Distinguishing some questions about the "Letter to Theodore"

[StephenGoranson]

I could review his report, with some pros and cons,
but, if one does not first allow that he knows Greek paleography dating
better than anyone here
better, likely, than anyone else alive today
that's a deflection.

[Peter Kirby]

If I understand correctly, the "18th century" paleographical conclusion - which could be imitation or genuine - isn't the main concern.

If I understand correctly, paleography does not include the study of whether a hand is instead a deliberate attempt at imitation.

[StephenGoranson]

Incorrect.

[Secret Alias]

Examples. Evidence. Which contradict Tselikas's own conclusions that a paleographer is not trained to spot inauthentic handwriting.

[Peter Kirby]

Incorrect.

What's correct according to you?

[StephenGoranson]

Not authentically dated to 18th-century is what he concluded.
Rather, later, he concluded.
Misrepresenting that is no contribution to learning.
But deflection.

[Peter Kirby]

Your koans are deflection. I don't know why we're even typing here lol.

[StephenGoranson]

One possibility, though I do not claim certainty:
you two (maybe?) prefer to think that the Voss book contains 18th-century writing,
even though he denies that.

[Peter Kirby]

So you are claiming motive and misrepresenting me to claim that I'm misrepresenting T.

Bravo. Much scholarship.

[StephenGoranson]

Rather, I'm suggesting that, in terms of contradicting the paleography assessment by A. T.,
Peter Kirby and Secret Alias
got nothin'.