Sabar's New Morton Smith Article

[Peter Kirby]

if there is one person here who isn't objective

Probably more than one. We're human beings. Even when we're completely right, we're usually not completely objective.

[StephenGoranson]

There have been, as you may know, numerous contributions showing that Clement didn't write the letter.

[Secret Alias]

In fact I do not know this. If Andrew's article is right, the letter is too much like Clement to be Clement. How can it also be too unlike Clement to be Clement at the same time? Only to someone who wants it to be so. Reminds me of an argument between a married couple. "You spend too much time at work, you don't spend enough time working." "You indulge our children too much, you don't spend enough time with our kids." "You're too smothering, you're not attentive enough." The bottom line is, I don't see any evidence that Morton Smith forged the document. None whatsoever. On the issue of whether it is a forgery, I agree with Tselikas (and this is a paraphrase and expansion of his stated position). If someone forged the text they wrote γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ because they were trying to imitate things said by Clement in the Stromata. This dovetails with Andrew's argument. One would expect that someone who spent all this time studying Clement and imitating his writing style and language would also imitate known positions on the Carpocratians. They were said, probably by Hegesippus and echoed later by Clement and Epiphanius, to engage in group sex. The forger could have written γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ. Clement could have been written γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ. Neither would have been expect to use γυμνὸς γυμνῷ in a negative sense. Gregory (Andrew deliberately fails to mention by name because it undercuts the forgery argument) uses γυμνὸς γυμνῷ in a positive way. In the context of a lengthy statement for his love for another man. I won't get into all of that. But I see no evidence to connect Morton Smith to forgery other than wishful thinking and no evidence that the letter isn't Clementine either forged or authentic.

But γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ has consequences for Sabar's article. What is written resembles γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ more than γυμνὸς γυμνῷ. Clement is more likely to have written γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ against the Carpocratians than γυμνὸς γυμνῷ. The forger knowing Clement's stated positions is more likely to have written γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ than γυμνὸς γυμνῷ. Why Morton Smith read γυμνὸς γυμνῷ rather than γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ is anyone's guess. Maybe it was because, as Sabar asserts (but does not prove) Morton Smith was a homosexual. Maybe it was because as I have Smith himself as a witness, he was not an expert at Greek paleography.

Isn't it at all possible that this entire debate developed from our collective lack of expertise on Greek writing from this period? Why did it take a Greek to notice in all these endless debates that the text reads γυμνοὶ γυμνῷ? Why? Because the debate was also about Morton Smith and never about the document.

[Secret Alias]

Probably more than one.

There is a text written with Byzantine handwriting. It was not until 2008 that it was actually transcribed by an expert in Byzantine handwriting. I say, trust the experts with respect to what the text says. An expert on the TF and an expert on the Teacher of Righteous don't want to accept the expertise of an expert. They'd rather trust a man they themselves claim is a most disreputable charlatan and other non-experts who support his expertise. It's too comical. "Let the drunk driver we hate drive so he can go over the cliff." "Keep handing him rope." That's why they accept Smith's expertise over Tselikas. Tselikas is quite objective in the matter. I've seen the way he works. Here is his course on Greek paleography:

https://www.scribd.com/document/3935249 ... BC%CE%B1-1

Oh but he's the same as Morton Smith and Timo and some other white guy. I will remind them about the dismissive character of expertise the next time we discuss the TF and the Teach of Righteousness.

[StephenGoranson]

"....On the issue of whether it is a forgery, I agree with Tselikas (and this is a paraphrase and expansion of his stated position)...."

I thought Tselikas considered that the Voss book inscription was more recent than 18th century.
In other words, not sure I can rely on your "paraphrase and expansion."

[Peter Kirby]

Probably more than one.

There is a text written with Byzantine handwriting. It was not until 2008 that it was actually transcribed by an expert in Byzantine handwriting. I say, trust the experts with respect to what the text says. An expert on the TF and an expert on the Teacher of Righteous don't want to accept the expertise of an expert. They'd rather trust a man they themselves claim is a most disreputable charlatan and other non-experts who support his expertise. It's too comical. "Let the drunk driver we hate drive so he can go over the cliff." "Keep handing him rope." That's why they accept Smith's expertise over Tselikas. Tselikas is quite objective in the matter. I've seen the way he works.

Being right and being objective aren't the same thing. You can be right and not objective, or also objective and not right.

Ken Olson is not framing it as a question of "trust" in Morton Smith. That is a mischaracterization.

[Secret Alias]

He's objective because he actually wrote down all the examples of the various letters in the manuscript. What has anyone else here done? I know his methodology. He has this table and he writes all the paleographic examples from the letters and then he deciphers which new letters say based on past examples. Who else has done that here. No one.

https://www.scribd.com/document/3935249 ... BC%CE%B1-1

[Secret Alias]

I thought Tselikas considered that the Voss book inscription was more recent than 18th century.
In other words, not sure I can rely on your "paraphrase and expansion."

He says its an imitation of Byzantine handwriting. I can imitate a Michelangelo. That doesn't mean it's a modern painting.

[Peter Kirby]

He's objective because he actually wrote down all the examples of the various letters in the manuscript. What has anyone else here done? I know his methodology. He has this table and he writes all the paleographic examples from the letters and then he deciphers which new letters say based on past examples. Who else has done that here. No one.

https://www.scribd.com/document/3935249 ... BC%CE%B1-1

Even if we accept your conclusion that he's objective, that doesn't mean that all his statements on the matter were correct.

[Secret Alias]

Ken Olson is not framing it as a question of "trust" in Morton Smith. That is a mischaracterization.

Is Morton Smith an expert on Byzantine handwriting? Why should we trust Morton Smith's rendering over an acknowledged expert?