Tinker Tailor Soldier Forger

[Secret Alias]

Bentham's argument that the youth in Mark 14:51 - 52 was a prostitute https://www.google.com/books/edition/Ma ... frontcover

[John2]

So Matthew's asterisk is earlier than Luke's no asterisk? Asterisks always come later like- I love you but ... inevitably develops after a long period of I fucking love you to death. Very hard to go from i love you but ... to I love you period. The asterisk is an afterthought I need to set parameters on the original no asterisk.

Luke's no asterisk is the same as Mark's no asterisk, and I think Luke used Mark (which might be earlier than Matthew but in any event both are pre-Papias) and explained my reading of the latter upthread:

... Jesus doesn't necessarily forbid divorce here either, only remarrying after divorce, presumably while the first spouse is still alive, since he likens it to committing adultery.

Lk. 16:18:

Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and he who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

[Secret Alias]

No. My point is:

No divorce.

vs.

No divorce with an asterisk.

Anyone with objectivity thinks the former is more original. The Christian are right on this one. Divorce came about through Moses making up shit. What God brought together no one should be able to break apart.

And Steve if you actually cared about the topic you would see that the idea that the former came from God and the latter came from Moses is evidence in what little we glimpse we get of the Marcionite and neo-Marcionite tradition https://books.google.com/books?id=YegsD ... ce&f=false

[John2]

No. My point is:

No divorce.

vs.

No divorce with an asterisk.

Anyone with objectivity thinks the former is more original. The Christian are right on this one. Divorce came about through Moses making up shit. What God brought together no one should be able to break apart.

And Steve if you actually cared about the topic you would see that the idea that the former came from God and the latter came from Moses is evidence in what little we glimpse we get of the Marcionite and neo-Marcionite tradition https://books.google.com/books?id=YegsD ... ce&f=false

But by my reading there is no "no divorce" option. Jesus frowned on divorce but allowed for it in the case of sexual immorality, like Shammai:

In the Mishnaic period the theory of the law that the husband could divorce his wife at will was challenged by the school of Shammai. It interpreted the text of Deut. xxiv. 1 in such a manner as to reach the conclusion that the husband could not divorce his wife except for cause, and that the cause must be sexual immorality (Gitin. ix. 10; Yer. Soṭah i. 1, 16b).


http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/5238-divorce

I think this is a fair interpretation of Dt. 24:1, which, unlike the prevailing view of Rabbinic Judaism (which allows divorce for more or less any reason), allows for divorce only in the case of ervat davar ("some indecency"):

If a man marries a woman, but she becomes displeasing to him because he finds some indecency in her, he may write her a certificate of divorce ...

In Matthew Jesus is opposed to the prevailing view of the Pharisees that allowed for divorce "for any reason" (19:3), and in Mark and Luke Jesus only forbids remarrying after divorce (presumably while the first spouse is still alive since he likens it to committing adultery). And only in Mark and Matthew does Jesus say "what God has joined together, let man not separate,” yet he still allows for it in the case of sexual immorality in the latter (as per Dt. 24:1).

[Secret Alias]

You can't even read. No point.

[Secret Alias]

Some notable defenses of Mark 14:51- 52 and the implications about Mark and Jesus:

I think someone tried to discredit Jesus quite often. When he is undressed completely naked in front of his apostles at the last supper, see John 13, 4 and also when he was followed by a naked man in Mark 14, 52. Jesus is humble, but he is not a pervert. What a story like this has got to do in the Holy Bible anyway? There is also the story about the disciple that Jesus loved as if he was the only one loved by Jesus or else make people believe Jesus had a man lover. See John 21, 7. What a shame to write such abomination in the Holy Book, but be sure of one thing, this was not written by Jesus' John. It was written by another John, a Jesus' enemy. https://www.google.com/books/edition/Al ... frontcover

What's the difference between this imbecile and those who say that Secret Mark means Morton Smith was gay or some such nonsense? Or there is this gem of a commentary on Mark 14:51 - 52:

