Distinguishing some questions about the "Letter to Theodore"

[StephenGoranson]

There are various definitions of forgery, fake, fraud, hoax, falsification and so on, and there may have been occasional confusion about some of these.

For example, the question (A) of whether Clement originally wrote the "Letter to Theodore" is a different question than (B) when the handwriting in the back of the 1646 Voss book was penned.

Also (C) who penned it, (D) where, whether at Mar Saba or elsewhere, (E) was there ever a "Secret Mark," and several other questions, (F and following).

As I understand it, Agamemnon Tselikas, focusing on his well-known paleography expertise, did not attempt to answer all of the questions, but he did address question (B), and his answer was that it was a modern, later, anomalous imitation of c.18th-century handwriting.

If he is correct about that--as I currently suppose is the case--then his testimony on that question should not be dismissed nor obscured nor neglected.

Among the consequences is that the "Letter" is not attested in the 18th century--at least, not in the Voss book handwriting instance--but in modern times,
which includes the 1950s.

[Secret Alias]

He made the argument that the paleographic features of the letter resembled handwritings found at a monasteries visited by Morton Smith in 1952 and that he must have photographed these handwriting examples to make the Mar Saba handwriting. Pantuck demonstrated that none of the manuscripts were photographed by Morton Smith nor the manuscript containing the ink recipe referenced by Tselikas. https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/wp- ... tuck-2.pdf Tselikas's response was:https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... j-pantuck/.

Dear Mr. Hershel,
I wish you to be in good health.

I read the article you sent me about the criticism made by Dr. Alan Pantuck of my report on the manuscript of Clement. I have only one remark: that Dr. Pantuck restricts his criticism only to one section, while not taking into account either the textological observations or the facts on the presence of the Ignatius edition in the library of Mar Saba. I respect the opinion of anybody, but I do not proceed to such personal criticism. Anyone who has a critical ability must have his opinion itself without any influence. I’ve written previously to you that without any bias I did my research on this topic. I spent much of my precious time for many days and many dozen of hours, here in Athens and in Jerusalem, to contribute my scientific experience and means in order to enlighten the issue. The resulting comments and opinion I exposed in my report. Of course some agree or disagree. But most certainly I have no interest in the opinion of those who, without scientific basis and method, write several non-existent and fantastic things in their blogs. To me these are parasites of real and true science.

With deep respect to you,

Agamemnon Tselikas

[StephenGoranson]

Agamemnon Tselikas wrote that "...it is an imitation of an older script."

His full report report is available here:
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... is-report/

[Secret Alias]

Can you point to what training Tselikas has in spotting forgeries? Can you identify where in his extensive professional career he has appeared in court as a witness to determine authentic or inauthentic handwriting?

I can point to where Tselikas says (in Greek) that paleographers like him are not qualified for those types of assessments. He says that only graphologists have that kind of expertise. It is my understanding that he told that to Hershel Shanks and that's why they hired Venetia. At the very least it is why Shanks hired Venetia. Tselikas is very public about his inability to determine authentic handwriting elsewhere.

Paleography https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/blo ... aeography/
The Greek term γραφολόγος, which Tselikas used to distinguish the appropriate disciple to determine authenticity or forgery of a document, is the equivalent of our "document examiner" https://www.documentexaminers.org/generalm.shtml

[Secret Alias]

Tell me which arguments for forgery that Tselikas brings up which you found persuasive.

[StephenGoranson]

Why attempt to deflect?
Many readers--even you S. A.!,
previously and repeatedly!--
know that A. T. has extraordinary expertise in Greek paleography.
Paleography has to do with dating handwriting.
Graphologists address a different subject, whether well or not.
He did that dating, in detail, writing, showing that it is modern, not 18th-century, but a later imitation.
Everything else--on the other questions in the OP--is, on this point, secondary.
Admit that, and dialogue may be possible.
If not, you write mere obscurantism.

[Peter Kirby]

Tell me which arguments for forgery that Tselikas brings up which you found persuasive.

Seems like a reasonable request...

[StephenGoranson]

The question shows a lack of understanding of the OP.
The main, and widely-recognized, paleographic matter is dating!
Not, in this one matter, whodunnit. (Did person X have an accomplice, blah, blah, blah--different question.)
If A. T. was speculating about some different matters--maybe so--that is not the question here.
His expertise in Greek paleography is, as far as I can tell, unsurpassed.

[Peter Kirby]

his answer was that it was a modern, later, anomalous imitation of c.18th-century handwriting.

To me, this answer can be described as stating that it is a forgery. Perhaps you think differently.

I agree that it doesn't have to be complicated by additional hypotheses: "Did person X have an accomplice, blah, blah, blah"

[Peter Kirby]

The question becomes which arguments are persuasive that it was:

"a modern, later, anomalous imitation of c.18th-century handwriting"