Ben C Smith

You said that the result of his study (your words, not mine), assuming his methodology is valid and relevant (your words, not mine), would be that there is a 10% chance the letter is not by Clement. Now you are clarifying that this 10% figure comes from this nonexhaustive list of variables. So... how does his study use these variables in such a way as to result in a 10% chance of spuriousness?

Ben.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Dear Roger,

Yes, I have read your study, and I think it's great. Thank you so much for doing all this work to show the weakness of Carlson's analysis.

When Carlson's book first came out, I was also thinking of doing something like what you've done in your paper, because I immediately saw many weaknesses in the handwriting comparisons that Carlson assembled. But then, I wasn't really sure if Carlson was entirely serious in writing his book... A few things about it gave me some suspicion that Carlson was just 'pulling a leg' of the scholarly world. That he was just trying to play a hoax on all of us (something that he cleverly accused Smith of doing so that he could shift suspicion away from himself).

My position was and is that of course a forgery is possible, but there must have been many accomplices behind such a scheme, clearly involving people on the inside in the monastery. So when Carlson first announced that he made some breakthrough, I assumed that he found the author of the handwriting (other than Smith), or pinpointed some specific accomplices on the inside. But when I opened the book, and saw that, according to Carlson... Smith did the whole thing all by himself, I was just incredulous. I just said, Impossible, and that maybe Carlson is just joking and hoaxing everybody.

But now, some years have passed, and Carlson is still mum as to the possibility of his hoax. Could it be that now, after so many scholars have accepted him on face value, it would be just too embarrassing for him to admit what he really did? Who knows...

So, in any case, I guess we must proceed on the assumption that Carlson was serious when he was writing his book, and hence the importance of the work that you've done. Clearly, much in Carlson's analysis doesn't add up, and it was good of you to pinpoint many specific problems.

For example you have a large section on "forger's tremor", where you demonstrate the weaknesses of Carlson's accusations. But, as some people already noted before, Is Carlson's theory of "forger's tremor" even applicable at all to what 'the hoaxer' was ostensibly trying to do? Carlson opens up his photographic illustrations triumphantly with "the Osborn exhibit", an example of someone forging a signature on a check. But the problem is that the ostensible 'forger' wasn't really trying to forge any particular handwriting... Any handwriting of the 18th century would do for his purposes! So why would he exhibit _any_ "forger's tremor" at all?

It's the things like that that, originally, made me suspicious of Carlson's book as a whole...

But since so many people apparently are taking his book seriously, obviously your paper is very useful and relevant.

All the best,

Yuri.

Solo

Yuri, I would stay away from creating numbers out hunches... especially since you can simply ask if this is not a another case of a devil cast out by Beelzebub; I mean the Mar Saba letter and gospel may be damned lies, but it won't be proven by statistics.

Jiri

andrewcriddle

I'm very reluctant to get into the underlying motives for people's positions but I think that there are motivations here leading in more than one direction. Orthodox liturgical scholars like Talley for example have been interested in Secret Mark as providing in their opinion early evidence for later Christian rituals.

There is also the issue that, although one can certainly accept the authenticity of Secret Mark without accepting Morton Smith's claims about the Historical Jesus, It is more dificult IMO to avoid accepting rather startling claims about the 2nd century Alexandrian church. Again IMO we have good grounds for being dubious about accepting these claims.

Andrew Criddle

Yuri Kuchinsky

So how many percent would you give it, Ben? If you don't like my 10%, what figure would you yourself suggest?

Yuri.

DCHindley

Eastern Orthodox.

DCH (on PM break)

Ben C Smith

Hmmm. I am getting the impression that, far from deriving this 10% from A. Criddle as the result of his study (your words, remember), you simply made this figure up. Is that correct?

Ben.

Yuri Kuchinsky

"It won't be proven by statistics", Jiri? Then Andrew will be terribly disappointed...

But, then again, the devil is in the detail! So you never know...

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Did I say I did it with a calculator?

Yuri.

Ben C Smith

No, you said it was the result of his study. How is it the result of his study?

Ben.