Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Just saying there are possibilities.

It's like diploma writing. The diploma comes from 2024 but is made to look like 17rh century. It's not a fake. It's ceremonial.

But not his everyday handwriting. They aren't in a time capsule.

Really? A monk living in the 20th century trying to preserve a manuscript from a Church Father would use a modern script to do so? How do we know that. Maybe it's deliberately archaic and thus anachronistic. Like a diploma. https://www.printmag.com/designer-interviews/why-do-all-diplomas-use-blackle...

You know when my maids come in to clean the house and I can't find something my immediate reaction is "those fucking maids threw out my ______." I am wrong 99% of the time. But that's what you're doing and that's what I think Tselikas was doing.

Why does it have to be Morton Smith? Why do you always attempt to create a false binary choice?

Why can't it be Seraphim?

But again if Seraphim's handwriting matches the handwriting of the letter does that prove that it is a fake? And let's suppose, if we are going into more speculation, that Tselikas knows that Seraphim's handwriting looks like the letter. Is he likely going to impugn the reputation of someone that is...

But again. The Greek Orthodox Church on some level accepted the text and the book had always been in the monastery (or at least been there before Morton Smith's discovery) when they created that certificate of authenticity. They could be wrong. They could have mistakenly believed the book was there ...

SA, for clarity, Smith's Greek text is a "transcription" and an error there would be transcribed incorrectly.

Which is a somewhat more relevant point than just saying mistranslated.

Yes.