https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jUUB96c6EpY
So AT compared the handwriting to everyone except the only person he should have compared it to, MS, and concluded that a letter which claims to have been written about 2,000 years ago and was relatively recently discovered must have been copied.
Yes , Morton Smith had motivation to publish what he found, but not to forge it. The motivation is people with religious beliefs trying to discredit MS. And regarding the approval of male bonding, so to speak, the odds are exponentially better that there was at least one gay monk at Mar Saba than MS was gay.
The Gospel Hoax Hoax lacks a professional methodology and the conclusion is not supported by the evidence presented. A definite conclusion needs witness evidence and the only witness evidence here is a first hand expert witness who spent a lifetime evidencing innocence, MS.
For the credentialed who gave Carlson positive feedback before he ruined his new career, wouldn't you have been a better friend by pointing out the problems with his book?
Joseph
The New Porphyry
JW:Agamemnon Tselikas’ Handwriting Analysis Report
Did Morton Smith Forge "Secret Mark"?
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... is-report/In his extensive multi-part report, Tselikas explains that the handwriting of the Clement letter doesn’t match that of any other scribe at Mar Saba monastery, where the manuscript was discovered by Morton Smith, and in fact indicates forgery or imitation of 18th-century Greek script. Monastery records show that the book was not in its collection as of 1923, and due to strict supervision in the library, the letter could not have been copied into the book after 1923, so it must have been copied elsewhere and brought to the Mar Saba library later. Tselikas concludes that Smith’s opportunity and motive make him the most likely suspect and that Smith probably forged the letter or had someone else do it for him before bringing the book to Mar Saba.Agamemnon Tselikas’ Summary:
Based on extensive report I sent you on the letter of St. Clement I expose here a summary of my remarks.
I noticed several grammatical errors in the text which we can divide into two categories: Those which are due to the “author” and those which are due to the copyist. The first category concerns syntactic and meaning errors, which St. Clement would not be possible to make. The second category concerns the wrong dictation of some words. This phenomenon is frequent in the Byzantine and post Byzantine manuscripts and we can not give particular importance. However, if the scribe generally appears as an experienced and very careful, some of these mistakes show that he had not sufficient knowledge of the language.
The main palaeographical observation is 1) that a big number of lines of the letters and links are not continuous, fact which means that the hand of the scribe was not moving spontaneously, but carefully and tentatively to maintain the correct shape of the letter. 2) That there are some completely foreign or strange and irregular forms that do not belong to the generally traditional way and rule of Greek writing.Most convincing is that the edition of Ignatius with the letter already written by Morton Smith or by someone else was placed in the library by Morton Smith himself.
Once we prove that the handwriting of the letter is alien to the genuine and traditional Greek, we can accept that it is an imitation of an older script.
A comparison of the handwriting of the Greek letters of Morton Smith with the handwriting of Clement’s letter can not give significant evidence that Morton Smith is the scribe, and this because as imitation, certainly the scribe of the letter would not use his own personal style. Nevertheless, some factors point to Morton Smith. My conclusion is that the letter is product of a forgery and all the evidences suggest that the forger can not be other person than Morton Smith or some other person under his orders. Morton Smith was able to do it. He had the model (the described manuscripts), the appropriate and famous place for the discovery (St. Sabba Monastery), the reason (to become known and significant).
So AT compared the handwriting to everyone except the only person he should have compared it to, MS, and concluded that a letter which claims to have been written about 2,000 years ago and was relatively recently discovered must have been copied.
Yes , Morton Smith had motivation to publish what he found, but not to forge it. The motivation is people with religious beliefs trying to discredit MS. And regarding the approval of male bonding, so to speak, the odds are exponentially better that there was at least one gay monk at Mar Saba than MS was gay.
The Gospel Hoax Hoax lacks a professional methodology and the conclusion is not supported by the evidence presented. A definite conclusion needs witness evidence and the only witness evidence here is a first hand expert witness who spent a lifetime evidencing innocence, MS.
For the credentialed who gave Carlson positive feedback before he ruined his new career, wouldn't you have been a better friend by pointing out the problems with his book?
Joseph
The New Porphyry
Statistics: Posted by JoeWallack — Mon Mar 18, 2024 6:16 pm