While researching into Sufi erotic spirituality (more in another essay soon on that!), I tripped across a reference to the “Secret Gospel Of Mark”. I thought originally that it was yet another Gnostic text from the early days of the Christian church, and that there probably was no good copy of it. I fully expected it to be as controversial as it was, but I was not ready for what it really was.The Gospel of Mark is the oldest, and the only contemporary, in-living-memory Gospel according to multiple historians. Early on, the book contained elements that were counter to the paradigms and wishes of the political leaders of the Church, and very early on, it began to be edited and re-written. This continued up until the 1970's, when Zondervan publishers in the Midwest of the USA/EEUU continued to edit out verses it found “problematic”.
The “Secret Mark” is simply a group of verses that were preserved after they were edited out. The current Kosher version of Mark is much like Shakespeare's Macbeth, enough is left to get the story arc, but there are some obvious cheap and sloppy edits and gaping holes. Obvious gaps are entering and leaving a city, with no what happened there being given, incomplete dialogue, and vague references to a now-missing character, or a reference to the introduction of a character, who is included but now serves no purpose. The missing verses of Secret Mark, when re-installed, solve all of those mysteries and problems instantly.
The screams of “heresy!” and “fraud!” have already begun, even before the content of the verses is seen. Obviously, blind faith in a political platform is more importance than reality or history.
There are several sources for the lost verses, the best being in a missive letter from a bishop named Clement (who would go on to be Pope of the Roman church!), who includes them in correspondence, instructing his reader to re-install the verses, so that they would have a full and complete version of the “One, true Gospel”. The letter is in Clement's distinctive handwriting, on proper paper, and with proper ink. The Russian Orthodox church has also validated the document, and is it's current caretaker. The letter has been hidden since the mid-1970s, as the Vatican really wants to destroy it. The letter also makes no sense without the verses, as they are part of the body of the letter (there is more after the verses discussing them), and the verses were the very reason the letter was written.
The verses deal with Jesus being called in by a rich woman to rescue a relative boy of hers who has died early. The disciples apparently fight Jesus on going to help, but he does anyway. Jesus raises the boy from the dead, and then the boy falls in love with him, and Jesus “teaches him about the mysteries of the Kingdom of God”. Jesus stays with him for a week or so, and then leaves, and the boy comes with him and his disciples. Later on, the woman approaches to have another audience with Jesus, and the disciples and Jesus deny her a second meeting. The grammar and language used strongly indicate that the teachings included erotic contact and connection between Jesus and the boy.
The appearance of the boy also satisfies two other places in Mark where an enigmatic xi'paal referred to as “the little one whom Jesus loved” appears- lying embraced with Jesus at the Last Supper, and then the youth who runs away naked when Jesus is grabbed by the Centurions. At both points, the lad is the only one whom sticks by Jesus to the bitter end; when Jesus is grabbed by the Centurions, all his disciples have denied him and fled. It has been posited that the xi'paal is Mark himself, and that is why the Gospel has such a different tone and pace from the other, later ones.
Now, one would think that finding a complete text of the oldest Gospel would be a reason for Joy, but there is that pesky little realization that Jesus was in a homoerotic, pederastic relationship at the peak of his powers. The homoeroticism alone would be enough to topple the modern political platform of the “True Body Of Believers”, as they'd have to give up their bigotry and hatred towards homoerotics in the modern age. And don't forget about John 21, the Reinstating of Peter; Jesus asks Peter “Do you love me more than these?” three times, and each time a different Greek word appears in the original- Agape (general love), Philios (brotherly love), and Eros (pesky sexy again). Peter gets miffed that Jesus asked him the Eros one in front of the others. “Feed my sheep”, indeed. We also have one of the two times Jesus shows human emotion with the death and resurrection of Lazarus, Jesus' Guatiao from his childhood. This is the famous shortest verse: “Jesus Wept.” (The other outbursts of emotion was the attack on the money-changers in the temple. Jesus smash.)
With this knowledge, “What Would Jesus Do?” takes on a whole new meaning.
All of this controversial interpretation makes perfect sense in historical context. In fact, as an Essene/ Nazarene rabbi, it would have been highly unusual if Jesus didn't have a much younger male apprentice, it would mean he wasn't believed or trusted by the commoners. Those same rules are why the Roman church decided that clergy (outside of deacons) could not marry or have children. The Greek and Russian Orthodox churches allow clergy to marry in certain circumstances.
Though our modern ideas and paradigms, which were created by the medieval and Renaissance political structures (ie; divine right of kings, feudalism, etc) masquerading as true faith and religion are disgusted by and rattled by these interpretations of Jesus (“gay Jesus”, “child molester Jesus”), we need to not project our own ideas and neuroses (so carefully constructed and cultivated to make us vassals) on the historic truth. As I have been having discussions with clergy and lay alike, I get similar responses: So you want to prove Jesus was “gay”, right? Would be a fair average. No, I can honestly respond. I want to prove two points. One, that the modern churches are fucking two-faced hypocrites who don't know their own history. And two, Jesus was human. Very human. And not perfect. And that very idea proves Jesus existed, that he was real, so much more so than fake church-sponsored relics and sleazy Israeli antiquities. A very human Jesus who was real,and was exactly as one would expect in that historical context. An understandable and a very beautiful Jesus indeed, and one most regular folks I know could really connect to and love, as he was just like them. And Clement's letter and his complete Mark is the best evidence we have ever had of that. But to accept that would mean all the rabid, warmongering, hateful fundies would have to let up on their bigotry, cruelty, and hatred. And so far, that is just too much to ask of the zombies, Jesus said “Feed my Sheep”. He must have seen where all of this was going, in Jesus' name. Oh my.
For a good corporate Christian, this human, loving Christ is too much, and must be denied. For a true believer in the real Jesus, this is the re-emergence of the actual faith and personal connection john Wesley wrote was so important.
For a non-Chrisitan, such as myself, it does two things. Firstly, it brings Christian monotheism in line with every other human faith and culture, the fact that the sacred masculine erotic is present.This strengthens the CHIC'CHAN discoveries, they are now universal in human culture. No one can deny CHIC'CHAN anymore, and we can reclaim our Cosmic Human Masculine Heritage. Secondly, by that very connection of Chrisitanity being like all the other cultures and faiths, it strengthens the humanity of the faith itself- no chosen people, no this is the one true way. And by that realization, it gives us all similar ground to start discussions and sharing on. That is what is most valuable, as it will create togetherness, and not continued separation, division, or convert-or-die mentality
-Joaquin 2 Cacimarex, Sewaornock, Manahatouac
No comments:
Post a Comment