Distinguishing some questions about the "Letter to Theodore"

[StephenGoranson]

Of course some claims of expertise are bogus. Being an engineer or a content provider or a computer coder or a history "tidier" or self-proclaimed story expert may not count for much when declaring here what's what.

Today I tried again explicitly to acknowledge that A. T.'s report ranged from expertise to non-expertise.
But he did walk us through why the text was a later "imitation." That you dismiss such is a given, while simultaneously extolling him as the number one paleographer, when that suits you.

It is a misrepresentation, or wild irresponsible charge, to say Smith hurt me. I did meet him. He very helpfully commented on two of my draft papers, as I have written on this forum previously. He made extensive handwritten comments and mailed them back to me, though he was under no obligation to do so. He was helpful.

Maybe Dirk Obbink (I don't know him) had been helpful to others before he illegally sold manuscripts that he did not own.

Ben C. Smith made many helpful contributions here, before he gave up on this forum, SA.

[StephenGoranson]

Seraphim, as far as I have read, did not claim to have seen the document before 1958.

[Secret Alias]

But surely if he accepted the document as authentic he had to believe that. Is it possible to believe the one without the other?

[Secret Alias]

There is the expertise regarding Byzantine manuscripts.
There is the expertise regarding what manuscripts were in the monastery before 1958.
Tselikas believes the manuscript is fake
Seraphim believes the manuscript is authentic.
Neither explains how they have arrived at their conclusions.
Whom do we believe?

[Secret Alias]

And to take the example further.
Seraphim and Kallistos had superior expertise with respect to Byzantine manuscripts. Better than most scholars.
Tselikas has better knowledge than them.
Tselikas has a catalogue of 100 books which lists clearly only some of the books that were in the monastic library of Mar Saba and comes to the conclusion that this demonstrates that the book was not in the library in 1923.
There were more than 100 books in the Mar Saba library. Clearly.
Seraphim had superior expertise as to what books were in the library before Morton Smith and doesn't cite this rotten piece of evidence.
Kallistos had superior expertise as to what books were in the library before 1976 and does not cite this rotten piece of evidence.
Tselikas's citation of a list of 100 books as proof that the book was not in the library questions his objectivity and his decision making with regards to the question of authenticity.

[Secret Alias]

Your appeal to Ben C Smith is interesting because it suggests (a) that you are losing this debate and (b) that if Ben were here you might be able to appeal to his authority for victory. Appeals to authority are generally frowned upon at this forum. I can remember spin (another guy who left this forum) would attack all "experts" who made similar appeals to authority. One of the hallmarks of this forum and its previous incarnation was to mistrust appeals to authority. Stop appealing to authority. It's not going to fly here. Go to a religious website if you want to engage in "faith based" arguments. Appeals to authority have never worked here nor will they likely ever work here in the near future - even if the great martyr of the forum, Ben C Smith "resurrects" himself here (I am surprised that you guys don't have prophets announcing his impending "second advent" every few months. We should have an icon of Ben C Smith at the top left.

[StephenGoranson]

Seraphim, iiuc, was merely claiming the Voss book as Mar Saba properly, finders keepers.

[StephenGoranson]

Obviously one need not have seen the document before 1958 to think it legit. Like, say, you.
You are a faster typist than I am. Do you just hope to wear people down?

[Peter Kirby]

I can remember spin (another guy who left this forum)

spin's still around a little. Just doesn't waste time with rehashing the same things over and over.

[StephenGoranson]

No, I mentioned Ben C. Smith as one indication why most scholars would not come or stay here.