“God created man in his own image. And man, being a gentleman, returned the favor.”
– JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU
Our portraits of Jesus are constantly shifting, adapting, and evolving to suit our agendas and ideals. Groups, both inside and outside the Christian mainstream, have leveraged Jesus against their opponents, or done so to justify their own practices. That said, there is much about Jesus that remains seemingly unchanged. As a figure of our collective imagination, Jesus is most often a celibate, heterosexual man. Portraits that suggest otherwise are jarring and can, at times, reveal something about the dominant values of the Christianized West.
Jamaican-American artist Renée Cox poked at these norms with her photographic homage to Da Vinci’s Last Supper. Her series of photographs titled Yo Mama’s Last Supper depicts Jesus as an almost nude black woman. When this series was featured at the Brooklyn Museum of Art in 2001, then mayor Rudolph Giuliani called it “disgusting,” “outrageous,” and “anti-Catholic.”1
It is easy to understand the offense taken. In a culture where mixing sexuality and religion is uncomfortable, a nude, womanist portrait of Jesus is bound to scandalize. It should be pointed out, however, that an almost nude (sometimes entirely nude) Jesus on the cross is commonplace and offends very few people – importantly, this Jesus is usually white and male. Cox’s Jesus portrait, aside from being a nude, is not erotically suggestive. Her Jesus is rigid, stoic, and looks heavenward. Judging from Giuliani’s reaction, a nude, black, womanist portrait of Jesus is more offensive than a nude, white, male portrait.
Pablo Picasso once said that “art is a lie that tells the truth.” While some, like Giuliani, express disgust, others see the image of a black Jesus or a woman Jesus as an opportunity to critique our more familiar portraits. Why is the Scandinavian Jesus of Warner Sallman more acceptable than a Jamaican Jesus? This point has been made so often in recent years that it has almost become banal to criticize Sallman’s Head of Christ.2 But we risk repeating the same error when we refuse to allow our assumptions of Jesus’ sexuality (or non-sexuality) to be challenged.
Even more critical is the way that common portraits reinforce systems of power. Because Jesus has been so often coopted by the powerful, recent attempts to subvert power have coopted Jesus to push back against the image. In what follows, I will discuss two forms of sexual persecution that resulted in new portraits of Jesus – both present Jesus as a sexual being who is dissimilar from the standard celibate heterosexual portrait. The first sexualized Jesus comes from the early Mormons as they developed into a polygamous people. The second Jesus comes from twentieth-century gay America.
JESUS THE PROTO-MORMON POLYGAMIST
When Mormonism was in its infancy, there was very little talk of “plural marriage.” The book of Mormon (c. 1820–29) says nothing of the doctrine. Joseph Smith Jr., the founder of the movement, introduced the doctrine in the 1840s after he had been “sealed to” multiple wives. Still, there was a concerted effort to keep Smith’s polygamy a secret from the general public. Emerging from an evangelical, American mainstream, the practice of plural marriage alienated the early Mormons from their religious neighbors.3 Indeed, it was a difficult teaching to adopt for the inner circle of leaders.
