FWIW, medieval art never attempted verisimilitude in the cultural characteristics of the past. C.S. Lewis once dealt fairly hilariously with the illuminated image of Achilles in his chariot in a medieval Iliad retelling, which depicted a knight in plate armor sitting in a farm wagon. It’s extremely likely (though not proven) that Jesus and the Twelve would have dined in the classic style which was also the apparent standard for Jews of the time, reclining on one elbow on couches as specified.
IMHO, Jesus remained celibate as a consequence of the mission to which he felt called, felt desire for both men and women but never dwelt or acted on it (this is, in my view, a consequence of the classic understanding that “he was tempted in every way as we are but did not sin”), and felt free to engage in an intensely close emotional relationship with John, who was the youngest of the Twelve, to fulfill Hs own need, due to His humanity, for emotional intimacy with another, and it is this relationship to which John is referring in calling himself “the disciple that Jesus loved.”
There are also court’s decisions, in particular regarding prostitution, which can give some hints about what was considered acceptable or not in the medieval society. Some cases were pretty explicit, like when a prostitute complained about a “customer’s” habbits…
I don’t think that’s the real question Tim Wilkins raised. Rather, it’s about whether Mel White’s “followers, colleagues, peers and closest friends” have been claiming that Jesus was gay, and whether White should have been aware of their claims.
I don’t know diddly-squat about that, but evidence could exist for Wilkins’ assertion, and if it does, he should cite it on his website. And if he has no such evidence, then he should kindly shut up.
If the debate were whether Jesus had ever been popularly portrayed in a homoerotic manner . . . well, that would be a short debate, or more likely a general question. But the problem we have here seems to me to be one of exponential cultural misinterpretation: we (possibly?) misinterpret medieval portrayals of Christ, which in turn misinterpreted (or didn’t attempt accurately to interpret) the real guy who had lived a thousand years before.
Even in today’s world, you might misinterpret French guys kissing each other on the cheek or Malaysian friends holding hands as evidence of gayness, when it’s nothing of the sort. What can you say about a wholly alien culture from which remains only a few writings and dead artifacts?
FWIW, one of my professors told me that in Russia, it was completely common place for grown men who are good friends to greet one another with a hug-and a kiss on the lips. And there was nothing sexual about it.
I’m not knocking homosexuality, just saying we shouldn’t see SEX in everything. It’s like people who thought the Russian Empress was having an affair with Rasputin because she said she wished to kiss his hands and fall asleep on his shoulder. She was speaking metaphorically-she saw Rasputin as a living saint.
Part of the problem in researching anything to do with homosexuality in history is that it so often had to be coded or concealed. And since many heterosexuals – and particularly heterosexual professors – are unwilling to see homosexuality anywhere without videotape evidence and sworn testimonial, finding ourselves in history is difficult.
At the risk of hijacking this hijack of a hijack of a thread (my sincere apologies to Polycarp at this point), this reminds me of the was-Shakespeare-bisexual debate. His sonnets are usually taken autobiographically. Whenever anybody reads Sonnet 18 (“Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?”) in a course (it’s now been studied in four of my courses), the class’s reaction is that it’s love poetry written to a woman. Upon learning it was written for a man, the reaction becomes, “Well that’s just how men talked back then.” Reading Sonnet 20 removed all doubts about the narrator’s attraction for the man, but then nobody ever studies Sonnet 20.
I refer to this attitude (plant tongue in cheek) as “innocent until proven gay.”
If (to get back to the OP) the more extreme types are using supposed ridiculousness of Christ-as-gay argument to demonize Mel White, it simply shows how a great many people will see any view other than Christ-as-heterosexual as patently ludicrous. If these people can convince the public that Mel White believes Christ is gay, he might as well be locked up and put away because only a raving lunatic would subscribe to this theory.
I’m less interested in the argument of whether Christ is gay – unprovable either way. More interesting is the vehement denial of the possibility. If Wilkins feels he can slow down or stop the movement for the acceptance of gay Christians by insinuating that they think Christ is gay, then that denial must be overwhelming.
Following Hamish’s lead to get back to the OP, has anyone heard a serious theologian, even those who support gay-rights such as Spong and Marcus Borg, propose that Jesus was gay? The article linked in the OP is the first time I’ve ever heard this proposed in a non-joking manner.
I’ve used the arguement that Jesus hung out mostly with men to “prove” that he would have prefered Peter Pan Peanut Butter in the Great Peanut ButterWar (started in a lost Pit thread and spreading to Fathom and possibly the Unaboard.) But that was tounge-in-cheek.
I don’t know of any theologians, but there are some lay Christians who are very serious about this theory. Local writer Richard Burnett – who writes a column called “Three Dollar Bill” for Montreal’s Hour weekly – is very convinced of this, and raises the topic every second issue.
Everyone wants Jesus on their side, whatever that side is, just as everyone wants to be able to compare their opponant to Hitler. While studying the origins of Christianity, I discovered that most attempts to “get at the historical Jesus” were mostly desperate attempts to claim him for a political cause. Jesus was alternately portrayed as communist or free-marketeer, liberal or conservative, depending on the views of the historian.
On the other hand, there’s equally minimal evidence that Jesus was straight and homophobic. So using this historical figure to further a homophobic (im)moral crusade is equally silly.
Well, as far as Jesus on their side, as I told a friend at SAAN about two years ago-(when they were sending that Stop Gay Jesus Movie petition around)-Jesus is gay. He’s straight too. He’s black, white, man, woman, he’s all of us.
(She was a Catholic lesbian, btw. She was hurt by the insinuations that being gay meant she was somehow a bad person).
.
When I was in Korea in the Air Force, you would see Korean (male) soldiers walk down the street holding hands – it didn’t mean they were gay – it was just a different culture…
.
.
Nobody’s got Paul and Ringo yet – they’re still alive – I seen on TV at that Queen’s Jubilee whar Paul done darked his hair up some, too…
—While studying the origins of Christianity, I discovered that most attempts to “get at the historical Jesus” were mostly desperate attempts to claim him for a political cause. Jesus was alternately portrayed as communist or free-marketeer, liberal or conservative, depending on the views of the historian.—
Have you read Price’s “Deconstructing Jesus”? He comes to basically the same conclusion, and furhter asserts that agnosticism with regards to Jesus’ existence and particular teachings or meanings is the way to go.
I hadn’t, but I did find another book that attempted much the same thing – was it The Search for the Historical Jesus? Anyway, it attempts to see Jesus purely in the context of his time – influence of Greek philosophies on the teritoires of the Roman empire, the life of a carpenter’s son of the period, his place in the various political movements of the time and place.
My point was just that “Jesus” is vanishing from the historical landscape, vanishing as a person, and has become a flag everyone wants to claim, no matter how tenuous the connection. Wilkins is attemping to demonize Mel White simply by implying that White is attempting to capture the “Jesus” flag for the “gay” camp.
