For more than four decades, New Testament scholars have been discussing the “Secret Gospel of Mark.” In 1960 Morton Smith, a professor at Columbia University, announced the existence of this document at a meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, a year and a half after he said he found it in a monastic library near Jerusalem. 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.
Let's count the number of misrepresentations in this paragraph. Chilton deliberately avoids breaking off the original wording of the passage:
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 instead makes up his only version of the passage:
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.”
So why if the passage is certainly about homosexuality would Chilton have to change the words to make his point. Answer - without manipulating his text, he doesn't have an argument.
Then there is this bullshit:
What reader of the Gospels could fail to wonder whether Jesus engaged in the sexually charged initiation that “Secret Mark” describes?
I must have read this material ten thousand times and I never get an erection. 'Sexually charged' is a Rihanna song. You know 'give it to me baby like boom, boom, boom.' There is no 'give it to me baby' nor 'boom, boom, boom' in the Letter to Theodore. I don't even think there is a single sexual reference in the whole document.
And what can I say about this garbage?:
Smith himself, a homosexual at a time when homophobia ran high, had little doubt.
I know he is a scholar and I am supposed to show him respect because he spent all those years sucking up to authority without getting paid but this crossed the line of good taste. Where's the proof for any of these assertions. If I wrote a blog post that Bruce Chilton once propositioned me at Bard College it wouldn't be true because I have never been to Bard College nor have I ever met Bruce Chilton. Yet my claim would carry the same validity as this drivel.
I could go on citing from this libellous material (if only the dead could sue). It would only be fitting if this wicked man met a horrible fate. I can't believe that a Canadian university would give license for a hate-monger to spread this kind of malice yet again.
And then you wonder - is there a common thread between this guy and Craig Evans and then you find it - Jacob Neusner. Are scholars this petty that they are reduced to carrying on a 'grudge.' Neusner was a know nothing who did more damage to the study of Judaism than anyone in the twentieth century. These people are perpetuating his legacy by extending his blindness to the study of earliest Christianity.
Reason #12001 for detesting Neusner - all the Targums have been translated into English in a series put out by T. & T. Clark of Edinburgh in recent years. We should all be very wary of these translations, in fact we should all be realistic and be utterly paranoid, about the accuracy of any translations in the Brown Judaica Series under the nominal supervision of Jacob Neusner. I'll say it again - Neusner did more damage to the study of Judaism than any figure in the twentieth century.
