Critiquing Carlson, part 3: A Letter from Clement?

p. 49ff.
Andrew Criddle's vocabulary analysis is perhaps the best evidence that the Mar Saba manuscript is not genuine Clement. Some have cast doubt on the logic of Criddle's argument. I agree that no analysis of the sort that Criddle performed is an airtight case, while at the same time noting that Criddle's results are just the sort of results we might expect if the letter were indeed an imitation of Clement by another author. A case for real information about Secret Mark can still be made if the letter were an ancient forgery, rather than a modern one.



When it comes to the question of forgery itself, however, I don't think it's by any means clear that the letter writer himself is claiming to be Clement. The title "The Most Holy Clement" was obviously added by either the inscriber of the Voss manuscript, or by a compiler of the original letter (and then copied by the inscriber). There is nothing in the letter itself that indicates the author is claiming to be Clement. Therefore any purported sphragis that Murgia and Carlson claim to find (p. 55; see also my discussion below) must be considered hypothetical.

And even if we could demonstrate that the letter writer was claiming to be Clement, I've previously discussed that we need not assume the forgery was of a late date (to the eighteenth century or later). It easily fits into the millieu of the Origenist doctrine of the "noble lie", dating to the decades immediately following Clement, and perhaps even contemporary with him (as Origen was of course a contemporary). What's more, this millieu is an appropriate one for the letter, whether or not it was written as a forgery--in other words, the author of the original letter may well have been an Origenist, writing at the time of Clement or shortly thereafter, whether or not he also claimed to be Clement.

Indeed, perhaps the writer who made the inscription in the Voss manuscript was trying to tell us something--after reading Voss on authentic letters of a church father, and Voss' denunciation of ancient interpolators, the inscriber thought it apt to make a note of a manuscript that discussed ancient interpolations...but maybe he was also trying to express his doubts about its assignment to Clement as an author.