAS TERTED MARY MAGDALENE.WHILE THE SCRIPTURAL TEXTS SOUND QUE SUGGTIVE ENGLISH, THE EROTICISM EVAPORAT OUT OF THE NVERSATN WHEN YOU READ THE ORIGAL GREEK. GREEK HAS MULTIPLE WORDS TO SCRIBE DIFFERENT KDS OF LOVE. AND, AS ISMO DUNRBERG, A PROFSOR OF NEW TTAMENT AT THE UNIVERSY OF HELSKI, HAS SHOWN, THE GREEK DO NOT SUGGT EROTIC RELATNSHIPS. IN JOHN 21 THE WORD J IS “AGAPE” A WORD THAT NNOT BROAD AFFECTN AND RE FOR OTHERS. THE WORD FOR SEXUAL LOVE OR SIRE IS “EROS” (OM WHICH WE GET THE ENGLISH WORD “EROTIC”), BUT THAT LANGUAGE IS NEVER ED TO SCRIBE J’ LOVE FOR ANY OF HIS PANNS.BUT IF JT SPENDG TIME TOGETHER IS ENOUGH TO BUILD A WHOLE THEORY ABOUT THE RELATNSHIP BETWEEN J AND MARY MAGDALENE, THEN CERTALY THE ARGUMENT J WAS SEXUAL RELATNSHIPS WH OTHER MEN HAS AT LEAST AS MUCH PLSIBILY? FOR MARLOWE, AN OUTSPOKEN CRIC OF ELIZABETHAN ENGLAND’S STRONG PROHIBNS AGAST HOMOSEXUALY ( WAS A PAL CRIME), THERE WAS SUFFICIENT EVINCE OF HOMOEROTICISM. THE SAME MONTH THAT MARLOWE DIED A POLICE RMANT AND ON-AND OFF-SPY RICHARD BA PILED A DOCUMENT OF K’S “MONSTRO OPNS.” THE POT OF THE BA NOTE, AS HISTORIAN AND THOR CHARL NICHOLL HAS WRTEN, WAS “TO CRIMATE MARLOWE.” ACRDG TO BA, MARLOWE WAS AN ATHEIST WHO DOUBTED THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, THOUGHT THE BIBLE WAS “FILTHILY [I.E. POORLY] WRTEN,” AND BELIEVED THAT THE SACRAMENT OF MUNN WOULD BE GREATLY IMPROVED IF THE BREAD AND WE WAS REPLACED WH A TOBAC PIPE. HIS MOST SHOCKG STATEMENT, HOWEVER, WAS THAT “ST. JOHN THE EVANGELIST WAS BEDFELLOW TO CHRIST AND LEANED ALWAYS HIS BOSOM, THAT HE ED HIM AS THE SNERS OF SODOM.” THE FIGURATIVE LANGUAGE OF LEANG TO THE BOSOM IS ACTUALLY ANCIENT AND IS ED THE WRGS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY CHURCH HISTORIAN EEBI WHO SCRIBED JOHN AS “THE ONE WHO LAY ON [J’] BREAST.” IN ANCIENT TEXTS THIS IS AN IMAGE FOR NON-SEXUAL TIMACY, BUT YOU N SEE WHAT MARLOWE WAS GETTG AT.MARLOWE WASN’T THE ONLY RENAISSANCE-ERA FIGURE TO ASK QUTNS ABOUT THE RELATNSHIP BETWEEN J AND JOHN. JT 40 YEARS EARLIER A YOUNG VEIAN IAR NAMED FRANC CALGNO WAS EXECUTED FOR BLASPHEMY FOR CLAIMG THAT JOHN WAS J’ TAME (A PUBCENT BOY WHO ENGAGED A SEXUAL RELATNSHIP WH AN OLR MAN). FOR CALGNO, LIKE MARLOWE, HIS BELIEFS ABOUT J’ SEXUALY ARE NNECTED TO A PARTICULAR FORM OF 16TH CENTURY ATHEISM THAT FOCED ON THE IA THAT J WAS HUMAN. HE APPARENTLY SAID THAT CHRIST “WAS MERELY HUMAN, AND THAT HE OFTEN HAD RNAL KNOWLEDGE OF ST. JOHN,” THAT HE HAD MORE NFINCE THE LAT POET OVID THAN THE BIBLE, AND “THAT HE WOULD RATHER WORSHIP A PRETTY LTLE BOY THE FLH THAN GOD.” ONE OF CALGNO’S ACQUATANC TTIFIED AT HIS TRIAL THAT CALGNO SLEPT WH A BOY “ALMOST EVERY NIGHT” BUT ’S UNCLEAR IF THIS WAS SLANR. IN 1550, AT THE AGE OF 22, CALGNO WAS TERROGATED BRCIA, AND WAS EXECUTED VENICE TWO DAYS BEFORE CHRISTMAS.MORE THAN ONE NEW TTAMENT SCHOLAR HAS SHARED MARLOWE AND CALGNO’S VIEW THAT THE GOSPEL OF JOHN IS RIPE FOR HOMOEROTIC READGS. SJEF VON TILB, FOR EXAMPLE, HAS WRTEN THAT “ACRDG TO MORN DISURSE” THE FOURTH GOSPEL IS “POSIVELY ATTUNED TO THE VELOPMENT OF POSSIBLY HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVR.” BUT THE KDS OF SCHOLARLY NFIRMATNS PALE NEXT TO COLUMBIA ANCIENT HISTORIAN MORTON SMH’S EXPLOSIVE 1960 ANNOUNCEMENT THAT HE HAD DISVERED A “SECRET GOSPEL OF MARK.” TWO YEARS EARLIER, SMH CLAIMED, HE HAD DISVERED A PREVLY UNKNOWN LETTER WRTEN BY THE LATE SEND/EARLY THIRD CENTURY THEOLOGIAN AND TEACHER CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA THE GREEK ORTHODOX