I’m cheating a little bit because this one isn’t actually in the Bible. But it very well could have been.

What we now call the New Testament is a curation of documents both authentic and forged, each culled from numerous extant versions, selected from a vast body of similar literature. The Biblical New Testament contains gospels (stories and sayings of Jesus), acts (histories of the early Church Fathers), epistles (letters written by various Church Fathers, or forged in their name), and one apocalyptic revelation. In each of these genres, what is contained within the New Testament represents only a fraction of the available literature from the period. The documents that ultimately ended up included in the Biblical canon were selected not because they were the most historically accurate or authentic, but because they were the most in keeping with the orthodoxy of those who came to dominate the early Church.

Those texts that might have been part of the Biblical canon but which were culled for one reason or another are known as apocrypha, and one of my favorites among these is a document of which we have no copy, only a letter hinting at its existence: the Secret Gospel of Mark.

As the story goes, a Biblical scholar, Morton Smith, was doing research in a library Jerusalem in 1958. He chanced upon a letter that appeared to have been written by one of the 2nd century church fathers, Clement of Alexandria. This letter was a response to one unknown Theodore, who appeared to have been asking Clement’s opinion on a “secret gospel” authored by the same person who had written the gospel now known under the name of Mark, and which was purported to contain Jesus’ secret teachings. We have extensive writings from Clement and forging something in his style that would pass the rigorous linguistic analysis applied by modern scholars would have been extremely difficult, though there remains some controversy on this matter.

In this letter, it appears that Clement acknowledges the existence of a secret gospel, but says that it has been corrupted by a sect known as Carpocratians. Clement quotes various scriptures in the general condemnation of the Carpocratians which opens the letter, and then proceeds into a history of the secret gospel itself.

As for Mark, then, during Peter’s stay in Rome he wrote an account of the Lord’s doings, not, however, declaring all of them, nor yet hinting at the secret ones, but selecting what he thought most useful for increasing the faith of those who were being instructed. But when Peter died a martyr, Mark came over to Alexandria, bringing both his own notes and those of Peter, from which he transferred to his former book the things suitable to whatever makes for progress toward knowledge. Thus he composed a more spiritual Gospel for the use of those who were being perfected. from Smith’s own translation of the letter

So this secret gospel contains hidden teachings which might reveal the higher mysteries of God to those with the proper spiritual background. But, as mentioned, it is the opinion of Clement that this document has been corrupted by the heretical Christian sect known as the Carpocratians, the followers of Carpocrates (against whom Clement, as well as the church father Irenaeus, have written other polemics). Clement explains this further in the next paragraph:

But since the foul demons are always devising destruction for the race of men, Carpocrates, instructed by them and using deceitful arts, so enslaved a certain presbyter of the church in Alexandria that he got from him a copy of the secret Gospel, which he both interpreted according to his blasphemous and carnal doctrine and, moreover, polluted, mixing with the spotless and holy words utterly shameless lies. From this mixture is drawn off the teaching of the Carpocratians.

Whatever the content of this secret gospel, of which we have no copy, Clement certainly doesn’t like it, but the story he’s telling of its corruption is rather fanciful: Carpocrates was compelled by demons to enslave a minister of the church in Alexandria and compelled this minister, in turn, to give to Carpocrates the original version of the secret gospel, which Carpocrates then re-authored, including some of his own words, after which he re-inserted it into circulation.

Maybe this (or a similar but perhaps less fantastic version) is exactly the case; without full copies of both the original secret gospel and Carpocrates’ revised version, we can’t really say, but at the very least, that wouldn’t make the revised document any less authentic and potentially-canonical than, for example, the Biblical book of Ephesians, which is almost certainly an outright forgery written in the name of Paul the Apostle rather than by his hand.

But this is where things get interesting, because Clement proceeds to quote some especially problematic (in his view) passages from this revised secret gospel.

