Ken's Curious Understanding of Probability With Respect to the Mar Saba Letter

[Secret Alias]

Once upon a time, a translation of the Letter to Theodore made by a non-expert paleographer (Morton Smith) took it for granted that the letter had Clement speak of the Carpocratians referencing them mentioning "naked man with naked man" in relation to Secret Mark. Now after citing Tselikas in another thread he has spoken of the need to have expert paleographers enter the discussion. The image he was commenting upon was developed with Tselikas via email for an upcoming article I have finished on Secret Mark. A few days ago Tselikas was for Ken "A (i.e. one of many) Greek paleographers." I have repeated mentioned that Tselikas is in a league of his own. Every Greek paleographer defers to his judgement on virtually everything. He's like God of the paleographers. Almost not joking about that.

But what gets me more annoyed is the way they conspiracy theorists never change their calculations of probability.

Once upon a time, the debate about authenticity simply assumed that the text read as Smith claims it read. Now Ken admits maybe it's iota/maybe its sigma. Well sure that has an effect on probability.

Ken also takes for granted that Morton Smith is a homosexual. Sure a homosexual is a practicing homosexual, someone who has an actual homosexual relationship. Sabar fails to demonstrate that after a year of meticulous research looking for such evidence.

Surely even by Ken's standards the probability for this conspiracy theory actually being true has radically diminished.

Maybe, says Ken the text references Jesus having a homosexual relationship.
Maybe, Morton Smith had a homosexual relationship.

Maybe, maybe, maybe does not equal high probability. It simply can't. These people are jokes. No better than butchers, carpenters and pet groomers in terms of their objectivity.

They pretend Carlson's book "settled" the question. The case was "iron clad." With no expert paleographic opinion!

[Peter Kirby]

I have greatly appreciated Ken Olson's contributions here, even and especially when we've had some disagreements.

[Secret Alias]

He is an expert on the TF and put frendship above objectivity.

[Secret Alias]

The admission it might not be sigma surely affects the overall probability! Shameful. Simply shameful.

[Peter Kirby]

I find no fault with Ken's objectivity here.

I find it consistent with his character that he actually has considered the significance of it possibly not being sigma.

This discussion is an uncomfortable one. Surely there are better things to do than to malign one of the most reasonable people that tolerate being with us on this board.

[Secret Alias]

The forum is based on the idea that the participants have "good will" toward the other participants and the ideas they share. It would expected as referee that you exhibit the expectation that participants have "good will" toward one another and the ideas others have shared. You must pretend that you believe that Ken has "calibrated" his estimation in what I shall call in my upcoming article "the Duke conspiracy theory" with respect to Secret Mark. It is utterly incredible that the main advocates of this theory ALL WENT TO Duke. What are the odds of this? Seriously. Stephen Carlson got his PhD from Duke. Ken, Stephen Goranson. What about Duke made it the epicenter of the ridiculous formula:

IF the text says "naked man with naked man" AND IF Morton Smith was a homosexual THEN all you have to do is keep attacking Morton Smith's personality to BELIEVE that he is the forger.

I am sure it is Mark Goodacre. Mark Goodacre is the reason Duke is the epicenter of the conspiracy because the existence of Secret Mark is the closest thing to attestation of Q that there is. Doesn't mean "everyone is on" Goodacre's agenda. Or that everyone believes in Q. But in the debate about Secret Mark it is Duke versus Morton Smith for whatever reason. This controversy would have died a long time ago if it wasn't for this university.

[Secret Alias]

Mark Goodacre has been at Duke since 2005 and Professor in the Department of Religious Studies · 2013 - Present Religious Studies, has a life mission against Q. I think this has something to do with Duke University being at the epicenter of the anti-gay anti-Morton Smith Mar Saba conspiracy theory. https://www.apocryphicity.ca/2008/12/04 ... l-meeting/

Ken Olson. From Ken Olson's blog "The most prominent advocate of the Farrer theory currently is Mark Goodacre of Duke University. I have two publications written in defense of the Farrer ..." We call that asskissing in my day. Flattering. My son's generation has another "updated" term for this type of devotion https://www.urbandictionary.com/define. ... Meatriding.

Stephen Carlson. Stephen Carlson's Duke University dissertation supervised by Mark Goodacre. I don't need to say any more about this dated book. Requisite meatriding http://hypotyposeis.org/weblog/coming-t ... -goodacre/

Stephen Goranson. I don't what to say about Goranson. I am actually starting to like him more. I don't know why. Nothing bad to say about him. But he goes to Duke and has a thing for Morton Smith on a personal level. Not sure what this has to do with Mark Goodacre.

Bart Ehrman has two Duke University connections. He was a Visiting Assistant Professor in 1991 and has been an Adjunct Professor since 2000 and his wife teaches at Duke in a different field.

I am sure there are other names. I know these people can't believe that "it is just coincidence" that Morton Smith discovered a document. There has to be a conspiracy theory to explain it. I don't know what to make of the Duke University connection behind the anti-gay anti-Morton Smith conspiracy theory. It probably is mere coincidence.

