I've now read the book.

I must say that I am disappointed with the book. Perhaps this was my fault,
because I expected, based on the early advertisements, some groundbreaking
discovery by Carlson.
What I found in the book, though, is an accumulation of mini-arguments against
the genuineness of the Clement letter. Carlson approaches the case as a good
lawyer, representing the prosecution. Without strong, convincing arguments he
does what a good lawyer has to do. He collects as many mini-arguments of all
kinds and on all possible aspects of the case as possible. He's doing his job
well and on cursory reading everything sounds quite convincing.

One general problem I have with the book is that it does not approach the case
in a scientific way. It is extremely one-sided. It only tries to prove a hoax.
But in the scientific world one has to evaluate both sides of the story
unprejudiced. Popper's falsifiability immediately comes to mind. Carlson is not
even trying to do that. The law suit, too, has the defense.

Many of his mini-arguments I found not really convincing.

If Secret Mark was a joke, it was a very bad one. It's been said that Smith
created the document to show that the theological guild is unable to recognize
it as a hoax. Exactly that's the case. One is unable. But not because one is
dumb and ignorant, but because the evidence is insufficient.

To conclude, I have to say that I'm not convinced. This package of
mini-arguments is not very strong. Some arguments are quite far-fetched. Clearly
if you are eagerly following your pet theory, you will see all kinds of things,
that are actually nothing.
The book makes an interesting read. It is especially useful for its many
references. It has some good points, but it's not "a scholarly bombshell" and
not "utterly convincing".

I am not promoting genuineness. I just don't know what to make of it, for me
it's a 50/50 case. A hoax is possible, also along the lines of Carlson, but it's
still equally possible that it is a genuine document. Perhaps Carlson is
correct, but we have no prove.

I already know what will happen. Many theologians will accept the thesis of this
book, happy to get rid of the problem. But it will not go away, unless we will
find the real thing and subject it to a scientific analysis.

For me as a scientist it is rather funny to see the theologians lamenting over
the document and writing and writing without actually go out for the physical
object. It's telling.
Someone wrote: "I don't think there will be many defenders of Clement's letter
after Carlson's book becomes widely read. If there are, there's a big problem in
academia."
Exactly the opposite is true.

PS: I know Carlson as a very intelligent man. In his role as lawyer I could
imagine him saying to his wife: "I can do it. I can write a book to fool, errrh,
convince everyone."
I'm now expecting his next book on defense. Will give a good laugh, Stephen!



Best wishes
Wieland
<><
------------------------------------------------
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany
mailto:willker@...
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie
Textcritical commentary:
http://www.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html