Scott Brown's Twelve Enduring Misconceptions About "To Theodore" Misconception #7: The Letter to Theodore Is Too Clementine to Be by Clement

In the ongoing debate over the authorship of the Letter to Theodore attributed to Clement of Alexandria, scholars have raised the argument that the letter exhibits a style and vocabulary excessively reminiscent of Clement himself. This notion challenges the authenticity of the letter, suggesting that it might be a forgery designed to mimic Clement’s writing rather than an authentic work.

Bart Ehrman and David Landry have remarked on the letter’s abundant use of Clement’s characteristic words and phrases, suggesting that it may have been composed by someone well-versed in Clement’s writings or using tools like concordances to emulate his style (Ehrman 2003, Landry 2009). This sentiment is echoed by Carlson, who goes so far as to describe the letter as having a "hyper-Clementine style" (Carlson 2005).

A pivotal study by Andrew H. Criddle in 1995 further fueled this debate. Criddle’s statistical analysis focused on the frequency of words never before used by Clement and those used only once before. His findings led him to postulate a scenario where a forger meticulously assembled rare words and phrases found sporadically in Clement’s authentic works, creating an artificial abundance that diverges from Clement’s usual patterns (Criddle 1995).

However, Scott Brown critiques these interpretations by scrutinizing the methodology and implications of Criddle’s study. Brown argues that focusing solely on Criddle’s statistical findings oversimplifies the complexity of Clement’s style and fails to account for broader linguistic and thematic considerations. He points out that Criddle’s method, as validated by earlier studies on Shakespearean authorship, proved unreliable in definitively attributing authorship based solely on the frequency of uncommon words (Thisted and Efron 1987).

Moreover, Brown highlights Allan Pantuck’s observation that applying Criddle’s method to Shakespearean texts would incorrectly exclude some of Shakespeare’s undisputed works, casting doubt on its applicability to ancient texts like the Letter to Theodore (Pantuck, personal communication). This critique underscores the caution needed when using statistical analyses to determine authorship, especially in the absence of comprehensive linguistic and contextual analyses.

In essence, Brown challenges the prevailing view that the letter’s style is too Clementine to be genuinely authored by Clement of Alexandria. He advocates for a nuanced approach that considers not only statistical metrics but also the broader context of Clement’s literary legacy and the thematic coherence of the letter itself.

For further insights into Scott Brown’s critique of early Christian texts and their interpretations, explore his detailed study here: Scott Brown's Paper on "To Theodore".

Stay tuned for more discussions on Scott Brown's critique of enduring misconceptions surrounding the Letter to Theodore in our ongoing series.

---

Join us as we continue to explore Scott Brown's critique of misconceptions surrounding the Letter to Theodore attributed to Clement of Alexandria. Delve deeper into the nuances of authorship attribution and the complexities of ancient textual analysis in our ongoing series.