Again for those who aren't aware of the complexity of the problem here. To Theodore is:
1. a letter written from Clement to a certain Theodore
2. which quotes a 'lost' passage from Mark's gospel (even two passages)
As a forgery the text:
1. is a forged ancient letter
2. is a forged specimen of the writings of Clement of Alexandria
3. is a forged specimen of the writings of the evangelist Mark
1. the letter looks ancient and behaves and functions as an epistle in antiquity (no obvious signs of forgery)
2. the writing exhibits strong characteristics of Clement's writing style (no obvious signs of forgery)
3. the citation of Mark behaves and appears as other passages from Mark's gospel (i.e. the chiastic structure https://www.andrews.edu/~rickyr/ntc00.html
When people say the chiastic structure of Mark's passages was generally known in the period, that's not exactly correct. Was Smith aware of the emerging research into Mark's chiastic writing habits? Maybe (but then he was 'faking' ignorance as Koester 'taught' or revealed it to him in the 1960s http://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-arch ... ew/35/6/23
). Did Smith know that there were lacunae in Mark from previous or existing research into Mark? Again, how widespread was this research? It's an interesting question.
The point would be of course - Smith might have had a 'secret hobby' studying - but never publishing - any of his 'research' into the 'architecture' of the gospel of Mark. He might have labored in his hidden laboratory uncovering 'hidden details' not known to the rest of the world, but were the apparent 'lacunae' - which now manifest themselves AFTER the discovery of the 'secret gospel' - yet another of his 'hidden fruit' from his apparent 'secret obsession with Mark. Smith was not an expert on Markan composition.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote