Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Quesnell saw the scribbles on pg 11 that Tselikas saw: On page 11, there was about twenty squiggles across the top & down the right margin. They turn out to be Greek letters. The last five are clearly identifiable. They are the 18th c. way of writing [Greek letter pi] namely [ligature] repeated ...

I'm a bit unclear about one thing: Did Tselikas examine the actual manuscript, or did he work from photos? Scott Brown sent him a CD with the highest resolution Hedrick images (which are from the many photos commissioned by Quesnell). Tselikas wrote his study at the Patriarchate though. He had the ...

And, SA, as for your shotgun proposal, above Tue Apr 16, 2024 9:57 am, that WASPs
ganged up on Smith, wasn't Smith, um, a WASP?

Please remind me what I said. It makes me feel important.

the new evidence in April Atlantic. = what does it matter if the text doesn't say "naked man with naked man."

First Day Wednesday June 1 A.M Called Pontifical Biblical Institute. Talked to Director UM(?) Dalton. No room there until the 16th. Went to see him. Talked of project and prospects. He arranged room at White Sisters on Nablus Rd near Ecole Biblique and Orthodox Patriarchate but can't get in. No one ...

There's a point on June 8th I believe in his letter to his wife, the last day of the journal where, he's obviously feeling "this ain't happening." The day before in the journal he's talking about detective stories and its all positive. By the 8th it's like not sure what to do.

What I find puzzling is it's twenty six years since Morton Smith allegedly wrote the manuscript (in 1983). He doesn't say this explicitly. But I think he thought that a twenty five year old MS would look different than a two hundred and fifty year old manuscript. You know the ink the blots the fresh...

Let's put it this way. That's the last entry in the "journal." He stopped recording his investigation. But he stayed on to June 19 or 20. He must have gone to Mar Saba. The indications are there. But Quesnell not mentioning to "broad scholarship" that he had the photos to everyon...

Why can't we just admit that there is no conclusive evidence either way that this manuscript is a forgery. Why isn't that a good starting point?

Ok. There's no evidence that he planted the manuscript.