Brigham Young was among the original apostles of the Mormons, the second president of the movement, and founder of Salt Lake City, Utah. Before becoming Smith’s successor, Young worked beneath Smith in Nauvoo, Illinois. It was in Nauvoo that Smith first introduced the idea of plural marriage. In John G. Turner’s biography of Brigham Young he describes Young’s early aversion to the idea of polygamy:
At some point in early 1842, Smith told [Brigham Young] to “go & get another wife.” Young recalled that the instruction came in the form of a “command,” not a choice. Still, he hesitated. “I felt as if the grave was better for me,” he later explained. After discussing the matter with Smith, though, the apostle quickly moved from apprehension to exhilaration. “I was filled with the Holy Ghost … I could jump and hollow [holler], my blood clear as India Rum.” Young was “ready to go ahead.” Like many others, he followed where his prophet led. No one would marry more women in Nauvoo than Brigham Young.4
Before Young’s death in 1877, he had been “sealed to” as many as fifty-five women. He wed girls as young as fifteen and women as old as sixty-five. He wed widows, single women, and women who were already married to other men. He even wed two of his mothers-in-law. Moreover, Young became convinced that the doctrine of plural marriage was divinely ordained. Eventually, this sexual ethic was projected onto both God the Father and Jesus. Late in life, Young wrote: “Said [Jesus], when talking to his disciples: ‘He that hath seen me hath seen the Father;’ and, ‘I and my Father are one.’ The Scripture says that He, the Lord, came walking in the Temple, with His train; I do not know who they were, unless His wives and children …”5
To understand Young’s logic here, one must recognize three steps. First, Jesus reflects the image of God. Young makes this point quite forcefully leading up to his two citations of John’s Gospel. Moreover, Young believed that the family unit reflected the image of God. Second, God is literally a father. Quoting the biblical prophet Isaiah, Young suggests that God is married many times over with numerous children. This point is made by appealing to the King James Translation: “… I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up, and his train filled the temple.”6 In the King James Bible “his train” is translated vaguely, allowing Young to suppose that the Lord is followed by his family. Third, Jesus, reflecting divine reality, reflects the truth of plural marriage. Young writes: “The same truth is borne out by the Savior.”7
Seemingly it took years for Young to come to the belief that Jesus practiced plural marriage. As Young’s early distaste for the idea indicates, plural marriage was far afield from popular American notions of normalcy. He became a defender of its legitimacy only after being persuaded by Smith and his encounter with the “Holy Ghost.” Taken to the next level, plural marriage was more than legitimate; it reflected God’s own practice. Finally, Jesus, as God’s son, was probably polygamous. This logic probably relates to Young’s famous saying, “The only men who become Gods, even Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy.”8
A similar development can be seen in the theology of Orson Pratt, the first public advocate for Mormon plural marriage. Orson Pratt was among the earliest Mormons; he was an apostle, and a missionary. In 1839, Pratt and his wife Sarah Marinda Bates Pratt settled in western Illinois alongside a number of other Mormons. Most of the town was bought by the Mormons and governed by Joseph Smith. While Orson was in Europe seeking converts, Joseph Smith made repeated advances on Sarah Pratt, against her wishes. According to interviews given by Sarah and another Mormon leader named John C. Bennett, Smith attempted to make her one of his “spiritual wives.” After resisting these advances multiple times in secret, Sarah informed her husband who had recently returned from his missionary work.
Orson Pratt confronted Smith and told him to “never offer an insult of the like again.”9 The sordid controversy that followed is too long to recount here, but it resulted in the excommunication of Orson Pratt and John C. Bennett. Shortly thereafter, Orson Pratt’s apostasy was forgotten and the Pratt family was officially restored. Sarah Pratt, however, would never regain her good reputation. Joseph Smith accused her of adultery with John C. Bennett, and she spent the next twenty-five years contending with this label.
Orson Pratt defended his wife’s honor and never publicly confirmed Smith’s accusations.10 But over the next few years Orson came to support the doctrine of plural marriage and sealed himself to multiple wives without Sarah’s consent:11 “The pressures to conform to the polygamous social order were not subtle. Sarah reluctantly went along with the system for almost a quarter of a century.”12 After giving birth to ten children, after multiple missionary journeys that took the lives of four of these children, after living in poverty for much of her life, and after becoming estranged from her husband, Sarah Pratt finally separated from Orson. She told much of this story in an interview given to the New York Herald.13
It was within this context that Orson Pratt became the first public advocate for Mormon polygamy. Soon after his initial conflict with Smith, Pratt became convinced of the new divine command for plural marriage. Brigham Young then commanded Orson Pratt to preach and publish publicly in support of plural marriage. It is noteworthy that Young issued this command only after several stories began to circulate concerning Smith’s plural marriages.
In an 1853 article titled “Celestial Marriage,” Pratt argued that Jesus (like his ancestors) was a polygamist. He appealed to several parabolic or poetic passages from the Bible to argue that Jesus took multiple wives. Pratt quoted John the Baptist who said, “He that hath the bride is the bridegroom, but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom’s voice.”14 Pratt also quoted Jesus who said, “Can the children of the bridechamber mourn, as long as the bridegroom is with them? But the days will come, when the bridegroom shall be taken from them …”15 As seen here, both biblical passages refer to Jesus as a “bridegroom.” Taken literally, these passages demonstrate that Jesus was married.
