Ted Hoffman

Yuri, Yuri, Yuri. How many times do I have to tell you that this is an appeal to authority?

"Professional paleographers"? Like who? Are there non-professional paleographers?
Are Clementine scholars and what you call paleographers trained in the art of forgery detection? Clementine scholars can only compare it with known Clementine texts and sigh: "Yes it does seem Clementine".
Does that mean its authentic? Hell NO!

Paleographers can only (and only did) help in dating the handwriting. They are almost clueless when it comes to forgery detection if the James Ossuary is anything to go by.

You aggrandize the task of dating the script when you say:

Dating. Dating. Dating. This has got nothing to do with authenticity.

Now please don't bring up this argument again. Recent experience has shown its an appeal to authority.

And let me repeat, "the use of special scribal ligatures, subscripts, very complex abbreviations, both medial and terminal, the use of the coronis, and other such matters" and other epigraphical arguments, cannot be used to argue for the authenticity of the ms.

We have people saying "Yes its authentic". What IS authentic? The photos? The handwriting? The Clementine style? They have nothing, They have never seen the ms, so how can they say "its authentic"?

Doctor X

Sneaks up behind the conference members. . . .

The somewhat recent case of forgery of Mormon documents is a good example of the problem. One of the leading experts in Utah--who later helped demonstrate they were forgeries--was initially fooled. It took a bit of circumstances--forger over extended himself, planted a few bombs which, apparently is suspicious--to direct one's attention to really sorting out if they were forgeries.

Not unlike the Hitler Diaries--which were a poor set of forgeries--they told a story that was "interesting"--potentially offensive and embarassing to the Mormon Church. Had the forger not "gotten greedy" and quit when he was ahead, we may not have learned of the forgery.

Relevance?

We need the document.

Scurries away back into the darkness. . . .

--J.D.

Peter Kirby

I think we can all agree that the best thing to hope for is for the people at the monastery to sell the Mar Saba manuscript to a scholarly institution in the West for a lot of money, which would allow for physical tests to be conducted on the ink and paper. Before that can happen, there are two questions to be asked:

1. Given what information is available, can a case be made that the letter is not Clementine?

2. Given what information is available, can a case be made that the letter is Clementine?

Regardless of whether further information could confirm the hypothesis. In the context of the original post of this thread (and the statements to which the original post was directed), the question that we are considering is (1) primarily. Is there a case that this letter wasn't written by Clement of Alexandria? And if so, what is it?

Of course, (2) is also an interesting question, which we might consider further when the original question is closer to resolution. The most promising line of argument suggested so far is to look at Morton Smith's early work, but Haran seems to be occupied with other concerns.

best,
Peter Kirby

Haran

Life is getting in the way, I'm afraid. ...too much work, serious illness in the family, etc...

Anyone feel free to take up the cause. I really don't know when I'll have the chance to get back to the library... Sorry.

godfry n. glad

I suppose the best description would be that it varies with the institution. I'd guess that most of them rely primarily upon bequests and private gifts. Many of them have sources of revenue such as property holdings, a variety of investment tools, a variety of entrepenuerial initiatives (such as the presses), copyright and patent revenue, and, of course, tuition and fees.

The university for which I work is a bastardized public institution that used to be a state university but has, in the past ten years been spun off to become a "public corporation". The major reason for this is that it's a health science institution with an associated hospital and the hospital is a major source of revenue. I suspect that major private U.S. scholastic institutions with medicine/nursing/allied health programs also have associated hospitals, which are sources of revenue. That's just one of the possible revenue generators that private scholastic institutions can draw upon.

Well... maybe some do. The downside is that those at the top of the economic heap do exceedingly well and those at the bottom get squat, and that bottom portion is growing. There is no such thing as a baseline of health care, for example and a huge chunk of the population has no health insurance, and we've now successfully pushed most of our mentally ill out into the streets and under the bridges....neat, huh?

But I suspect you're right about the tax structure being the source of prestigious U.S. scholastic institutions' relative success. Those who bequest often escape many of the provisions of inheritance taxes as a result of bequesting...same with gifts. Giving, no matter what form, to private, non-profit institutions generally will benefit the giver with tax burden reduction. The private, non-profits also benefit from limited taxation, relative to the ordinary citizen or for-profit corporation. Thus, the older, more prestigious institutions have had generations of gifts and bequests and often own thousands of acres of highly developed property that generates ongoing lease and rental incomes, as well as accruing in value themselves, without the usual tax load.

And my thanks to you.... I was unaware of the UK situation.

I personally haven't had much problem with access, other than being able to cover the cost of interlibrary loan service. Most US citizens can gain access to everything that's not in some specialty preservation archive; all they have to do is walk into a free public library and avail themselves of the interlibrary loan service. It may cost them what the lending library charges, but we're not totally locked out. If one lives in a major US city, where there are a variety of scholastic institutions, you can go directly to the library and find what one needs and photocopy it (again, the cost of access). In very few cases are there any real barriers that would prevent access. We just tell the librarian we want to read it...no reason necessary.

