One argument that I made against Clementine authorship years ago has (rightly or wrongly) been little noticed.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed Aug 10, 2022 7:10 amThe Trump "I hear" argument. No it is not 'established.' How can something "too Clementine to be Clement" at once be "obviously" not by Clement. There's just this insane will for certainty. There's no certainty here. The fact that I published a paper or so and so published a paper does little to move the move the needle either way. We investigate to uncover suggestive evidence. But everyone is free (and does) interpret that suggestive evidence in light of previous biases.That the "Letter" was not written by Clement, imo, is by now rather well established.
My position is. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck it's probably a duck. I recognize that there are circumstances where this 'simple' understanding does not hold true. I don't see any evidence that this is not what it appears to be but am open to any reasonable arguments.
But that experts on Clement of Alexandria have recognized it to be Clementine is enough to make it 'likely' or 'possible' or 'suggestive' that it was by Clement.
http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2009/11/ ... texts.html
I argued that the letter attributed to Clement involves Neoplatonic ideas about mystical texts (as distinct from mystical readings of texts) that postdate Clement.
Andrew Criddle