In order to demonstrate that Jesus practiced plural marriage, Pratt appealed to the royal wedding of Psalm 45 and argued that the royal figure of that psalm was Jesus. Pratt concluded that “the great Messiah, who was the founder of the Christian religion, was a polygamist, as well as the Patriarch Jacob and the Prophet David, from whom he descended according to the flesh.” According to Pratt, Jesus practiced plural marriage to provide an example for future generations. Indeed, “by marrying many honorable wives himself, [Jesus would] show all future generations that he approbated the plurality of Wives under the Christian dispensation, as well as under the dispensations in which His Polygamist ancestors lived.”16
Much like the early Mormon movement itself, Pratt’s stance on polygamy can be divided into three periods. In the 1830s and early 1840s he had no inclination toward the practice – perhaps no thought of it whatsoever. When the practice was introduced by Smith in the 1840s, Pratt was repulsed by it, calling it an “insult” to the honor of his marriage. We can safely say that Pratt ’s strong belief in monogamous marriage was part and parcel with the sensibilities of nineteenth-century America at large. Sometime in the mid-1840s, however, Pratt became fully convinced that the doctrine of plural marriage was of divine command and required of him. By the early 1850s, Smith’s beliefs about marriage and family had been projected onto the life of Jesus.
Consider a similar claim made by Mormon leader Jedediah M. Grant. Like Young and Pratt, Grant portrayed Jesus as a polygamist. Grant took this a step further by supporting it with a veneer of historical research. He wrote:
What does old Celsus say, who was a physician in the first century, whose medical works are esteemed very highly at the present time. His works on theology were burned with fire by the Catholics, they were so shocked at what they called their impiety. Celsus was a heathen philosopher; and what does he say upon the subject of Christ and his Apostles, and their belief? He says “The grand reason why the Gentiles and philosophers of his school persecuted Jesus Christ, was, because he had so many wives; there were Elizabeth, and Mary, and a host of others that followed him.” After Jesus went from the stage of action, the apostles followed the example of their master.17
Grant concluded that Jesus’ crucifixion “was evidently based upon polygamy, according to the testimony of the philosophers who rose in that age. A belief in the doctrine of a plurality of wives caused the persecution of Jesus and his followers. We might almost think they were ‘Mormons.’”18 This last comment is telling and will be revisited below. But first, three observations are warranted. First, Grant is misinformed. The first-century medical philosopher named “Celsus” to which he refers never makes any statements about Jesus. In fact, the works of Aulus Cornelius Celsus (born c. 25 B.C.E.) do not include any theological subjects at all. It is highly likely that Grant has the wrong Celsus. The “heathen philosopher” who is known for his statements about Jesus and Christianity lived approximately one hundred years later. Grant probably has the second-century Celsus in mind.
Second, neither the first-century Celsus nor the second-century Celsus claim that Jesus had “so many wives.” At first glance this quotation seems to be wholesale fabrication. Placed between direct quotation marks, as seen above, Grant seems to have invented this quotation to support the new Mormon agenda. But there is another option, one that paints Grant in a less duplicitous light. A third-century Christian named Origen wrote against a different philosopher named Celsus. In a work titled Against Celsus, Origen writes:
CELSUS
Celsus was a second-century Greek philosopher who is best known today for his sustained attack on Christianity. His work is known to us only through the work of Christian apologist Origen. Origen’s “Against Celsus” (written in the third century) quotes Celsus extensively. Celsus’ counter-arguments against Christian doctrine include the claim that Jesus was fathered by a Roman man named “Panthera.” He assumes that Jesus did perform amazing feats, but accuses Jesus of having learned “magic” during his time in Egypt. In the world of Jesus and Celsus, the accusation of magical practice was always considered an insult. Origen’s quotations of Celsus are valuable as they provide an outsider’s perspective on early Christianity.
… such was the charm of Jesus’ words, that not only were men willing to follow him to the wilderness, but women also, forgetting the weakness of their sex and a regard for outward propriety in thus following their Teacher into desert places.19
This statement by Origen is meant to explain “what stirred up the envy of the Jews against Jesus, and aroused them to conspire against him.” Simply put, according to Origen, Jesus was persecuted and killed because of his popularity and large following. As a side note, this following included many women who had forgotten their station and acted without propriety.
