JoeWallack wrote: ↑Mon Mar 18, 2024 7:16 pm
While I've got you on the line, I consider you to be the best poster here, after KK (meant as a compliment).
Just some examples of attempts I have made with Agamemnon Tselikas to "find" the document at the Jerusalem Patriarchate. I can't go through all of them. They date back to 2000. But some examples of the unfettered access to documents in Jerusalem Patriarchate are illustrated.
February 12, 2015 "Memos" (diminutive of Agamemnon) has searched one section of the (Patriarchate) library. He has not found it. Harry"
Mar 8, 2015, 12:48 PM
Hi Stephan,
I have read all you yesterdays mails. I intend to meet Memos in the next few days to check and compare the Library catalogue with your notes.
I had a quick look at the St. Saba catalogue but there was no mention of the inscription you refer. Memos was in Jerusalem a month ago, I do not know when he will be back.
But let me meet him again and I will let you know. Memos is definitely willing to help...if he is in Jerusalem what you want is very simple.
Best wishes,
Harry
July 4, 2015
Dear Stephan,
This is just to say that Memos is now in Jerusalem and that he will look once again into the possibility of tracing the "lost document".
Will keep you updated.
Best wishes,
Harry
August 8, 2015
Hi Stephan,
Yes, Memos met the Archbishop of Gerash but I understand that he had nothing new to offer.
I am so sorry that there is nothing positive in this last communication with Memo.
Best wishes,
Harry
August 15, 2015
Hi Stephan,
I am sorry hearing that your mother has been sick; hope she will soon be well.
I wondered why I had no reaction from you after my last two mails. So let me repeat the update.
Memos stayed at the Jerusalem Patriarchal Library for much longer than originally planned and in fact had also a stay at St. Catherine Monastery Library before returning Athens.
He thoroughly checked a number of boxes with documents and manuscripts that had not been filed, but much to his regret the "lost pages" did not appear. In Memos words it was in those boxes with unfiled documents that he had some hope. But NOTHING!
So as Memos has said earlier: There is a possibility that by neglect the "Lost pages" have been wrongly filed in an irrelevant file...they can then only by found by chance!! Or purposely someone has hidden the document or has destroyed it or has taken it out of the Library.
I am sorry, as Memos is, of the unsuccessful attempt.
With kind regards,
Harry
Oct 16 2016
Dear Stephan,
As usual Memos has been traveling extensively and between a trip to Jerusalem and another to Constantinople I had the opportunity to speak over the telephone asking about the pertinent manuscript. Memos said that he will communicate with you and send some bibliographical notes. He also said that in principle all those documents are written by scribes and the patriarchs and other religious leaders just sign. In fact he said that often they do not even personally sign documents of lesser importance and often they are signed by secretaries.
I am attaching an article that may be of interest to you as the known Alexandrian forger Simonidis is extensively mentioned.
With kind regards,
Harry
March 21 2017
Good morning Stephan,
I had the opportunity of reading your article and would like to warmly congratulate you for the excellent work. It is quite a thrilling story and you have related all its aspects. Memos has been traveling regularly to Chalki, near Constantinople, as he is working on the Ecumenical Patriarchal archives. He checked for father Dourvas but it seams that no one knows of his whereabouts. I expect to hear more at the end of this week from another source.
By the way have you ever come across any manuscript related to the Notaras family? Loukas Notaras was the "Prime Minister" of Constantin Palaiologos, the last emperor of Byzantium and after the fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans some members of the Notaras family left for Venice including Anna Notaraina-Paliologina, while others returned to their original fatherland Trikala in Corinthia.
With all good wishes,
Harry
As I have noted before. This is not "A paleographer." Tselikas is THE paleographer, with offices in every Patriarchate library that I know of. With unfettered access to all the documents. He doesn't make "requests" to see manuscripts. They are for all intents and purposes (until he loses the favor of these monks) HIS documents.
My point in posting this was not that Tselikas proved that Morton Smith forged it. I certainly accept he does not prove that.
My point is that Tselikas examined the Letter to Theodore an concluded it was not copied by an 18th century scribe, but by someone trying to imitate the hand of an 18th century scribe. (It's copied into a book printed in 1646 - no one was arguing it goes back earlier than that).
I was making the point that, despite the fact that Tselikas is indeed an expert in Greek paleography, his opinion is disputable. Indeed, some have disputed it and argued that it is indeed written in an 18th century hand.
Best,
Ken
JW:
Well you did highlight the part about AT's conclusion that MS was the forger but in light of PK's New Neil Godfree inspired rule to always give the benefit of the doubt, maybe your source was a used book that already had the yellow highlights. Seriously, regarding what Ken Olson meant, I always accept that Ken Olson is the best interpreter of what Ken Olson meant, alive or dead, just as I accept that MS was the best interpreter of what MS meant.
While I've got you on the line, I consider you to be the best poster here, after KK (meant as a compliment). Us uncredentialed types really appreciate your contributions.
Joseph
Joe,
I highlighted the points about Tselikas's conclusions to draw attention to the question of whether we need to accept Tselikas' conclusions as authoritative or not. Is his opinion on matters of Greek palaeography authoritative or is his opinion one opinion which we should consider among others?
The paleography is of mixed types and dates, according to a most [notable?] expert Greek paleographer
.
