are these supposed to be sound arguments?

[StephenGoranson]

Smith was a Christianity lover, then a Christianity hater.
Sure, I defend that statement.
Why misrepresent my position?

[Peter Kirby]

These ARE sound arguments, imo.

I defend them all.

Ariel Sabar has given (Atlantic, April) relevant biographical information for his turn against religion and academic disappointments.

Why do you believe that this is a sound argument for your opinion on the authorship of the document?

His Harvard senior thesis shows interest in bitter humor of J. Swift (not to be confused with T. Swift).

Why do you believe that this is a sound argument for your opinion on the authorship of the document?

"Manufactured in the United States" on his copy.

Why do you believe that this is a sound argument for your opinion on the authorship of the document?

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.

Why do you believe that this is a sound argument for your opinion on the authorship of the document?

Those he most respected--Scholem, Nock, Liberman--did not defend Secret Mark.

Why do you believe that this is a sound argument for your opinion on the authorship of the document?

The 1973 book dedications.

Why do you believe that this is a sound argument for your opinion on the authorship of the document?

MS was a visual artist: sketchbook of Mar Saba.

Why do you believe that this is a sound argument for your opinion on the authorship of the document?

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.

Why do you believe that this is a sound argument for your opinion on the authorship of the document?

MS got early liturgy wrong.

Why do you believe that this is a sound argument for your opinion on the authorship of the document?

If a monk wanted to record "Clement" why not do it instead in the Clement edition owned in Mar Saba?

Why do you believe that this is a sound argument for your opinion on the authorship of the document?

Why go to Mar Saba for rare items, when they were moved to Jerusalem?

Why do you believe that this is a sound argument for your opinion on the authorship of the document?

Why not check Jerusalem after?

Why do you believe that this is a sound argument for your opinion on the authorship of the document?

Why hide this from monks, dribbling out the story later?

Why do you believe that this is a sound argument for your opinion on the authorship of the document?

[Peter Kirby]

Smith was a Christianity lover, then a Christianity hater.
Sure, I defend that statement.
Why misrepresent my position?

You've represented your own position, SG.

[Peter Kirby]

And, please, don't deflect.

[StephenGoranson]

"If a monk wanted to record "Clement" why not do it instead in the Clement edition owned in Mar Saba?"
I already supported this today.
The 1715 two-volume folio edition of Clement attested at Mar Saba would be a much more plausible place to annotate a Clement addition then in a Voss Ignatius book, that is not attested as being at Mar Saba.

I could expand on others, but you already ignore my cumulative statement and my onus of proof statement, so can we take that one above or do you as owner here require a book length expansion?

[StephenGoranson]

"MS got early liturgy wrong." Wrong for what fit Clement in Egypt.
This, supported from, iirc, Robin Jenson (a Columbia grad, I think), and Peter Jeffrey, an early liturgy specialist, and a colleague prof of Smith's at Columbia.

[StephenGoranson]

Scholem, Nock, Lieberman, Gaster, and at least a couple of his students knew he was capable of this hoax.

[StephenGoranson]

Scholem, Nock, Lieberman, Gaster, and at least a couple of his students knew he was capable of this hoax.

[Peter Kirby]

Scholem, Nock, Lieberman, Gaster, and at least a couple of his students knew he was capable of this hoax.

What exactly did they "know" and how can we verify that this shows that he was "capable of this hoax"?

[Peter Kirby]

"MS got early liturgy wrong." Wrong for what fit Clement in Egypt.
This, supported from, iirc, Robin Jenson (a Columbia grad, I think), and Peter Jeffrey, an early liturgy specialist, and a colleague prof of Smith's at Columbia.

How does this support your opinion of the authorship of the document?