Do you believe that any of these statements represent a sound argument for your opinion on the authorship of the document?StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Sun Apr 21, 2024 4:53 am 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.
If so, which and why?