Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

We agree (I guess) that he could well have meant, in effect, cited from an older text in a later publication.
Why I said that was "probably" mistaken is because he, and many others, for many years, have looked and found no such thing.

I agree that the putatively-remembered publication was not dated--but I did not say that it was!
Merely, that it (of any date!) would probably have been brought forward by now.

No evidence Smith told the monks in 1958.
One could call Smith an unreliable narrator.
But: "....secret Gospel of Mark....I couldn't suppress it: I'd already told Scholem...."

If such a 16th- or 17th-century mention in a publication existed, probably someone would have noticed it by now. The Voss book was published in 1646, so any 16th-century (1500s) text could not have been about that volume. Quesnell was not the first to doubt "Secret Mark." E.g., Pierson Par...

"Rediscovered Fragments Shed New Light on a Proto-Masoretic Torah Scroll" Paul Sanders, J. of Hebrew Scriptures v. 35 a.5, 23 pages [2023] During the past decade, two fragments of a single Torah scroll caught much attention, since they date from the 7th or 8th century CE.1 They are among t...

"the whole Greek Orthodox Patriarchate"?

Forgeries happen. I won't retype the evidence now, as you seem set on ignoring such.

Let's see what turns up.
No point speculating about how to evaluate what we have not yet seen.

No one mentioned a "monumental discovery" before 1958.
Your "Surely...within 24 hours....must have....Surely...." does not make those speculations so.

His monk minder saw him bring books from his overnight allotment.