Secret Alias wrote: ↑Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:40 pm
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.
Your statements about what they "like" are ad hominem. You will notice that others (such as Andrew Criddle and Ken Olson) in this thread generally do not engage in ad hominem about what you "like" because that would be impolite, speculative, irrelevant, and would not advance the conversation.
There is a polite fiction whereby we implicitly grant that everyone involved is trying to understand the truth better, so we focus on the arguments alone, not on motive. This is achieved just by not talking about what we think everyone else is motivated by. This polite fiction is useful because the considerations of the motives of everyone in the discussion do not actually shed light on the subject matter; even when guesses are right, that doesn't change anything about the nature of the case. Discussion proceeds with more heat than light when the question of the motives of the people you're talking to is brought up uninvited.
1. Tselikas is the only expert on Greek handwriting whoever transcribed the manuscript
2. Morton Smith only had authority related to the text because he discovered it
3. Arguments made about what the text says requires expertise. Morton Smith admitted he didn't have the expertise required to examine the document. Hence his reliance on experts.
4. Until 2008 we had as the only reading of the text "naked man with naked man." All opinions on whether document was a forgery or authentic develop from Morton Smith's amateur interpretation of the text.
5. After 2008 we have an actual Greek expert say it reads "nakeds with naked." Until I brought it up everyone ignored Tselikas's transcription. Surely Tselikas's expertise deserves at least as much time as Morton Smith's amateur opinion.
Your statements about what they "like" are ad hominem.
You don't find it strange that two experts in their field, who usually prefer authority to amateurism in this ONE INSTANCE prefer an amateur transcription over a transcription rendered by an authority in the field of Byzantine paleography? Three people who think the document is a forgery have spend how many seconds considering the opinion of an expert only to go back to the opinion of someone that has no expertise in Greek paleography? That isn't unusual? That doesn't require explanation?
Until I published the post introducing Tselikas's opinion they assumed Morton Smith's translation WAS what the text said. Then let's count 1 ... 2 ... 3 maybe four second of considering what Tselikas wrote and then in their minds "Morton Smith was right" Am I being unfair? Was it 10 minutes? How long did any of them consider whether the expert got it right over the person with no expertise?
Last edited by Secret Alias on Fri Mar 15, 2024 1:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
A photograph, if unretouched, of the Mona Lisa is different than an imitation.
(A dated photo might, I don't know, be slightly useful for conservation specialists.)
Are you, SA, ignoring Tselikas mentioning anomalies?
We're talking about what the texts says. He has more expertise than anyone in this one regard. Has been hired to detect forgeries? No. But if someone found a new Byzantine text and wanted one authority to look at it, who would it be? Tselikas.
"....
Most convincing is that the edition of Ignatius with the letter already written by Morton Smith or by someone else was placed in the library by Morton Smith himself.
Once we prove that the handwriting of the letter is alien to the genuine and traditional Greek, we can accept that it is an imitation of an older script.
...."
I don't see the relevance of this. I don't think he even read Morton Smith's books. In fact I am sure he didn't.
To respond to Peter's point is it reasonable to suppose that Ken, Andrew and Stephen spent 10 second to 10 minutes considering and then ultimately rejecting and subsequently ignoring Tselikas's transcription in favor of Morton Smith's non-expert transcription because they have a habit of supporting "amateur" or non-expert opinions?
No they have not exhibited this "habit" in all their years at the forum. I can't think of a single time that they have preferred the opinion of someone who has little or no-expertise in a subject over those who are generally agreed to be authoritative in the matter in question.
It is fair in my mind to assume that they find Tselikas's expertise an "unwanted intrusion" into this "game" that they have played with other non-experts with respect to Greek manuscripts. But surely Tselikas's testimony surely hobbles the certainty that homosexuality was involved in forgery if there was one.
Why do I have to assume that participants in an open discussion forum "fairly" evaluated evidence? "Fairly" considered what an expert in the field said about a manuscript? Surely experience can have taught me that people basically self-centered animals. That is what experience has taught me about all human beings. I don't think there is a spark of divinity in humankind. I do however think that people who have trained in particular field can be taught to apply objectivity in a particular question or pursuit. All beasts are pastured by blows as Heraclitus said. I trust that Ken was coerced to "fairly" consider alternative views on the TF. That Stephen "fairly" represented alternative understandings regarding the Teacher of Righteousness. But regarding Tselikas's rendering of the letter yes I think they spent 10 seconds to 10 minutes evaluating it "fairly." In Stephen's case maybe less than 10 seconds.
BAR, linked by Sabar:
"....In his extensive multi-part report, Tselikas explains that the handwriting of the Clement letter doesn’t match that of any other scribe at Mar Saba monastery, where the manuscript was discovered by Morton Smith, and in fact indicates forgery or imitation of 18th-century Greek script...."
But he failed to mention that the world's leading expert on Byzantine handwriting ended the homosexual conspiracy theory. Wonder why he didn't mention that? No click bait for the Atlantic. No paycheck. Just having a story about a scholar dying of terminal cancer and ending his life isn't sexy enough. It's all about bringing eyeballs to your domain. We all play the game. Even this forum.