You have to justify why you want to read an article in JECS? Am I interpreting you correctly? What has happened to the British Lending Library?

Yep... All the time. And, the rich get richer, the middling have to struggle and hope to have the good fortune to have left a good impression on an alumnus that strikes it rich (a la Bill Gates), and the poor go out of business or become bible colleges.

Again, thanks for the input.

Best,

godfry

Roger Pearse

We did the same in the 90's. It was called 'care in the community.' Just as speed cameras are called 'safety cameras'. I admit I can't stomach such weasel words.

No, I meant access as in 'can we get this stuff online where we can all see it' rather than only those in education.

Today I find that the Temple of Ignorance (BL) has increased the price *again* for an interlibrary loan. They now charge ca. 10GBP -- $15 -- to loan a book or send a photocopy of an article. My local council subsidises the service, as educational, so I only pay part of that, but even so it now means 4GBP -- $6. That's the end of the road as a method of reading around a subject. Even a short reading list of a dozen or so articles will be a serious amount of money.

If I wanted those JECS articles, I'd go to a major research library and photocopy them myself.

I'm going to complain to my Member of Parliament -- equivalent to a congressman I think.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Geoff Hudson

And even the bible colleges might go out of business soon. It just shows boys and girls that you need more than one string to your bow otherwise you too might finish up under the bridges. Its a funny old world we live in!

Geoff

godfry n. glad

WHAT?!!! And violate the integrity of intellectual property? Heavens, no.... That's heresy! If you did that the copyright holders (who, by the way, are rarely, if ever the actual generators of "intellectual property") would have their due income ripped off!

We must wait the 25 years...no, wait...30 years... no, wait, 50 years...damn!...they keep moving the goalposts on when "intellectual property" becomes "public domain"...and "public domain" is the only thing you'll find online from those who wish to control access to "intellectual property" (the publishing companies).

Well, just so you don't feel so all alone....That's about what it costs the average ILL user here in the states (our institution quotes $10-$15 USD per article/book). Also, note that Oxford Press wanted to charge our institution 50GBP per article for each article beyond the "fair use" provisions of US copyright law (that's more than 5 articles from any given journal title published within the last five years). For comparison, most other publishers charge a nominal $.50 to $1.50 USD per article, and many waive the charge entirely for educational institutions.

Yeah, me too. I do get a leg up on others, though, given my library staff perquisites. But there are limitations to that, too.

Yeah, I'd say that's the equivalent. Good luck. Complain away!

But, if your legislative responsiveness is anything like ours, it's money that talks, not the will of the people. Money means those holding copyrights, patents and trademarks. We (the community collective) just lost a battle in our Congress on this issue and they extended the life of copyrights to 50 years....thanks to the power of Disney et al. The hoardes thirsting for knowledge and understanding will have to continue to pay dearly to slake their thirst...only now for a longer period of time.

Like I say, the rich get richer....the poor get hind teat or none at all...It's the American way!

Best,

godfry

Roger Pearse

I don't mind copyright for stuff that is in print. What I object to is the 'dog in the manger.' I approached John Murray Ltd about a pamphlet published in 1948, which has probably been out of print since 1949. I wanted to put it online. After huge hassle, I got to the head of copyrights on the phone, who demanded money to allow it (how much wasn't specified). Obviously I wasn't making money, so had none to give -- I was told to get lost.

So as it stands, this publisher is *preventing* access, purely on the off-chance of being bribed to get out of the way.

The laws need savage reform.

Very useful -- thank you. Ridiculous, but useful.

Scumbags.

Letter written. I learn from the net that he responds to precisely 17% of faxes, so I'm not optimistic. I'll give him a fortnight and then ask for a personal meeting. I can endure being patronised this once.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

godfry n. glad

Oh... I agree wholeheartedly. Savage reform is not only needed, but long overdue. But my advice is not to hold your breath. Those publishers are merely protecting their "intellectual property" from "theft of intellectual property". They go all sanctimonious about this "theft" but conveniently forget that they had nothing to do with the production of that "intellectual property", they merely appropriated ownership from the producer when, in order for the producer of the "intellectual property" to gain exposure, they either gave it or sold it for a miniscule fee to the publisher. It is a huge scam.

It is a scam perpetuated by our elected officials, who largely respond to the blandishments of money or the threat of its withdrawal from publishing houses and other copyright, patent and trademark owners, rather than to justice, righteousness, or fairness to the true producers of intellectual property, or to their constituents' true interests. Money talks....and crushes those who don't listen in the courts or at the polls. Such is the true nature of American "democracy."

If I knew that a sizeable portion of the fees collected were going to go to the actual person who produced the "intellectual property", I wouldn't be ranting here. But I know otherwise.
The true producer of intellectual property rarely gets much more than the right to say they're published. Often, the producer even has to pay to have it published or even to get reprints of their own work.

godfry