Once upon a time, a translation of the Letter to Theodore made by a non-expert paleographer (Morton Smith) took it for granted that the letter had Clement speak of the Carpocratians referencing them mentioning "naked man with naked man" in relation to Secret Mark. Now after citing Tselikas in another thread he has spoken of the need to have expert paleographers enter the discussion. The image he was commenting upon was developed with Tselikas via email for an upcoming article I have finished on Secret Mark. A few days ago Tselikas was for Ken "A (i.e. one of many) Greek paleographers." I have repeated mentioned that Tselikas is in a league of his own. Every Greek paleographer defers to his judgement on virtually everything. He's like God of the paleographers. Almost not joking about that.
But what gets me more annoyed is the way they conspiracy theorists never change their calculations of probability.
Once upon a time, the debate about authenticity simply assumed that the text read as Smith claims it read. Now Ken admits maybe it's iota/maybe its sigma. Well sure that has an effect on probability.
Ken also takes for granted that Morton Smith is a homosexual. Sure a homosexual is a practicing homosexual, someone who has an actual homosexual relationship. Sabar fails to demonstrate that after a year of meticulous research looking for such evidence.
Surely even by Ken's standards the probability for this conspiracy theory actually being true has radically diminished.
Maybe, says Ken the text references Jesus having a homosexual relationship.
Maybe, Morton Smith had a homosexual relationship.
Maybe, maybe, maybe does not equal high probability. It simply can't. These people are jokes. No better than butchers, carpenters and pet groomers in terms of their objectivity.
They pretend Carlson's book "settled" the question. The case was "iron clad." With no expert paleographic opinion!
But what gets me more annoyed is the way they conspiracy theorists never change their calculations of probability.
Once upon a time, the debate about authenticity simply assumed that the text read as Smith claims it read. Now Ken admits maybe it's iota/maybe its sigma. Well sure that has an effect on probability.
Ken also takes for granted that Morton Smith is a homosexual. Sure a homosexual is a practicing homosexual, someone who has an actual homosexual relationship. Sabar fails to demonstrate that after a year of meticulous research looking for such evidence.
Surely even by Ken's standards the probability for this conspiracy theory actually being true has radically diminished.
Maybe, says Ken the text references Jesus having a homosexual relationship.
Maybe, Morton Smith had a homosexual relationship.
Maybe, maybe, maybe does not equal high probability. It simply can't. These people are jokes. No better than butchers, carpenters and pet groomers in terms of their objectivity.
They pretend Carlson's book "settled" the question. The case was "iron clad." With no expert paleographic opinion!
Statistics: Posted by Secret Alias — Sun Mar 17, 2024 5:58 pm