I was thinking about this earlier this evening.

Since Stephen C. Carlson (in his recent book) has seriously called into question the authenticity of Secret Mark (see Carlson's Hypotyposeis blog both here and here) does this mean that we should begin to include Secret Mark in lists of falsely-attributed writings? It is surely a late example (from the mid-20th century) but Carlson's case is strong. That is, Clement of Alexandria likely didn't write it. Morton Smith likely did. It is therefore a "falsely attributed writing". Right?

If not, then what are the formal criteria for considering something "pseudepigraphal"? Is there a particular era in which it must have been produced? a particular religious perspective (Jewish and/or Christian)?

Just curious. Don't mind me. Move along, there's nothing to see here ...