This passage is exactly like the one where I said, "This pen leaks something awful." As stated, it could easily be argued the young man mentioned here could have been a curious bystander who just wanted to see what was happening. Maybe he did not run away, as the disciples did, because not being a disciple, he initially felt no fear of arrest until they tried to grab him. And, of course, he could have been a gay young man. So, the perverts pounced on this one lone opportunity to discredit Jesus. If you just listened to this young gay or read this passage and nothing else in the Bible, it could easily fool you.https://books.google.com/books?id=qaxye ... AHoECAAQAg

Don't you see at last how stupid this whole Carlson/Jeffery 'gay conspiracy' is? The same shoddy methodology used to make Secret Mark a gay conspiracy plot sound even stupider when marshaled to a defense of Mark 14:51 - 51. 'Yes it might be gay but ...'

I never realized there was a plethora of gay Mark 14:52 interpretations. Here is yet another:

When the mob tried to grab him, he slipped out of his shirt and ran away naked.' Jesus was obviously involved in some unsavoury, sexy rites with the youth before the arrival of the posse of guards with Judas https://www.google.com/books/edition/Th ... frontcover

The defense - if there is one - of all these interpretations of course is that these are effectively 'pulp non-fiction' works. But if the pulp fiction work the Mystery of Mar Saba can be used by the other side why not these too?

[Ken Olson]

You cannot prove your conclusion by pointing out bad arguments that have been made for other conclusions.

[Secret Alias]

My point was merely to illustrate that MANY have seen Mark 14:51 - 52 as having the same 'gay' characteristics as you and other see in Secret Mark. If 'naked' + 'linen' + body = gay the formula should hold true for both passages. It might even be an argument for authenticity. Like Columbo saying 'just one more thing ...'

One more thing to consider. It would have been very difficult to say 'hey I think Mark 14:51 - 52 was gay' or 'Mark the evangelist was gay' up until a century or two ago. In fact, I think it likely would have cost someone their life. As such some of the surprise that you and others feel about Secret Mark was cultivated by the fact writers couldn't say 'hey Mark was probably a homo.' I mean the closest we get is Montaigne writing about visiting Rome and:

On my return from Saint Peter's I met a man who informed me humorously of two things: that the Portuguese made their obeisance in Passion week; and then, that on this same day the station was at San Giovanna Porta Latina, in which church a few years before certain Portuguese had entered into a strange brotherhood.

They married one another, male to male, at Mass, with the same ceremonies with which we perform our marriages, read the same marriage Gospel service, and then went to bed and lived together. The Roman wits said that because in the other conjunction, of male and female, this circumstance of marriage alone makes it legitimate, it had seemed to these sharp folk that this other action would become equally legitimate if they authorized it with ceremonies and mysteries of the Church.

Eight or nine Portuguese of this fine sect were burned.

But Montaigne was unique in so many ways. I must convince in the same way as I see you and others obsessing about Morton Smith's homosexual forging effort, I too have my prejudices. I think homosexuality is the kabbalah of Christianity. But again, I admit - that's my prejudice.

[John2]

You can't even read. No point.

I understand that a distinction is made between commandments that come from God and commandments that come from Moses, but I don't think Jesus makes it. To go back to the first example I gave from Mk. 7:3-13, not only would Jesus be a hypocrite if he were to nullify any part of the Torah like he accuses the Pharisees of doing, in the same passage he does not distinguish commandments that come from God from commandments that come from Moses.

He went on to say, “You neatly set aside the commandment of God to maintain your own tradition. For Moses said: ‘Honor your father and your mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.’ But you say that if a man says to his father or mother, ‘Whatever you would have received from me is Corban’ (that is, a gift devoted to God), he is no longer permitted to do anything for his father or mother. Thus you nullify the word of God by the tradition you have handed down. And you do so in many such matters.”

Here Jesus cites one of the Ten Commandments and Ex. 21:17/Lev. 20:9 and calls both of them "the commandment of God"/"the word of God" and that "Moses said" them (and that the Pharisees nullify these and other Godly/Mosaic commandments "in many such matters").

So when Jesus says that "Moses wrote" the commandment regarding divorce in Mk. 10:2-5, how is that commandment not also "the word of God"?

