The Strange Secret Gospel of Mark is Likely Real, Not a Forgery

[@genefriedman2649]

Wow! What an amazingly balanced and well informed ex Jesus on the exciting and challenging to The Secret Gospel of Mark.

[@GuyEndore]

My questions are were there any references to this work in the surviving church father writings. Any evidence of it being used by churches? Was it debated during the counsels that determined the cannon. If not then can it be considered a church document? What do you mean by authentic? The Bible is the church’s book and if it wasn’t used by the church then it isn’t authentic in that way, although it may be an interesting curio. Also the timing is important, usually gnostic texts were written later although there are some that may have been written earlier like the gospel of Thomas (which includes some troubling writings about women that those who don’t accept the received cannon have fun wrestling with [quite humorous]. I am very interested in the writings that influenced scripture which includes pagan poets, philosophy, and the general culture of the Mediterranean. But often scholars like these over play the significance. Of course the most important influence on the Bible is the general Jewish culture that the NT was born from. The good old second temple Judaism.

[@toughsoul100]

From Tony Burke: No, there are no references to the text in any period, so it also does not appear in the debates of the church counsels (though, mind you, this is not a "gospel" but a letter discussing a variant form of a gospel). By "authentic" we mean that it is NOT a modern forgery--though there is debate about when it was actually composed (by Clement? by someone else?).

[@notanemoprog]

It's a forgery.

[@lovedbythestars9609]

Which arguments in the video do you feel support your conclusion?

[@notanemoprog]

@@lovedbythestars9609 Well of course that a video which argues for it being the genuine artifact will not present the numerous arguments for it being a forgery. Google around a bit and you'll see.

[@lovedbythestars9609]

@@notanemoprog He did present some arguments for it being a forgery. He didn't accept them and he said why. I don't accept the 'Google it and you'll see' argument. Maybe you should watch the video.

[@edelgyn2699]

@@lovedbythestars9609 I think many people will continue to keep an open mind on this until more is known. Whether it's a forgery or not, the contents of the text are worth comparing with 'accepted' gospels.