MAR SABA MONASTERY, 20 KILOMETERS TO THE SOUTH-EAST OF JESALEM. SMH PHOTOGRAPHED THE LETTER AND PUBLISHED HIS STUDY OF THE TEXT 1973.WHAT SHOCKED THE WORLD WAS THE NTENTS OF THE LETTER WHICH CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA SCRIBED AS AN EXTEND VERSN OF THE GOSPEL OF MARK. IN THIS VERSN J RAIS A YOUNG MAN OM THE AD AND THGS GET TERTG OM THERE ON. QUOTG WORD FOR WORD, THE SECRET GOSPEL READS: “BUT THE YOUTH, LOOKG UPON [J], LOVED HIM AND BEGAN TO BEECH HIM THAT HE MIGHT BE WH HIM. AND GOG OUT OF THE TOMB, THEY ME TO THE HOE OF THE YOUTH, FOR HE WAS RICH. AND AFTER SIX DAYS J TOLD HIM WHAT TO DO, AND THE EVENG THE YOUTH TO HIM, WEARG A LEN CLOTH OVER HIS NAKED BODY. AND HE REMAED WH HIM THAT NIGHT, FOR J TGHT HIM THE MYSTERY OF THE KGDOM OF GOD. AND THENCE, ARISG, HE RETURNED TO THE OTHER SI OF THE JORDAN.” THERE’S NOTHG EXPLIC ABOUT A SEXUAL ENUNTER BETWEEN J AND THE YOUNG MAN, BUT THE REAR DON’T GET THE IMPRSN THAT THEY SPENT THE NIGHT JT CHATTG, EHER.AS YOU MIGHT IMAGE, THE DISVERY OF THIS SECRET GOSPEL SHOCKED THE WORLD AND DIVID AMICS. SOME BELIEVED THAT SMH HAD FED THE DOCUMENT, AND OTHERS FEND SMH’S IMPECBLE REPUTATN AS A SCHOLAR. SOME OF THE ACCATNS OF FERY TURNED PERSONAL WH SOME ACCG SMH, HIMSELF A GAY MAN, OF FG THE LETTER HIMSELF. THE MOST SUGGTIVE EVINCE WAS THAT THE ORIGAL LETTER, PHOTOGRAPHED BY SMH, HAD BEEN LOST (FOR ALMOST 60 YEARS NOW!) AND WHOUT THAT DOCUMENT THERE IS NO WAY TO TT S THENTICY G SCIENTIFIC MEANS. THE WEIGHT OF THE CURRENT EVINCE SUGGTS THAT IS A FERY, AS SCHOLAR STEPHEN CARLSON CLEARLY ARGUED HIS THE GOSPEL HOAX, BUT FOR MANY THE JURY IS STILL OUT. IF HE DIDN’T FE THE TEXT WHAT PETER JEFEY LLS “AN ASTOUNDGLY DARG ACT OF CREATIVE REBELLN” THEN THIS ENORMOLY EDE AND DISTGUISHED SCHOLAR WAS LLED A FER PURELY ON THE BASIS OF HIS PERSONAL LIFE.WHAT’S TERTG ABOUT THE ATTACKS ON THOSE WHO HAVE QUTNED THE PRUMPTIVE HETEROSEXUALY OF J IS HOW QUICKLY THEY ARE NNECTED TO THE PERSONAL LIV OF THOSE ASKG QUTNS. THE SEX LIV OF CALGNO, MARLOWE, AND SMH HAVE ENTERED THE NVERSATN WAYS THAT THE SEXUAL ORIENTATN OF THOSE WHO THK J AND MARY MAGDALENE WERE MARRIED HAS NOT. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO ONE HAS EVER SAID THAT DAN BROWN IS BIASED BEE HE’S HETEROSEXUALLY PARTNERED. IN NEW TTAMENT SCHOLARSHIP THERE’S AN ALMOST CLICHéD OBSERVATN THAT EVERY SCHOLAR SE THEMSELV J: IF YOU’RE A LIBERAL J IS A LIBERAL, IF YOU’RE A FEMIST J IS A FEMIST, AND SO ON. “BUT,” AS TAYLOR PETREY AN ASSOCIATE PROFSOR OF EARLY CHRISTIANY AT KALAMAZOO COLLEGE, TOLD THE DAILY BEAST, “WHEN TO J’S SEXUALY THE SCHOLARS WHO ARGUE FOR A NON-NORMATIVE J HAVE BEEN PUNISHED PECIALLY HARSHLY, WHILE THOSE WHO ARGUE THAT J LIVED A NVENTNAL LIFE OF MARRIAGE HAVE BEEN TREATED AS DISPASSNATE OBSERVERS.”THE REASON FOR THIS, PETREY OBSERVED, IS THAT “J’S SEXUALY IS MORE THAN JT A HISTORIL QUTN. IT SUPPOSEDLY THORIZ OR UNTHORIZ CERTA KDS OF RELATNSHIPS AND SEXUAL EXPRSNS.” FOR RELIG LEARS, PECIALLY THOSE NOMATNS THAT SEE HOMOSEXUALY AS A S OR “TRSILLY DISORRED,” THE ASSUMED HETEROSEXUALY OF J IS EASY TO EXPLA: RNATE GOODNS NNOT BE DISORRED. BUT ’S NOT SO CLEAR WHY OTHERS ASSUME THAT J WAS HETEROSEXUAL, PECIALLY WHEN SCRIPTURAL EVINCE SCRIB ONLY HIS CELIBACY AND NOT HIS SEXUAL ORIENTATN. IN TTH, AS PETREY SAYS, “THE AMBIGUY OF THE EVINCE OF J’S SEXUALY IS ENTICG TO SPECULATE ABOUT NOT JT BEE IS AN UNANSWERABLE MYSTERY, BUT BEE WE TEND TO THK THAT THE ANSWER UNLOCKS SOME GREAT TTH ABOUT RELIGN, SEX, AND OURSELV.” CANDIDA MOSS

