Re: Jacob Neusner RIP
Posted: Mon Oct 24, 2016 10:19 am
And then on top of:
1. remarkable gift of writing in blank tight spaces in straightlines and margins
2. remarkable gift of developing Byzantine script that resembles only one person I've found in hundreds of samples
3. remarkable gift of developing gospel pericopes in Markan style and form
4. remarkable gift of 'harmonizing' gospel passages in a centonized fashion in the manner of the gospel harmonies
5. remarkable gift of developing Clementine style
And we should tentatively add that Smith must also have possessed the remarkable gift of anticipating that Clement's Alexandrian tradition would be recognized as being connected to the gospel harmony tradition by Petersen and others (and me by Origen's Commentary on Matthew).
So there's this genius professor who no one knew mastered:
i. Byzantine scribal habits (writing on blank pages)
ii. unique Byzantine scribal handwriting that took me literally a decade to find
iii Markan gospel writing style
iv the early habit of 'harmonizing' gospel passages (viz Tatian, Irenaeus, Ammonius)
v. Clement's writing style
He has all this ability and spends all this time studying this text with only passing interest in i, ii, iii, iv in v (I don't remember if v was featured prominently in the 1973 tome, ii was a brief appendix, iii was passed over completely, iv was not mentioned) is this meticulous scholar who simultaneously is completely reckless leaving the MS sitting on the shelves even after carbon dating could test the ink and prove him to be a forger and compromise his career and everything he worked to establish.
The only time he goes back to Mar Saba is in 1984 as part of a documentary team. Surely he couldn't have stolen the text then. They won't let him see the text. Instead they give it to another guy who is the most prominent dissenting voice in scholarship who ends up admitting it looks pretty authentic (25 years after the discovery WHICH IS SIMPLY INCREDIBLE THAT IT A FORGERY MADE IN 1958 COULD TAKE ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A WITHERED BROWNED TEXT WHICH WAS 200 YEARS OLD!!). Quesnell does everything to experiment with the text in order to prove his assertion that it's a forgery and ends up never publishing anything about his encounter with the manuscript. It's the most insane thing that can people can persist in this nonsense.
Why is it not reasonable to simply assume it's authentic until something substantive emerges to challenge authenticity? What's the loss?
1. remarkable gift of writing in blank tight spaces in straightlines and margins
2. remarkable gift of developing Byzantine script that resembles only one person I've found in hundreds of samples
3. remarkable gift of developing gospel pericopes in Markan style and form
4. remarkable gift of 'harmonizing' gospel passages in a centonized fashion in the manner of the gospel harmonies
5. remarkable gift of developing Clementine style
And we should tentatively add that Smith must also have possessed the remarkable gift of anticipating that Clement's Alexandrian tradition would be recognized as being connected to the gospel harmony tradition by Petersen and others (and me by Origen's Commentary on Matthew).
So there's this genius professor who no one knew mastered:
i. Byzantine scribal habits (writing on blank pages)
ii. unique Byzantine scribal handwriting that took me literally a decade to find
iii Markan gospel writing style
iv the early habit of 'harmonizing' gospel passages (viz Tatian, Irenaeus, Ammonius)
v. Clement's writing style
He has all this ability and spends all this time studying this text with only passing interest in i, ii, iii, iv in v (I don't remember if v was featured prominently in the 1973 tome, ii was a brief appendix, iii was passed over completely, iv was not mentioned) is this meticulous scholar who simultaneously is completely reckless leaving the MS sitting on the shelves even after carbon dating could test the ink and prove him to be a forger and compromise his career and everything he worked to establish.
The only time he goes back to Mar Saba is in 1984 as part of a documentary team. Surely he couldn't have stolen the text then. They won't let him see the text. Instead they give it to another guy who is the most prominent dissenting voice in scholarship who ends up admitting it looks pretty authentic (25 years after the discovery WHICH IS SIMPLY INCREDIBLE THAT IT A FORGERY MADE IN 1958 COULD TAKE ON THE CHARACTERISTICS OF A WITHERED BROWNED TEXT WHICH WAS 200 YEARS OLD!!). Quesnell does everything to experiment with the text in order to prove his assertion that it's a forgery and ends up never publishing anything about his encounter with the manuscript. It's the most insane thing that can people can persist in this nonsense.
Why is it not reasonable to simply assume it's authentic until something substantive emerges to challenge authenticity? What's the loss?