And [Jesus and his disciples] come into Bethany. And a certain woman whose brother had died was there. And, coming, she prostrated herself before Jesus and says to him, ‘Son of David, have mercy on me.’ But the disciples rebuked her. And Jesus, being angered, went off with her into the garden where the tomb was, and straightway a great cry was heard from the tomb. And going near, Jesus rolled away the stone from the door of the tomb. And straightaway, going in where the youth was, he stretched forth his hand and raised him, seizing his hand. But the youth, looking upon him, loved him and began to beseech him that he might be with him. And going out of the tomb, they came into the house of the youth, for he was rich. And after six days Jesus told him what to do, and in the evening the youth comes to him, wearing a linen cloth over his naked body. And he remained with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the Kingdom of God. And thence, arising, he returned to the other side of the Jordan.

You wouldn’t be alone in thinking that there are some homoerotic overtones here, but it gets better. Following the above, Clement references to some sort of ritual described in the text in which Jesus partook with this raised youth and some other of his followers in which lay “naked man with naked man.”

As long as we’re on the subject, let’s take a closer look at the Biblical verses that have been used historically as prohibitions against homosexuality, starting with the infamous Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (NRSV). First of all, what exactly is the Book of Leviticus? This third book of the Torah might well be translated The Book of the Law of the Priests; it is largely concerned with sacrifice and ritual, and by extension, ritual cleanliness, but a few chapters (of which chapter 18 is one) concern general moral law. Leviticus 18 begins:

The Lord spoke to Moses, saying: Speak to the people of Israel and say to them: I am the Lord your God. You shall not do as they do in the land of Egypt, where you lived, and you shall not do as they do in the land of Canaan, to which I am bringing you. You shall not follow their statutes. My ordinances you shall observe and my statutes you shall keep, following them: I am the Lord your God. You shall keep my statutes and my ordinances; by doing so one shall live: I am the Lord. verses 1-5, NRSV

For context, chapter 17 concerns procedures for the ritual slaughter of animals, and chapter 19 concerns ritual cleanliness. Chapter 18 seems to be concerned with making sure that the ancient Hebrews differentiate themselves culturally and ethically from those whose lands they inhabit. Nevertheless, chapter 18 in particular provides several common sense commands regarding sexual behavior (not leering at naked relatives, mostly), so, though it seems a bit out of place in the context of the surrounding chapters, these verses do indeed seem to be general moral prohibitions rather than laws limited specifically to ritual cleanliness.

What about that word, “abomination?” The Hebrew is תועבה, toebah. Where else does it appear? How is it used throughout the Hebrew Bible? I’ll present words that have been translated from toebah in italics. In Genesis 43:32, it refers to the Egyptians’ prohibitions against dining with Hebrews. In Genesis 46:34, it refers to the Egyptians’ disdain for shepherds. Exodus 8:26 again concerns Egyptians, this time with regards to sacrifice (in this verse, Moses is talking with his brother Aaron about how to get away with making a sacrifice to God, a sacrifice that the Egyptians would find abhorrent, without getting themselves stoned to death). In Deuteronomy 7:25-26, God commands that the idols of other religions be burned because they are abhorrent. Deuteronomy 12:31 and 13:14 say that it is abhorrent to participate in the rituals of other religions. Deuteronomy 14:3 prohibits the eating of abhorrent things (presumably anything that isn’t listed in verses 4-21 of that chapter). Deuteronomy 17:1 and 17:4 say that it is abhorrent to sacrifice to God an ox or a sheep with a birth defect. Deuteronomy 18:9 and 18:12 say, once again, that the customs of the non-Hebrews are abhorrent.

There are many more verses including the word תועבה, but perhaps at this point you’ve noticed the same pattern that I have. We tend to think of the words “abhorrent” and “abomination” as describing actions and entities of obvious and exceptional depravity, but it’s clear that the Biblical meaning is something else entirely: תועבה is used consistently to differentiate the practices of the ancient Hebrews from those of the surrounding cultures. תועבה just means “not the Jewish way of doing things.” By saying that “lying with a man as with a woman” is “abomination,” God isn’t saying that it’s wrong or harmful or evil any more than eating pork or shellfish is evil; it’s just not Jewish, and this interpretation fits well with the intention of the chapter as stated in its introduction.

