Recently Peter Tatchell, an LGBT human rights campaigner took time out of his busy pederasty apologetics to write a linguistically unsound and ahistorical article on why Jesus was actually, according to him, possibly homosexual.
While feeling free to target Christians, he may not have foreseen that this also angered Muslims who view Jesus as a prophet and even managed to irritate atheists.
I openly challenge Mr. Tatchell, to a duel of the minds, to defend his linguistic claims based on historical evidence and also using Koine Greek, if indeed he is able to do so. For if he had been a student in any of my classes I would surely give him a failing mark for such a poorly constructed article.
The article is problematic for many reasons but specifically because it presents its entire argument based on one document which is either a hoax or otherwise a Gnostic piece that has never been part of Christian canon. Most of the debate surrounding this has been whether or not it is an outright forgery. Further, it shows no understanding of Koine Greek (the predominant dialect of Greek in which the Bible was written).
The so-called Secret Gospel of Mark (τοῦ Μάρκου τὸ μυστικὸν εὐαγγέλιον) does not actually exist in its original form at all but exists exclusively as part of a letter that was handwritten on the endpapers of a 1646 printed edition of Isaac Vossius’ book entitled Ignatius of Antioch. So where is this book? No one seems to know, that the so-called letter exists only in the form of two photos.
The actual writing style is certainly not that of the first or second centuries and I am not alone among linguists who put the actual date at the very earliest during the late 17th century, some as recently as the 19th century. This is assuming it is even original, many scholars view this as an outright hoax, this may be why an original was never produced since had it been, radiocarbon dating would have been able to prove this.
However, to be charitable in our linguistic examination let us ignore the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and assume that it is authentic for argument’s sake.
Even assuming the document is 100% authentic is still problematic for Tatchell’s claims especially since he shows less than zero understanding of Koine Greek. Let us consider the last four lines in which he said “homosexual” activity takes place according to Tatchell.
While “love” is one word in English, there are actually four words in Greek that mean “love” στοργή (storge) is the natural love and affection we feel for example between a parent and child, φιλία (philia) is the love felt between siblings or very close friends, ἀγάπη (agape) is love based on principle and which does not change also that is marked by benevolence, ἔρως (eros) this is a sexual love and passion. This fact is known even to many linguistics amateurs.
So what does the “Secret Gospel” use? Yes, you probably guessed that it isn’t eros but rather uses an inflected form of agape (ηγάπησεν – he loved), love based on principles and which is never used in Koine Greek with sexual connotations (line 58 blue).
Ironically this is also an inflected form of agape that is (ἠγάπα) found in John 13:23 when speaking of John “whom Jesus loved” in denoting the apostle with the deepest friendship with Christ. This goes directly against Tatchell’s statement “The precise nature of the relationship between Christ and the youth is not spelled out. Sexual relations are suggested but not explicitly stated”.
On the contrary, in this verse, we only find an indication that it simply means hospitality was shown and does not indicate sexual activity of any kind whether heterosexual or homosexual. There is nothing in the Greek that shows anything of the sort. The term stating that the young man was “naked” (γυμνου) also means “lightly clad, poorly clad, without an outer garment or coat”.
This is used in Mark 14:52, Matthew 25:36, and John 21:7 with various meanings depending on the context, and in Greek context is always key. In this case, we see contextually that he was wearing his typical Jewish inner garment of linen (Line 62 green), just as someone might wear comfortably at home in an informal situation.
The letter itself goes as far as to say in the final lines that “γυμνὸς γυμνῷ” (naked man with naked man –in a sexual sense) is NOT found in the original fragment. The letter in its opening mentions that such teachings are from the Carpocratians, a sect of the Gnostic Cults based on Platonism that was well known for their debauchery.
This cult continued until the 6th century so it is possible that their writings survived. A debauched sect that tried to change Christian writings to suit their own agenda in order to try and excuse their own terrible behavior, now where have I heard that before?
So, Mr. Tatchell, you have used as the basis for your argument a letter that refers to a supposed ancient Gospel, neither of which can be located and which cannot even therefore be proven to be authentic, a gospel that was likely written by a non-Christian Gnostic cult and the Greek of which says the opposite of what you claim it says. In essence, you have taken to creating an elaborate fabrication out of your own imagination based on hearsay at best, and your incoherent and delusional fantasy.
What say you? Defend your argument if you are able.
Wrong Speak is a free-expression platform that allows varying viewpoints. All views expressed in this article are the author's own.
I am not a Christian but I find his lies & equivocation deeply offensive. ‘Pederast’ is putting it mildly; he has no place in decent discourse. Will post this on X. Thank you for this.
Dr Alaric,
I really enjoyed reading your response.
I also read Peters article. The one thing I can truly say about Peter's positions, is that no claim made can be verified as one hundred percent accurate. Is anyone alive to actually verify Peters claims or Peter's Hypothesis No ? Was there any actual proof to back up his claims, no. To give creedence to his statement.
No I really dont think so. None that I have ever seen. None that have been put forth in any reputable historical journal. Any Recognized Reputable Religious Studies Organization.