Distinguishing some questions about the "Letter to Theodore"

[Secret Alias]

Paleo = ancient. I am not deflecting. He can date ancient writing. He said the writing resembles the writing from a certain monastery. He said it resembles writing from that period. That's the limit of his expertise. As far as I know he's never argued for any text being a forgery before this. Does not teach forgery detection in any of his courses. He says that's not what paleographers do. Paleography is not concerned with forgery detection.

[Secret Alias]

I can't even think of an example of this kind 18th century handwriting being successfully unmasked as a forgery. We're in uncharted waters. And certainly not one unmasked by a paleographer.

[StephenGoranson]

For you to pretend to limit his expertise suchly, after extolling it repeatedly, is amoral.

[Peter Kirby]

It seems reasonable to make these distinctions.

Although the question of whether they are both "paleographical" or not is merely semantic.

[StephenGoranson]

Your dishonesty is saddening.

[Peter Kirby]

Your dishonesty is saddening.

Take a break. You're not thinking clearly.

[StephenGoranson]

Tselikas is qualified to say, and did say, that it is not 18th-century writing.
He is not qualified to say which modern writer imitated it.

[Secret Alias]

I'm trying to wrap my head around a parallel example. What are the limits of paleography? Most of the paleographers I consulted said the text was authentic. Tselikas said it wasn't. He's the best paleographer. Does that make him the best forgery detector? I don't know.

[Secret Alias]

Is the best driver also necessarily the safest driver? Is best driver the most skilled at turning? Is the best driver the driver who excels at the most skills or is there one skill which overrides all others to define the best driver or paleographer.

[StephenGoranson]

I am attempting to "distinguish" the question of the date of the Voss handwriting
from who penned that handwriting.
Different questions.