are these supposed to be sound arguments?

[Peter Kirby]

IMO
By now it's been shown that the Letter was not by Clement.
The Landau/G. Smith book failed to offer a plausible 4th-8th c. setting, because it is anomalous for then, as noted in my amazon review.
Landau/G. Smith did not even seriously consider a later creation.
Ariel Sabar has given (Atlantic, April) relevant biographical information for his turn against religion and academic disappointments.
His Harvard senior thesis shows interest in bitter humor of J. Swift (not to be confused with T. Swift).
"Manufactured in the United States" on his copy.
Peter Jeffrey has given examples of MS as unreliable narrator, such as page 10, forgetting he didn't go to vespers but saying he did.
Those he most respected--Scholem, Nock, Liberman--did not defend Secret Mark.
The 1973 book dedications.
Tselikas' expertise of an imitation of earlier text, an imitation that could have been any time until 1958.
MS was a visual artist: sketchbook of Mar Saba.
He was capable: motive, means, opportunity.
Prof. T. Gaster on MS as like a little boy who wished to write curse words all over the altar in church, and then get caught.
MS got early liturgy wrong.
If a monk wanted to record "Clement" why not do it instead in the Clement edition owned in Mar Saba?
Why go to Mar Saba for rare items, when they were moved to Jerusalem?
Why not check Jerusalem after?
Why hide this from monks, dribbling out the story later?
The Voss Amsterdam book--with ownership marks stripped away-- has no known mention of being at Mar Saba in any year from 1646 to 1958, whatsoever.

Do you believe that any of these statements represent a sound argument for your opinion on the authorship of the document?

If so, which and why?

[StephenGoranson]

I notice that you, Mr. Kirby, ask if "any of these" be sound.
Whereas, need I repeat, these are cumulative, and not comprehensive (because there are even other) indications--some stronger than others admittedly--, or, at least they were presented by me as such.
I recognize that maybe you, and maybe some others here, might a priori prefer arguments counter to some Christian claims, as you may be free to presuppose preference to one or another apocryphon.
As for what is "sound," may I be allowed to remind you, that in the case of such a sketchy, anomalous, unproven, untested, claim that "Secret Mark" is (in some respect(s) that you have not here specified)--genuine,
the onus of proof for such is on you?

[Secret Alias]

Irrational.

[Peter Kirby]

I notice that you, Mr. Kirby, ask if "any of these" be sound.
Whereas, need I repeat, these are cumulative, and not comprehensive (because there are even other) indications--some stronger than others admittedly--, or, at least they were presented by me as such.
I recognize that maybe you, and maybe some others here, might a priori prefer arguments counter to some Christian claims, as you may be free to presuppose preference to one or another apocryphon.
As for what is "sound," may I be allowed to remind you, that in the case of such a sketchy, anomalous, unproven, untested, claim that "Secret Mark" is (in some respect(s) that you have not here specified)--genuine,
the onus of proof for such is on you?

Are you unwilling to defend anything you've written as if it presented a sound argument for your opinion?

[StephenGoranson]

These ARE sound arguments, imo.

[StephenGoranson]

18 or so arguments.

[Peter Kirby]

These ARE sound arguments, imo.

18 or so arguments.

If you have 18 or so sound arguments, surely you can try to defend at least one?

[Peter Kirby]

Again, do you believe that any of these statements represent a sound argument for your opinion on the authorship of the document? If so, which and why?

[StephenGoranson]

I defend them all.
Was it this one that offended you:
"Tselikas' expertise of an imitation of earlier text, an imitation that could have been any time until 1958."?
Absolutely, an imitation can have occured in the 1950s.

[StephenGoranson]

The authorship is more consonant with Smith than Clement.