Grant might have heard another Mormon preacher refer to “Celsus” on this point and misquoted him. I think it is highly likely that Grant never read this text for himself. This solution explains Grant’s confusion about the two philosophers. While I will not rule out duplicity on Grant’s part, the better solution is that Grant came by this error honestly. In either case, the words attributed to Celsus here were authored in the nineteenth century, not the first century. Grant’s quotation from “Celsus” is still used to support a polygamous portrait of Jesus in some corners of Mormonism.
The third observation is that Grant’s portrait of Jesus reflects the chief concerns of the mid-1850s for Mormon leadership: the persecution of Joseph Smith and his followers and accusations of polygamy.20 Much like the interpretations of Young and Pratt, Jedediah Grant paints Jesus as a polygamist. The desire to find an authoritative justification for their misunderstood religious practice was so great that Grant (perhaps unwittingly) manufactured historical evidence. In doing so, he was convinced that polygamy was the very cause of Jesus’ martyrdom. “We might almost think they were ‘Mormons,’” Grant concludes.
The early Mormons patterned their movement after early Christianity. They received visions, appended “new” testaments to sacred canons, appointed twelve “Apostles,” and so on. But conversely, the early Mormons patterned early Christianity after themselves. Jesus became a prototypical Mormon. These early Mormon theologians projected Joseph Smith’s sexuality onto Jesus.
JESUS, GAY MAN OF MYSTERY
In a 2010 interview with Parade magazine, singer and songwriter Elton John was quoted as saying, “I think Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems.” John, in addition to being a Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductee, is a philanthropist and a long-time advocate for the gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered community. To this end, he has often spoken publicly of his life as a gay man, husband, and father. Speaking of Jesus, John said, “On the cross, he forgave the people who crucified him. Jesus wanted us to be loving and forgiving. I don’t know what makes people so cruel.”21
In response to John’s interview, ABC News sought a response from Catholic League president, Bill Donohue. Donohue chided John, saying that “to call Jesus a homosexual is to label Him a sexual deviant.” A more considered response came from Rev. Sharon Ferguson. I will include her comments in a larger excerpt of the ABC News article to illustrate the marketing motives at work in this controversy. Ferguson demurs in response to John’s claim:
“I don’t think that comments like this are particularly helpful,” Reverend Sharon Ferguson from the Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement told ABC News.
“He challenged our understanding of loving one another in his relationship with his disciples and friends, so we should be taking on board the total inclusivity of Christ when it comes to the notion of sexual identity and orientation but that does not mean that we should make any assumptions about Christ’s sexual activity or lack of it.”
Whatever the fallout, it puts the Rocket Man firmly in the eye of a storm of controversy, once again. The magazine is out on newsstands Saturday.22
Notice that there are at least four agendas at work in this story. Elton John’s agenda seems to include advocacy for a group that has historically been persecuted, and especially so in the Christianized West. Bill Donohue’s agenda seems to include a defense of a more traditional view of sexual normalcy. Sharon Ferguson seems to value reconciliation between an often exclusive Church and a historically persecuted group. Finally, both Parade magazine and ABC News seem to be publicizing this controversy to sell a product. The commonality among all four is that the name “Jesus” is wielded to advance an agenda. For better or worse, Jesus’ name is an ideological force. This has been true in Christendom for two millennia and is no less true in the world of pop culture, LGBT advocacy,23 and capitalist enterprise.
This, of course, is just one narrow window into a much larger debate about sexuality and gender in the Christianized West. It is quite common for Jesus’ name to be dropped into such conversations. In my own experience, I most often hear advocates for gay equality remind us what Jesus did not say. For example, former U.S. president Jimmy Carter said, “Homosexuality was well known in the ancient world, well before Christ was born and Jesus never said a word about homosexuality.”24 But claims about Jesus such as that made by Elton John are becoming more common.25 Not coincidentally, the possibility that Jesus was homosexual is a relatively new talking point among historians.26
Jimmy Carter is quite right: various sexual lifestyles were known in the ancient world. While the modern concept of “gay” is relatively new, homoeroticism is nothing new. But the role that this played in early Christianity is a topic that was untouched by scholars before the twentieth century. Elton John’s gay Jesus is an extension of a controversy that began in 1960.
