Could you clarify please ?Since it's not 1950 and we're not in kindergarten, let's put away these ad hom arguments. They are beneath the dignity of academic professionals, and --more to the point--ad hom is a fallacious form of argument. They prove nothing.
Smith saw the actual document. Agamemnon Tselikas saw photographs. Is it really so hard to believe they saw two different things?
Smith is dead, the book was mutilated, the document has disappeared. All we have available to us are photographs with no clear chain of custody, which have been very badly digitized, full of all kinds of noisy artifacts of compression, etc. How can *anybody* have *any* strong opinions on its authenticity?
Are you suggesting that the photographs published by Morton Smith are photographs of a different document than the document photographed years later to produce the photographs examined by Agamemnon Tselikas ?
Andrew Criddle
Statistics: Posted by andrewcriddle — Mon May 06, 2024 12:37 am