That's not a proof. Tselikas has his opinion. Apparently you agree that it is unusual that spelling mistakes come up in the transcription of ancient documents. I don't share that view. Nor do I believe that Morton Smith gathered photos of the three manuscripts Tselikas claim 'make up' the handwriting found in the document. I don't know of anyone who shares Tselikas's assessment. I've even heard some Byzantine experts (one in Austria immediately comes to mind) who laughed out loud at the suggestion. I can bring forward a dozen Greek Byzantine experts who say the handwriting is 17th or 18th century. Tselikas offers a dissenting view. There is always diversity in scholarship.
But according to Secret Alias 2024:
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sun Mar 17, 2024 5:58 pm
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.
So you see, opinions differ; one person thinks one thing and the same person thinks another.
Think of what you are saying. Think of what you are doing. Is it in keeping with seeking after the truth? So no one can be enlightened. No one can be improved. We're all "locked into opinions." Once we come down on one side we can't see things clearer?
So you see, opinions differ; one person thinks one thing and the same person thinks another.
Wow. So it's not possible for someone to think something one day about the TF and come across one of your articles on the subject and change their mind. What a dark vision of humanity and reason.
I literally have 1000+ emails with Tselikas through our translator. No joke. We have debated these matters over and over and over again. Because Tselikas is such a human being, a mensch, he wastes his time talking to me. In the end, he showed me the iota, he demonstrated his case and I agreed with him.
Now let's look at the other side of the coin. You now admit that the iota is possible but strangely you haven't recalibrated the probabilities regarding the Duke conspiracy theory. Sabar spends 4 years digging through the dirt and finds no homosexual acts, no homosexual relationships for Morton Smith. Tselikas's expertise makes it very likely the letter does not reference Jesus as a homosexual or exclusive homosexual unions between the Carpocratians (the statement by Clement can be taken both ways). So what are you left with? Dogma. You have dogmatic certainty in the Duke University efforts to discredit a dead man through personal attacks. The real question is, why haven't you been convinced to abandon your certainly in light of the evidence that emerged through the ongoing discussions between Tselikas and myself?
Last edited by Secret Alias on Wed Mar 20, 2024 5:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 5:27 am
Think of what you are saying. Think of what you are doing. Is it in keeping with seeking after the truth?
Yes, of course it is.
I'd ask you to ask yourself the same question, but from previous experience I know you lack the self-awareness to see the problems in your claims. You set a completely different standard for other people to meet that you do not meet yourself.
It's always personal with you guys. Morton Smith is a "bad guy." I'm a bad guy. The people at Duke are "good guys." "Believe us." It's as simple as that.
The idea that ongoing discussions between two people, one an expert the other a novice, couldn't lead to the expert to convince the novice to abandon a position goes counter to the whole purpose of higher education. But let's bring in people who don't like me, like KK, to appeal to the emotions of the audience of the forum. That's what really matters. Personal animus? Isn't that right Ken? Our hatred for Morton Smith, should win out of Tselikas's expertise.
They "get it" and that's all that matters. Stephan is a "bad guy." Focus on that people. Don't focus on the fact that the world's leading and only expert on this type of writing just disproved or at least irrevocably hobbled the probability behind the Duke University conspiracy regarding Morton Smith. Keep it personal, people. Keeping it personal is the key. Who needs evidence? Look at this guy. He's "obsessed" about Morton Smith. He's defending a bad guy because he's a bad guy. He has no objectivity. Trust us at Duke. The fact that many of us are aligned with evangelicals shouldn't sway you. Our war against Morton Smith isn't "gay bashing." No no no. It's just so happens that using homosexuality to debunk one of the clearest witnesses for gospels outside the canonical set is a necessary tactic. You see when one of us "brilliant scholars" claimed that there was a forger's tremor and that was debunked by a demonstration that this Duke alumni and "evangelical textual critic" used low quality blank and white images, we remained silent. We know Morton Smith was guilty. It doesn't matter how we get there. The arguments are just formalities. The text is a fake. Morton Smith is a fag. How we connect the dots doesn't matter. The ends justify the means. Isn't that right Ken?
If we trust the published (by BAR) words of Agamemnon Tselikas, rather than hearsay, he stated that the writing in the 1646 Voss book was a modern imitation of older writing, probably done by Morton Smith or an accomplice of Smith, and Smith brought the Voss book (presumably already inscribed) to Mar Saba.
Even expert opinions are sometimes mistaken, or partly mistaken, but these views seem plausible to me.
Scholars (from different countries) conclude that the Letter was not written by Clement.
The Letter has no known provenance before 1958/1960.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed Mar 20, 2024 5:41 am
The idea that ongoing discussions between two people, one an expert the other a novice, couldn't lead to the expert to convince the novice to abandon a position goes counter to the whole purpose of higher education. But let's bring in people who don't like me, like KK, to appeal to the emotions of the audience of the forum. That's what really matters. Personal animus? Isn't that right Ken? Our hatred for Morton Smith, should win out of Tselikas's expertise.
Do you realize that when you write posts on Mark Goodacre like these:
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 9:51 pm
In photos at least it looks like he went to Kazakhstan for plastic surgery. I would find it distracting looking at that face.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Sat Mar 16, 2024 9:54 pm
And that voice. It's like an episode of the Bionic Woman where the fembots decided to manufacture a male robot to rule over them. Its like he was built in a laboratory. Everyone in this field is so fucking weird.
the people who read them may well not find you credible when you claim it's the other people who are motivated by personal animus?
Actually, I think you may not realize that. But it's true.