The scholar who brought the notion of a gay Jesus to the international stage was a mercurial figure named Morton Smith (1915–91). Smith was a seminary-trained priest who, very early in his career, chose a life in academia. Like most clergy who choose this path, Smith maintained his official affiliation with the Church. At least, he did so for most of his career. But his students and colleagues knew that there was much more to Morton Smith. His student Albert Baumgarten wrote that early in Smith’s career he “left the church, characterizing the position he came to adopt as atheism.”27
Morton Smith’s deep (often hostile) misgivings toward traditional Christianity bled through and into his publications, even in his early career. He received two doctorates, one from Hebrew University in Jerusalem and the other from Harvard Divinity School. A close colleague wrote that Smith’s doctoral dissertation “was the first of many studies calculated to enrage the Establishment, Jewish or Christian, but far too intelligent and erudite to be dismissed as simply annoying.”28 Smith’s early career as a highly intelligent provocateur lit a fuse that would launch him to global recognition in 1973.
According to Smith, he discovered an ancient letter written by Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–c. 215), recopied in the eighteenth century into the back pages of another book, and preserved in a Greek Orthodox monastery south of Jerusalem. What would make this particular letter unique was that it included a previously unknown story about Jesus from a purportedly longer version of Mark’s Gospel. The story describes Jesus raising a wealthy young man from the dead and then spending the night with him.
Smith claimed to have discovered this document in 1958 and announced the find in 1960. He didn’t publish his books on the subject until 1973. He called his discovery The Secret Gospel According to Mark. Most scholars today call the text Secret Mark.
This “gospel” comes to us as an excerpt quoted in an ancient letter to a disciple named “Theodore.” In this letter, Clement (the supposed author) instructs Theodore against the demonically inspired teaching of a heretic named Carpocrates. According to the letter, Carpocrates obtained an authentic gospel. Indeed, Clement says that this mystical gospel conveyed “spotless” and “holy words”. What made the teachings of Carpocrates heretical was thus not the text of Secret Mark, but the misinterpretation of this text. The text of Secret Mark has been “mixed with shameless lies” (I.10).
Clement goes on to explain that the text of the “mystical” gospel was indeed written by Mark – the same author who wrote the biblical Gospel by the same name. But, curiously, Clement instructs Theodore to lie about its authorship in public so as to guard the truth. Clement justifies this deceit by quoting the Hebrew proverb: “Answer the fool from his folly” (Prov. 26:5). The reader, it seems, is told that foolish people do not deserve the truth. Clement cites Ecclesiastes 2:14: “let the fool walk in darkness.” The author instructs the reader to lie even if under oath about the true authorship of the letter.
Whoever authored this letter seems to think that there is virtue in falsehood about the origins of Secret Mark.
The supposed Clement then reveals what this mystical gospel really says. He quotes the “very words” of this gospel to answer Theodore’s questions (I.20–21). Clement begins his direct quotation of Secret Mark. In this setting, Jesus raises a young man from the dead and then stays the night with him:
“And gazing at him, the young man loved him and began to plead with him that he might be with him. … they went into the young man’s house.” After this, Jesus summons the young man who is “wearing a linen cloth over his naked body.” He “stayed with him that night, for Jesus taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God” (II.2–10). Clement explains that: “After this, it adds, ‘James and John went to him,’ and all that section, but ‘naked man with naked man’ and the other things about which you wrote, are not found.” To modern ears, the phrase “spent the night with” and the rumor of “naked man with naked man” is immediately suggestive.
