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

An Interview with Dr. Tony Burke
If the Secret Gospel of Mark turns out to be authentic, it could provide important insights into early Christian thought and practices. Popular theory claims it is mere forgery, however, created and circulated due to pro-homosexual motives. Professor Tony Burke explains the origin of the text, its content, the basis for the doubt, and the reasons for his own support of the theory of authenticity. He sees a more mystical interpretation than an erotic one.
Dr. Tony Burke is a Professor in the Department of the Humanities at York University in Toronto, where he focuses on the study of Christian biographical literature of the second century, children and the family in Roman antiquity, and extracanonical Jewish and Christian writings. His special interest is the Infancy Gospel of Thomas, and hs book, The Infancy Gospel of Thomas in the Syriac Tradition won the 2018 Frank W. Beare Award for outstanding book in the area of Christian Origins.
Tony is the co-founder of the North American Society for the Study of Christian Apocryphal Literature (NASSCAL), and he is editor of Volumes 1, 2, and 3 of the series New Testament Apocrypha: More Noncanonical Scriptures. It is a collection of little-known and never-before-published texts in English translation.
Access a complete summary of this podcast on the Early Christian Texts website. earlychristian...

[@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.