Bede

Two corrections:

1) Thanks for the link Vork. I withdraw my accusation of slander against Yuri.

2) As Haran said, it was Cross who made the 'Genius' claim. IIRC, I saw it in a post of JK on Xtalk.

I'm ducking out of this now as I'm not sure we can make more progress.

Yours

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Peter Kirby

Has anyone attempted to create a document of similar length that passes the stylistic test for authorship by Clement? I doubt that it is as simple as being smart and possessing a concordance.

best,
Peter Kirby

Haran

Not to my knowledge, but I'd almost bet those who are familiar with his vocabulary would be able to produce something passable.

Well...being a scholar in the first place, being smart, knowing Greek, knowing the historical backgrounds of CoA, Carpocratians, and Mark, etc...

Seriously, why? What else do you think there is to it? How do you think scholars would check the style?

Peter Kirby

That's just a guess.

Stylistics is something that I have been wanting to check into for a long time. In order to answer "what else," I would need to know "what" you think is tested in the first place.

best,
Peter Kirby

Haran

True. But that's why I said "I'd bet".

I'm afraid I don't have a textbook answer for you on this although Stalin would probably be a good start for Clement. Every author has their quirks and it is usually in vocabulary and/or syntax.

For an example of sytlistic analysis that I'm sure you are familiar with, think of Meier's analysis of the style of the controversial Josephus passage which mentions Jesus. Personally, I think this was a pretty good analysis that gets ignored most of the time. But that's a whole 'nother story.

Anyways, as you can tell from Josephus, the whole process seems somewhat subjective.

Oh well, Bede is probably right in that there may not be anyhere much to go with this. If people read the materials and think about it, they will come to their own informed decisions about the probability or lack thereof that SGM is a forgery. If I find some "Smith quotes" at some point, I may post them, but don't count on it.

Peter Kirby

Since you haven't presented any objective evidence for forgery, will you continue to refer to the opinion that the Mar Saba letter is Clementine as a clear example of bias? That's what started the discussion, that and Bede's million to one odds, which doesn't seem to be all that impartial of an assessment itself.

best,
Peter Kirby

Haran

I stated from the beginning that the evidence was circumstantial but significant. The evidence that is there seems to me to be on the probability side for forgery. So, on some level, yes, I do hold that it is an example of "bias". I suppose you may look at it that way with me as well. However, the reason I brought it up in the other thread had nothing to do with SGM in specific, it was being used as an example that I thought Vorkosigan would understand.

I suppose I thought there was more to it than that, like an honest inquiry into what that circumstantial evidence might be and why forgery seems probable to some, since neither of us actually started the thread.

Peter Kirby

To recap the case for forgery by Smith:

1. The letter supports some position(s) Smith held prior to Mar Saba.
2. Smith planned it so that other scholars wouldn't have physical access to the manuscript.

Is that the extent of the claimed evidence?

And apparently an idea that you support.

The word "bias" seems to be just a mild form of slander in many cases. I would be interested in a definition of the word as you are using it.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Man, you use some strong words.

I detest Kilmon.

Since he does seem to be a legitimate scientist, I don't doubt that he may believe the facts say the shroud is real. I don't agree, but I definitely don't have the expertise he does in the area to refute him.

His presentation is a mite one-sided.


Also, I thought Yuri said he was Jewish. What reasons would he have for supporting the Shroud of Turin if he didn't really think it is what is claimed?

A damn good question.

Just curious... I didn't think the Shroud was really an open and shut case, but then I don't really know all that much about it to be honest.

Well, if the Church's own investigation, and carbon dating, and the numerous skeptical discussions refuting all of Kilmon's data don't convince....

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Haran
For an example of sytlistic analysis that I'm sure you are familiar with, think of Meier's analysis of the style of the controversial Josephus passage which mentions Jesus. Personally, I think this was a pretty good analysis that gets ignored most of the time.

Personally I thought it was incredibly disingenous. Meier relegates important issues to footnotes, dismisses the whole discussion on the pervasive silence in the sources with an offhand comment, and constructs the chapter so that his theory is the default theory at which others must aim. Just another example of NT scholars creating a rhetorical hothouse where the HJ can thrive. This behavior is especially ethically offensive, given that A Marginal Jew is supposed to be a kind of survey work aimed at larger audiences. Kirby's or Doherty's discussion is ever so much better for a general review of the issues and problems.

Vorkosigan