This has fuelled speculatn that the early Church sanised the gospels, removg referenc to Christ’s sexualy that were not acrd wh the heterosexual moraly that wanted to promote” (“Was J Gay? Some scholars believe that the origal gospel acunts of J’ life ntaed homosexual referenc not found the nonil gospels that we posss.

The passag allegedly were censored by “hetero-normative” church lears of the first few centuri who felt that homosexualy was an abomatn. This evince—which nearly every Christian homosexual advote to support the e—is the so-lled “Secret Gospel of Mark.

IS J GAY: DIVG INTO THE CONTROVERSIAL SPECULATN OF J’ SEXUAL INTY

It is Fragment 1, attributed to Mark, that skeptics and homosexual advot e as their most potent ammunn the battle over J’ sexual orientatn. Smh tied this speculatn regardg J’ homosexualy to his theory that the historil J was a charismatic magician Who baptized His discipl (ntra John 4:2) to His secret mystery cult. Acrdg to one particularly vic attacker, “J was never a nuch as the Christians sham but a gay lecher feigng to be a nuch by the help of his warrrs (discipl and other Christians)” [Atrott, 2002].

A fal quote om an anonymo agnostic reads: “[The Clement letter] mak referenc to the effect that J was unrstood to have engaged possible homosexual practic volvg the ‘rich young man’ mentned Mark’s Gospel.

J IS GAY ON 'THE WALKG DEAD.' HERE’S WHY THAT MATTERS.

As noted by Hendrick, “homosexual acts by J should be a non-issue for a historian, though one may appreciate eccliastil ncerns about the ntexts of the texts” (2003, p.

Neverthels, as is dited by the brief biblgraphy above (and a quick search of), the homosexualy suated Secret Mark is very much an issue for several fluential wrers. It is pure speculatn (and unter to what we know of the culture and history of the day) to somehow image the words to refer to homosexual behavr” (1999, emp.

Th far I have monstrated that the Secret Gospel of Mark lends no support to the ntentn that J was gay, or that He endorsed homosexualy any way.