andrewcriddle

I think we've probably exhausted this particular point. This is probably my last post about the Skouvaras manuscript.

I agree entirely that to a limited extent the Skouvaras manuscript supports authenticity.

For example, in its absence, features such as the unusual NUs in the Mar Saba document would be stronger evidence for inauthenticity than is true given its existence.

If all you are claiming is that unusual features shared by the Mar Saba manuscript and the Skouvaras document cannot be used as evidence of inauthenticity then you may well be correct. However this is a negative argument (a refutation of a possible argument against inauthenticity) rather than a positive argument for authenticity.
Your suggestion that the Skouvaras manuscript resembles to an almost unprecedented extent the Mar Saba manuscript, if true, makes it unlikely that an equally close parallel will be found among the other texts at Mar Saba.

Even if the hand shows non-trivial resemblances to that of Morton Smith ?

Andrew Criddle

Yuri Kuchinsky

Well, thank you.

Now you're trying to change the subject...

There are no resemblances there at all. The whole thing is just pathetic.

As I wrote before, in all, Carlson drags in, with his photos, 17 words from Smith's occasional scribbling in Greek... That's 17 words in Smith's handwriting. And based on these 17 words he writes a whole book?

How can anyone base such serious accusations with only 17 words to compare? Seems like voodoo to me, rather than serious analysis.

Yuri.