For instance, everyone acknowledges the writing style of the letter bears a strong resemblance to the known writings of Clement of Alexandria. The proponents of the forgery hypothesis, however, argue a skilled forger could reproduce Clement’s style by merely patching words and sentences together from Clement’s other writings, or Stahlin's compendium of Clement’s word choices. I happen to think this is crazy. I don't think if we dropped all the parts of a deconstructed Ferrari in front of Michael Schumacher he could, on his own, assemble a competitive vehicle for Formula One. But it is the kind of argument which works, in the study of early Christianity at least, because it can't be readily be disproved.
The same sort of empty "thought experiments" or mind games can be put forward with respect to how the falsified manuscript got placed in the monastic library at Mar Saba, how Morton Smith "invented" its eighteenth century handwriting and the like.
But if we really believe the discovery is a forgery then all the Clementine characteristics of the letter should be able to be similarly explained as "things Morton Smith copied from previously known testimonies of Clement." The Letter of Theodore portrays and Alexandrian interest in the Gospel of Mark because Morton Smith learned about this preference for Mark from another writing of Clement, Quis Dives Salvetur.
Here's the problem. The Letter to Theodore spends a great deal of time referencing St Mark's coming to Alexandria as well as his ultimate death in the same locale. Morton Smith got all of that from Clement’s known writings right? Nope. Smith says unequivocally that these details are not found in Clement even though we know, and Zahn knows and von Harnack knows (but Smith did not) that Clement references them in the Hypotyposeis.
How is that to be properly explained?
The first explanation, the simplest and obviously correct one, is that the reason why both the Letter to Theodore and the Hypotyposeis say that Mark brought Christianity to Alexandria ultimately dying there is because they were both written by Clement. Morton Smith didn't know about the Hypotyposeis reference so he is forced to entertain the possibility, raised by Johannes Munck, that the reference to Mark in Alexandria dates the letter to after Eusebius.
But Smith clearly does everything he can to resist this conclusion. He argues, without proof, that Eusebius likely drew on Clement in his section in Church History dealing with Mark’s coming to Alexandria. But the Hypotyposeis already proves that. Morton Smith just doesn't know this.
So the forgery hypothesis would have us believe that the best explanation of Mark's coming and dying in Alexandria in to Theodore is that Morton Smith introduced a historical detail he "knew" wasn't Clementine in order to lend credence to the idea that he had discovered a forgery?
No that is not the best explanation here. The best explanation is that Clement is the author of the Letter to Theodore.
