The Spoils of Egypt: Remembering “Hidden Scriptures” as the Basis for a New Christianity

The whisper campaign used to convict Morton Smith of forgery in the case of his discovery of Clement’s Letter to Theodore marked perhaps a low point in the history of the scholarship of the Bible. The Letter and its discoverer were rendered untouchable owing to the weaponization of homosexual innuendo. There is no substantiated evidence that Morton Smith was a gay man. There is no reason to think that “Secret Mark” was really a “gay gospel.” There is no credible evidence that the Letter to Theodore is a forgery modern or otherwise. And yet, here we are almost seventy years since its discovery, attempting to determine its authenticity by sifting through the “dirty laundry” of a one-time respected scholar. An outsider might yet wonder, is this really the case of the Letter to Theodore being so problematic or inconvenient? Could those studying ancient Christianity have unconsciously or otherwise adopted the tactics of the great heresiologists of the past, and “personalized” an inanimate object with the perceived characteristics of the discoverer to further a self-serving agenda?

I will attempt to demonstrate that this was not the first time homosexual innuendo was used to discredit the secret gospel of Alexandria and those associated with it. It will be argued that enough information can be gleaned from the writings of the Church Fathers to see Origen of Alexandria as an ancient precursor to Morton Smith in terms of being a victim of the weaponizing of “gay gossip.” Why was Origen treated this way? I will make the case it had something to do with his association with the same secret gospel of Alexandria. In terms of weaponized homosexual innuendo, Epiphanius of Cyprus, writing near the end of the fourth century but certainly drawing on much earlier material, represents the earliest survival of this line of attack against the Church Father. As Blossom Stefaniw notes, the Panarion represented Origen “as sexually deviant” and his “focus on deviant sexual practices encourages the reader to see Origen as a pervert and an object of shame before the anecdotes about his life have even begun. It also associates sexual deviance with shameful textuality, a connection that appears again in the account of Origen’s life and work.”

The Historical Context

The history of using innuendo to discredit figures associated with controversial texts is long and fraught with prejudice. Origen, one of the most influential early Christian theologians, found himself at the center of similar accusations. His association with the secret gospel of Alexandria made him a target for those who sought to undermine his influence. The accusations against Origen were not just about his theology but were deeply personal, aiming to discredit him through implications of sexual deviance.

The Case of Morton Smith

Fast forward to the 20th century, and we see a similar pattern emerge with Morton Smith. His discovery of the Letter to Theodore, which contains references to a secret gospel attributed to Mark, was groundbreaking. Yet, rather than being celebrated for his find, Smith was subjected to a campaign of innuendo and suspicion. The fact that the secret gospel contained a passage that could be interpreted as homoerotic only fueled the fire. Smith’s personal life was scrutinized, and unsubstantiated claims about his sexuality were used to discredit his work.

Weaponizing Innuendo: A Historical Tactic

The use of sexual innuendo to discredit scholars and their work is a tactic with a long history. It is a way to avoid engaging with the content of their discoveries by attacking their character instead. This approach shifts the focus from the scholarly debate over the text’s authenticity to the personal life of the discoverer. It is a form of ad hominem attack that distracts from the real issues at hand.

Origen and the Secret Gospel of Alexandria

Origen’s association with the secret gospel of Alexandria made him a target for those who opposed his theological views. The Panarion by Epiphanius of Cyprus is one of the earliest sources to weaponize homosexual innuendo against Origen. By portraying him as sexually deviant, Epiphanius aimed to undermine Origen’s theological contributions. This association of sexual deviance with shameful textuality was a deliberate tactic to discredit Origen and his work.

The Impact on Modern Scholarship

The parallels between the treatment of Origen and Morton Smith are striking. Both were associated with controversial texts that challenged established theological views. Both were subjected to personal attacks that aimed to discredit their work through implications of sexual deviance. This tactic has had a lasting impact on the study of early Christian texts. It has created a climate where scholars are wary of engaging with certain discoveries for fear of similar treatment.

Moving Forward

As scholars, it is essential to move beyond the use of personal attacks to discredit work. The focus should be on the content of the discoveries and their implications for our understanding of early Christianity. The Letter to Theodore, like many other controversial texts, deserves to be studied and debated on its own merits. By doing so, we honor the true spirit of scholarly inquiry.

In conclusion, the use of homosexual innuendo to discredit scholars and their work is a tactic that has been used for centuries. It is a way to avoid engaging with the content of their discoveries by attacking their character instead. This approach has no place in modern scholarship. The focus should be on the content of the discoveries and their implications for our understanding of early Christianity. Only by doing so can we truly advance our knowledge and understanding of the past.