When Smith announced this discovery in 1960, it raised immediate suspicion among biblical scholars, not least because it seemingly supported “not only Smith’s love of controversy but also his favorite target.”29 For such a provocative discovery to come from a known provocateur seemed far too convenient. To fuel this suspicion, the original document mysteriously disappeared and was unable to undergo the full battery of tests that are standard for such discoveries.30 Indeed, only a handful of scholars laid eyes on the document before it was “misplaced” (hidden? destroyed?) by its handlers at the monastery. But this did not stop widespread media coverage about the text, its implications, and Smith’s motives. Bruce Chilton, a colleague of Smith, writes:
Press coverage proved wide and instantaneous, because “Secret Mark” climaxes with an evocative image: A young man who wore only “a linen cloth over his naked body” spends the night with Jesus, who “taught him the mystery of the kingdom of God.” That proved too good a lure to pass up: What reader of the Gospels could fail to wonder whether Jesus engaged in the sexually charged initiation that “Secret Mark” describes? Smith himself, a homosexual at a time when homophobia ran high, had little doubt.31
Chilton represents many scholars in thinking that Morton Smith authored Secret Mark to provide a homosexual portrait of Jesus. Moreover, as Chilton rightly points out, the timing of Smith’s “discovery” is as telling as anything else. While a great deal could be said about the humiliation, incarceration, beating, electro convulsive experimentation, and murder of homosexuals during this period, for the present we can confirm that homophobia ran high indeed.32 The vast majority of Church officials were either silent or firmly set against gay advocacy. It should also be pointed out that gay advocacy was barely conceived during this period of American history. The movement was well under way, however, when Smith published his two books on Secret Mark in 1973.33
Morton Smith cared deeply about this issue as early as 1949 when he wrote of the deep rift between traditional Christianity and homosexual well-being. He wrote (hypothetically) of a young man – a new convert – who seeks counseling from a Christian counselor. Smith explained that this young man “doesn’t see that if two adult males enjoy each other sexually, any harm is done to anybody.” Smith goes on: “He doesn’t seem to be unstable, keeps his job, gets on well in society, has lots of normal friends, and seems generally happy. And, after all, homosexuality has been a characteristic of some of the greatest men – Plato and Shakespeare, etc.”
How must the Christian counselor instruct this young man? Smith wrote:
He must be told that homosexuality is a sin far more serious than fornication, and that unwillingness or inability to repent of it automatically debars the sinner from the sacraments. Whether or not psychological or social arguments against homosexuality are used, it must be made clear that the sin is not a matter for dispute nor for private judgment, but is established by the Christian tradition which individuals can only accept or reject. Finally, for the good of the congregation no less than for his own good, he must sooner or later be made to choose between his new attachment to the Church and his previous sexual adjustment, even though there be great probability that he will find no other adjustment so satisfactory.34
Smith concluded that it was almost impossible for a homosexual to be “happy” as a member of the body of Christ.35 He wrote this as a member of the clergy, long before his own sexual orientation was widely discussed among his colleagues. For the present, it is less important that Smith be labeled “gay” or “bisexual” and more relevant that we note his sincere concern for this topic. According to Smith, the homosexual male must choose happiness outside of the bounds of Christian communion or (most likely) unhappiness within it.
At this point, allow me to state the obvious: it is incredible to believe that a scholar who had previously published on the topic of homosexuality, in a context wherein the topic was so extremely rare in public discourse, just happened to find an ancient document so relevant for gay advocacy. Just as the Gay P.R.I.D.E. movement was throwing off the shackles of legal oppression in the United States, Morton Smith was writing these words: “Freedom from [Jewish religious] law may have resulted in a completion of the spiritual union by physical union.”36
Let me underscore that I’m not suggesting that because Smith was concerned for homosexual well-being that he must have invented this document. The key here is evidence of a discontentment strong enough to take action. Those closest to Smith observed this very tendency in his character. Smith “enjoyed provoking the conventionally faithful, proposing reconstructions of the past that opposed the narrative promoted by Jewish and Christian orthodoxies.”37
A great deal has been written on Morton Smith and Secret Mark. The story is just too bizarre not to attract attention. Those who are convinced that Smith’s gospel was a hoax argue that the document contains clues left by the author to reveal his identity. They further argue that the document contains the very twentieth-century euphemism “stayed the night with”, and that in the ancient world this euphemism would not have indicated coitus.