And if Jesus nullifies divorce in Mk. 10:2-12, why does he tell people what not to do after they get divorced (i.e., not to remarry)?


Yes, Jesus says in 10:6-9:

However, from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”

But these verses were supposedly written by Moses too (and pre-date the Ten Commandments) and come before Jesus says not to remarry after divorce. So all things considered, I think that while Jesus thought it would be ideal to not divorce (based on an earlier part of the Torah that was supposedly written by Moses), he nevertheless doesn't nullify it or regard it as not being "the word of God."

[Ken Olson]

My point was merely to illustrate that MANY have seen Mark 14:51 - 52 as having the same 'gay' characteristics as you and other see in Secret Mark. If 'naked' + 'linen' + body = gay the formula should hold true for both passages. It might even be an argument for authenticity. Like Columbo saying 'just one more thing ...'

Or it might not. We don't have a manuscript of Secret Mark. We have a fragment called The Letter to Theodore that purports to quote an otherwise unknown document called the secret (or mystic) gospel by Mark.

We have evidence that canonical Mark circulated for centuries before we know of anyone interpreting any of it parts in a homosexual way. In the case of Secret Mark, the first attestation we have of it also says people were reading it to imply gay (or blasphemous and carnal) acts. You are not denying that, you are affirming it. You've agreed with me that the Letter to Theodore addresses a homosexual reading of Secret Mark, whether it was the Carpocratians or Clement's imagination.

You keep saying that there's no homosexuality in Secret Mark, but I think it's worth pointing out again that we don't have the text of Secret Mark. We have The Letter To Theodore and there is the suggestion of homosexuality in that - you have said so. It's not just a product of modern readers' imaginations and you should stop talking like it is.

One more thing to consider. It would have been very difficult to say 'hey I think Mark 14:51 - 52 was gay' or 'Mark the evangelist was gay' up until a century or two ago. In fact, I think it likely would have cost someone their life.

So that might be a reason to think the Letter to Theodore was written after the time people stated reading Mark 14:51-52 as having homosexual implications, might it not? After the time of Jeremy Bentham. Though, in fact, Bentham did not publish his theory about the naked young man and the beloved disciple having been in a homosexual relationship with Jesus during his lifetime for fear of repercussions. I don't know if his Not Paul, but Jesus vol. III was ever published before 2013, but his basic theory might well have have been published in some form before that.

I must convince in the same way as I see you and others obsessing about Morton Smith's homosexual forging effort,

I am not the one obsessed with the theory that Morton Smith was a homosexual or a forger. That's you.

In the Quesnell thread I said I found the claims that Morton Smith was homosexual to be without foundation. I have not said that I thought Morton Smith forged The Letter To Theodore in either this thread or the Quesnell thread. I don't believe I've ever said it on this forum. Go back and look.

I'm not saying I have concluded he was completely uninvolved either. I don't know if he was involved, or duped, or even if maybe The Letter to Theodore is ancient. What I've said was I think I have good reason to be suspicious of the text's self-representation and that is what I've been discussing.

The person who keeps bringing up the theory that Morton Smith was a homosexual forger is you.

I too have my prejudices.

Take out the word "too" there. You have a lot of prejudices, including the one that anyone who presents an argument that there is good reason to believe that the The Letter To Theodore is a forgery, and perhaps more likely than not a modern one, is saying Morton Smith was a homosexual forger. You are too narrow minded to consider other possibilities. You invent motives for other people and then you deal with those instead of the arguments they have actually made.

To be sure, I imagine I do have prejudices, they're just not the ones you've made up and attributed to me. At least, you don't have any evidence that they are.

One additional point - I am not making the assumption that people who talk about homosexuality are homosexual. Jeremy Bentham was a utilitarian philosopher who was very concerned about the issue of crime, punishment, and the treatment of prisoners. He wrote about Jesus being gay because he wanted to abolish or lessen the punishment for sodomy. Thomas Jefferson also wanted to lessen the punishment for sodomy. Bentham was sort of a loner and Jefferson had a wife and a slave mistress. I suppose it's not impossible they had gay sex - I don't know and I don't think it matters.

Best,

Ken