Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

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.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:33 pm

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?

Again you persist in mischaracterization, why do you think people get annoyed at you?

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.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:34 pm The point is why do Ken and Andrew and Stephen accept Morton Smith's expertise over an actual expert.

Mischaracterization, again.

You make good points sometimes, SA. You also do this crap.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:36 pm I don't think I am mischaracterizing Ken's position.

You are.

Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:34 pm 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.

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.

Ad hominem.

How is it an ad hominem to favor arguments which help your argument? Surely this what all of us do. It's not an ad hominem.

"imitation" of handwriting done when?
(If you imitated a Michaelangelo in the 21st century that imitation would be by definition 21st century.)

So any photographic reproduction of the Mona Lisa needs to be captioned as a modern work.