On Sunday 15 June 2008, Chris Doss wrote:
> I was wondering about that. The introduction denies it's a fabrication,
> for what that's worth. Who is the supposed author?
I don't think anyone knows. My impression was they proved through anachronisms that it couldn't have been written in his time and had to have been written later. But maybe scholarship has changed and your intro is right. Does it cite any sources?
Michael