Even if we accept your conclusion that he's objective, that doesn't mean that all his statements on the matter were correct.
The point is why do Ken and Andrew and Stephen accept Morton Smith's expertise over an actual expert. I can accept that Smith and Tselikas transcribed the letter to the best of their abilities. Tselikas is however the only acknowledged expert in this sort of handwriting and, as Tselikas notes, it's very hard to transcribe. You need an expert to make sense of handwriting from this period.
Why do they accept Smith's expertise when even Smith acknowledged he didn't have expertise? It's obvious. They want him to be the forger.
Last edited by Secret Alias on Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:35 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:34 pmWhy do they accept Smith's expertise when even Smith acknowledged he didn't have expertise? It's obvious. They want him to be the forger.
Ad hominem and, again, a mischaracterization. Contributes nothing.
Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:36 pm
I don't think I am mischaracterizing Ken's position. He likes Morton Smith's transcription because his entire theses depends on it being correct.