Critiquing Carlson, part 4: Too Clementine to be True?

I largely though only provisionally accept the bulk of Andrew Criddle's vocabulary work on To Theodore. Please see here

http://pubs.amstat.org/doi/pdf/10.1198/tast.2009.08163?cookieSet=1

[Solow & Smith, 2009]

for a partial vindication of Criddle's work, but also a partial critique of the methods he uses, in section 2 and section 6 of the Solow & Smith article. Perhaps I will be able to address these concerns in more detail at a later time.

In any case, even if Criddle's statistics are in any way valid, an early third-century imitator (or even simply a student of Clement's) is a perfectly reasonable explanation for all this. For that matter, Carlson tries to argue (p. 53) that because the manuscript tradition for Clement was so fragmentary, there is no way a forger could have lived prior to the printing era; but of course, this also pushes the timeframe for a forger closer to the time of Clement himself--precisely the time that the Origenist school flourished.