The dissertation is available to read online:
https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/han ... sAllowed=y
https://www.academia.edu/40126874/A_Stu ... el_of_Mark
The dissertation is mostly about the methodological assumptions behind the claims made for forgery by several 21st century scholars: on the topics of 'literary, derivative relationship', 'concealed authorial indicator', and 'jokes'. While not entirely dismissing this kind of approach as not rightly belonging to the category of evidence, Panaanen shows that as practiced it would obviously result in false positives, demonstrating this through parallels with other cases that are similarly argued but not accepted as using scholarly methods or coming to appropriate conclusions. He maintains that these types of claims are quite inadequate to the task of uncovering actual evidence relevant to the authorship of the document, unless replaced with more unambiguous criteria for detecting such features. Panaanen also notes that the claim of cumulative gathering of such invalid clues is a trope of pseudo-scholarship.
His point could be accepted by anyone who is unsatisfied with the loose and woolly bundles of speculation that have been offered, including those who prefer to suspend judgment or consider it not to be authentic but do so while declining to accept unsound arguments.
https://helda.helsinki.fi/bitstream/han ... sAllowed=y
https://www.academia.edu/40126874/A_Stu ... el_of_Mark
The dissertation is mostly about the methodological assumptions behind the claims made for forgery by several 21st century scholars: on the topics of 'literary, derivative relationship', 'concealed authorial indicator', and 'jokes'. While not entirely dismissing this kind of approach as not rightly belonging to the category of evidence, Panaanen shows that as practiced it would obviously result in false positives, demonstrating this through parallels with other cases that are similarly argued but not accepted as using scholarly methods or coming to appropriate conclusions. He maintains that these types of claims are quite inadequate to the task of uncovering actual evidence relevant to the authorship of the document, unless replaced with more unambiguous criteria for detecting such features. Panaanen also notes that the claim of cumulative gathering of such invalid clues is a trope of pseudo-scholarship.
His point could be accepted by anyone who is unsatisfied with the loose and woolly bundles of speculation that have been offered, including those who prefer to suspend judgment or consider it not to be authentic but do so while declining to accept unsound arguments.
Statistics: Posted by Peter Kirby — Thu Apr 25, 2024 10:14 pm