Any thoughts would love to hear them.

[Secret Alias]

And then there is the repeated comment in the other forum. "We need better photos." But let me leave this thought with you. I don't know that Tselikas used the original MS. That's true. But he demonstrates in the SBL article he has the Voss book.https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/wp- ... ititon.pdf Why so? Because everything at the Patriarchate is his. He doesn't need to ask permission. He gets up out of his office at the Patriarchate and takes whatever he wants. Just a fact. So it stands to reason that if the MS exists and it is still in the Patriarchate library (which everyone agrees it is still there) Tselikas would have necessarily written out his transcription not from photographs but from the actual MS. There is no acknowledgement in his article what he used as his source. If it exists and the Patriarchate says it does, the MS is part of the holdings of the Patriarchate it "belongs" effectively to Tselikas who has unfettered access to all the MSS there. The only thing the Patriarchate has done is prevented us from seeing it.

[Secret Alias]

Evidence of Tselikas's status as God of all Greek paleographers https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... rweo2k0O7d

https://stephanhuller.blogspot.com/2010 ... h.html?m=1

[Secret Alias]

Maybe it really does all come to character. Maybe I have bad character and so I persist in debating someone who has a clear pathos about this situation. But character is destiny as they say and I will persist.

In the Academic Group Ken has apparently "solved" the problem of his earlier statement that the first word in the Greek phrase formerly translated by amateurs as "naked man with naked man" "might have a terminal iota/might have a terminal sigma" to a full throated "confirmation" that it is sigma by using a methodology already extensive documented in the literature as being the preferred methodology of the cabal at Duke University i.e. preferring low resolution printed pages over high resolution imagery.

The example I am speaking of was the well received journal article 6 Roger VIKLUND and Timo S. PAANANEN, “Distortion of the Scribal Hand in the Images of Clement’s Letter to Theodore,” VC 67 (2013): 235–247. Wikipedia notes:

Carlson chose "to use the halftone reproductions found in [Smith's book] Clement of Alexandria and a Secret Gospel of Mark" where the images were printed with a line screen made of dots. If the "images are magnified to the degree necessary for forensic document examination" the dot matrix will be visible and the letters "will not appear smooth". Once the printed images Carlson used were replaced with the original photographs, the signs of tremors also disappeared. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Gospel_of_Mark

Apparently Ken doesn't hide the fact that he can "see" things "clearer" (= can see what he wants to see) from low resolution images because he writes:

I think this is one of the black and white images Morton Smith took, but it may be clearer than the color image I posted earlier.

"Clearer"? How? How can inferior be better unless you are seeking out scribbly wobbly images to accent the sigma appearance of the terminal letter? This is science? This is scientific methodology?

As Ken doesn't seem to read things or is good ignoring things which contradict his entrenched presuppositions I will cite from the conclusions of that study:

In sum: all the signs of forgery Carlson unearthed in his analysis of the handwriting in Clement’s Letter to Theodore disappear once we replace the [low resolution] printed images Carlson used with the original photographs ... Though Carlson is to be commended for his insight that the tools of forensic document examination could advance the debate, the execution of his project has left much to be desired. Based on the comparison of the images presented above we suggest that there is no “forger’s tremor” or any other “signs of forgery” to be found in the script of Clement’s Letter to Theodore. Consequently, one of the key arguments in Carlson’s The Gospel Hoax can be finally laid to rest.

Stephen Carlson decided there were "forger's tremors" based on low resolution black and white reproductions of Smith's inferior black and white photos from the printed pages of Morton Smith's Clement of Alexandria. He had the color reproductions made of Quesnell's commissioned photos but decided he got the result he "liked better" by using low resolution images.

Ken is doing it again in this forum. When he consulted the high resolution digital images made from Quesnell's negatives at the Jerusalem Patriarchate he didn't see what he hoped to see. He said maybe iota/maybe sigma. But lo and behold Ken certainly got the results he wanted from the scanned dot printed images from Morton Smith's book (you can see the dot printed image quality) from what he says is Wieland Wilker's website. Not only was the original image of low quality, scanning technology in Wieland Wilker was way worse than today. Stephen Carlson references Wieland Wilker website in 2005. My guess is that the scans were made at the turn of the millennia.

So we have a very intelligent articulate man in Ken Olson at first refusing to see the implications of admitting "maybe iota/maybe sigma" on the Duke University conspiracy theory and then "correcting" his position by even make more of a fool of himself, in preferring inferior evidence to superior evidence mere to assure the desired outcome.

Ken isn't too good for this forum. He is a perfect embodiment of the eisegesis that goes on here. Congrats for being one of us, Ken.



So we went from "yeah it could be a sigma or it could be an iota" and not recognizing what that does to the Duke University conspiracy to "well it's more clearly a sigma the worse the image resolution is" once I drew his attention to the problem.

Maybe this explains why Tselikas read "nakeds with naked." He certainly wasn't using the dotted images of Smith's 1973 and likely the high resolution photographs and perhaps, we'll never know, the original manuscript.