Perhaps most telling is that Smith’s story seems to parody an evangelical novel written in 1940 called The Mystery of Mar Saba.38 It is the story of a discovery of an ancient document that embarrasses traditional Christianity. The book was so popular in the 1940s that it warranted at least nine printings. Smith visited Mar Saba for the first time one year after the novel was published, the very place where he would eventually “discover” his own mysterious document. In many publications, Smith seems to borrow phrases directly from this novel. After detailing parallels of location, content, descriptions of discovery, and vocabulary, New Testament scholar Francis Watson concludes: “The parallels are such that the question of dependence is unavoidable … There is no alternative but to conclude that Smith is dependent on the novel, and that he himself is the author of the fragments of the Secret Gospel of Mark together with the pseudo-Clementine letter in which they are embedded.”39
Finally, it should be noted that one of the heroes of the novel is named “Lord Moreton,” a name phonetically identical to “Morton.” The most likely solution is that Morton Smith was inspired and repulsed by this evangelical novel while writing his dissertation in Jerusalem, and decided to expose evangelical foolishness with a hoax of his own. Most biblical scholars now think that the document was probably authored by Smith himself. But there is a vocal minority that is convinced of its authenticity. Many argue that Smith could not have authored this document himself. While handwriting experts have offered mixed conclusions, the document seems to be remarkably similar to the style of Clement of Alexandria. Those who are convinced that Smith forged the document must acknowledge the sheer brilliance it would take to fool so many people, including experts.
Some have argued that Smith appeared to take his research on Secret Mark quite seriously. Others think he delighted in the froth that he had stirred up, reserving the right to be indignant when overly conservative agendas were laid bare. For my part, I think that he was a brilliant trickster, and wanted his hoax to live on long past his death. Truly, it is hard not to admire how utterly clever the man was. Smith’s gospel contributed to the gay advocacy movement at just the right time, and continues to voice the concerns that he first explored in his essay on gay psychology and Christian unhappiness.40 Whether a hoax or not, its entry into the American consciousness was brilliantly timed. Carlson observes that Secret Mark:
was written during the 1950’s, during an especially oppressive moment in American history when mainline ministers were urging the police to crack down on gay men gathered in public parks. What could be more upsetting to the Establishment in this historical moment than the intimation, revealed in an ancient text by the author of the oldest gospel, that they are crucifying Jesus Christ all over again?41
Smith’s retelling of Christian beginnings certainly reflects the spirit of his time. One might say that Smith’s gay Jesus remained a secret in the 1950s, came out of the closet in the 1960s, and became a public advocate in the 1970s. Along this timeline, Jesus was just one step ahead of Elton John.
CHALLENGES
In the case of Mormon visionary Joseph Smith, we saw that his own investment toward normalizing polygamy came before his divine instructions on the topic. We saw that his apostles had to warm to this new vision of sexual normalcy. Their arguments for a polygamous Jesus then served to legitimize themselves in the face of persecution. Finally, whether by intention or misunderstanding, they manufactured an ancient document by “Celsus” to support their cause. In the case of Morton Smith, we saw that his investment in the topic of gay angst within the Church came before his discovery of Secret Mark. In both cases, the persecution of a sexually “deviant” community created the context for the reception of previously unknown portraits of Jesus.
For most of us, spotting the agendas and ideologies at work in others seems easy. Many people have probably never considered the notion that Jesus had multiple wives or that he was gay, and so they will be cautious about these sexualized portraits from the beginning. But recognizing our own agendas and ideological projections onto Jesus is more difficult. If we are to be honest and avoid the arrogance of creating Jesus in our own image, a healthy suspicion of ourselves is warranted. The challenge for us, therefore, is to examine the agendas and ideologies that we unwittingly project onto Jesus. This is not to say that all of our projections are wrong, or that they can be avoided entirely. It simply questions the arrogance of assuming that our agendas are more benign than that of Joseph Smith or Morton Smith.
FURTHER READING
Tony Burke (ed.), Ancient Gospel or Modern Forgery? The Secret Gospel of Mark in Debate: Proceedings from the 2011 York University Christian Apocrypha Symposium (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2013).
Douglas J. Davies, An Introduction to Mormonism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
Dale B. Martin, Sex and the Single Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2006).
John G. Turner, Brigham Young: Pioneer, Prophet (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University, 2012).