Granted, Leviticus 18:22 is still homophobic, but it must be considered in its historical context and as part of a system of ritual practices that have been almost entirely abrogated. When was the last time you heard of a synagogue or church making a burnt offering to God, as is commanded in Leviticus 1:

The bull shall be slaughtered before the Lord; and Aaron’s sons the priests shall offer the blood, dashing the blood against all sides of the altar that is at the entrance of the tent of meeting. The burnt offering shall be flayed and cut up into its parts. The sons of the priest Aaron shall put fire on the altar and arrange wood on the fire. Aaron’s sons the priests shall arrange the parts, with the head and the suet, on the wood that is on the fire on the altar; but its entrails and its legs shall be washed with water. Then the priest shall turn the whole into smoke on the altar as a burnt offering, an offering by fire of pleasing odor to the Lord. verses 4-9, NRSV

To the extent that Christians believe at all that they must keep the Jewish law, they might offer that Christ Jesus was the lamb offered as the final sacrifice to God, thus abrogating the need for the above. Would that not as well abrogate the authority of Leviticus 18:22, especially given that Leviticus is mostly concerned with Jewish-ness and that Christianity is concerned with a different and broader relationship between the God of Abraham and all the people of the world? And if the synagogues aren’t making the burnt offering and the grain offering and the offerings of well-being and the sin offering and all the other various rituals and sacrifices mandated by Leviticus, what business do they have claiming that one verse as authoritative?

If we turn to the New Testament for guidance on the matter, we find that Jesus said nothing at all about homosexuality. We do, however, have some admonitions from Paul the Apostle in his letter to the Romans and in his first letter to the Corinthians. Bear in mind that these letters were never intended to be canonical; Paul wrote his letters to specific churches in order to address specific problems and concerns. The Pauline letters are the interpretation of Christianity by one man who clearly knew nothing of the teachings of Jesus and which are scripture only by fiat. That said, his admonitions are not as ambiguous as what we find in the Old Testament:

Therefore God gave [pagans and idolaters] up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the degrading of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error. Romans 1:24-27

To Paul’s credit, immediately after these verses, he states that anyone who judges someone for this sort of behavior is no better than those who engage in the behavior. Nevertheless, it’s not exactly a ringing endorsement. The verses in 1 Corinthians are of a similar nature. But elsewhere in that book, Paul suggests that all unmarried Christians remain so (unless remaining unmarried would drive them to fornication). Like Jesus, Paul was an apocalypticist and believed that the Kingdom of God was soon to come, and he thought that it would be best for people to focus on that rather than on building a new marriage. But no one accepts that teaching anymore; why should his admonitions against homosexuality be taken any more seriously than that?

In 2006, the male prostitute Mike Jones reported that his services had been purchased, on several occasions over three years, by the evangelical pastor of the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Ted Haggard. Haggard had been a vocal opponent of homosexuality throughout his ministry, and this is what drove Jones to come forward. As much as I abhor it, the fact that straight men demonize homosexuality is no surprise to me; it is well established: people fear what they don’t understand. But the hypocrisy of this scandal infuriated me. It’s a terrible thing to teach others to hate themselves. It’s nihilistic and cruel, and to do so knowing that one is engaging in the very behaviors they’re railing against is unconscionably hypocritical. And given how thin the scriptural support for such sermons is, it seems both tragic and mystifying as well.

Christian churches have been presenting such a bigoted view of homosexuality over the years. If preachers are also going to quote from known forgeries like Ephesians and First and Second Timothy and extra-Biblical sources like Augustine and Aquinas, I think it’s only fair that the story of Jesus’ gay orgy get its mention in sermons.

