tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post7953658836990009558..comments2024-03-29T07:11:17.775+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: Currents in Biblical Research: New ArticlesP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-23425279631009387672012-10-19T11:52:29.558+01:002012-10-19T11:52:29.558+01:00Timo Paananen's paper makes several good obser...Timo Paananen's paper makes several good observations, but it seems occasionally self-contradictory. (Palaeographer Agamemnon Tselikas' publication is absent from the bibliography; presumably it appeared after the article was submitted.) For example, he distinguishes qualified scholars from other commenters, but on page 113 writes of "scholars on both side [sic]" and cites Watson, but then Shanks. He writes of the Smith-Scholem correspondence that "scholarly reactions are yet to come out *in print.* [my emphasis] I foresee that Strousma's interpretation...will be challenged..."(p.112) It does not take much foreseeing, since I and others already from quoted that correspondence online to argue that Smith's letters actually increase suspicion that he was involved in fabrication of the ms. He sometimes declares the discussion deadlocked (e.g., p. 113 of "desire to proclaim the case prematurely close [sic]"), but at other times cites progress. (I consider some of the results of Pantuck's research in the Smith Archive progress.) After recommending civility, he makes (p. 119) unfortunate comparisons of some work of Carlson and Watson to that of "fringe scholars." It is one thing to reject or question the Madiotes conjecture or the relevance of the 1940 Mystery of Mar Saba novel, and quite another to invoke "fringe scholars." As for myself, provisionally, though it is not proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and I expect further progress is possible, I think Smith was likely involved in the fabrication--and keeping "score."Stephen Goransonhttp://www.duke.edu/~goransonnoreply@blogger.com