You assume something innate, here. By analogy: Would you say someone 'being a woman' would lead them to misread something? A 'feminist perspective' might be identified in a female (or male) writer; that isn't the same thing as the writer/scholar's gender.This should be taken seriously as a possibility.Smith's homosexuality led him to him to misread the letter.
I suppose this scholar's odd and complicated homosexualist agenda (i.e. queering Jesus, to snub Christianity), by constrast to his purported identity. Again: I don't know Smith was a homosexual -- I don't know what was 'innate' in Smith (per your "serious" suggestion.) otoh, he definitely had a grandiose and narcissistic agenda!
And that's where our insight lies: Smith's underlying mental state, not his assumed 'sexual category'.
I've wondered IF M. Smith encountered a forger, and paid for a page executed on old parchment. I doubt that would have been so expensive, particularly if Smith provided the text. Given a recent scandal, we'd be foolish to ignore that distinct possibility.
Statistics: Posted by billd89 — Wed Mar 13, 2024 3:58 pm