Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Not authentically dated to 18th-century is what he concluded.
Rather, later, he concluded.
Misrepresenting that is no contribution to learning.
But deflection.

Incorrect.

I could review his report, with some pros and cons,
but, if one does not first allow that he knows Greek paleography dating
better than anyone here
better, likely, than anyone else alive today
that's a deflection.

The question shows a lack of understanding of the OP. The main, and widely-recognized, paleographic matter is dating! Not, in this one matter, whodunnit. (Did person X have an accomplice, blah, blah, blah--different question.) If A. T. was speculating about some different matters--maybe so--that is ...

Why attempt to deflect? Many readers--even you S. A.!, previously and repeatedly!-- know that A. T. has extraordinary expertise in Greek paleography. Paleography has to do with dating handwriting. Graphologists address a different subject, whether well or not. He did that dating, in detail, writing,...

Agamemnon Tselikas wrote that "...it is an imitation of an older script."

His full report report is available here:
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... is-report/

There are various definitions of forgery, fake, fraud, hoax, falsification and so on, and there may have been occasional confusion about some of these. For example, the question (A) of whether Clement originally wrote the "Letter to Theodore" is a different question than (B) when the handw...

Peter, I already mentioned the publication of such a memory--if it existed--could have been of any date previous to his vaguely-stated remark. You can say not yet "tracked down the origin." I can say maybe his memory was faulty. I welcome you or any other yet-additional people search for s...

I am not shutting down the question, Peter.
Look for such a mention. Feel free. By all means.
What I did write was that in my opinion finding such is unlikely because many people for many years have looked for it, didn't find that, and that such likely-suspect publications are limited.

What I mean by "no such thing" is the lack of any cited published mention of a 16th- or 17th-century witness* to the "Letter to Theodore" and/or "Secret Mark."

*or earlier [added]