tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post8687394488355930134..comments2024-03-28T19:21:17.654+00:00Comments on Evangelical Textual Criticism: SBL 24-97 Secret Mark after Fifty YearsP.J. Williamshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04388225485348300613noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-88617337915719349102009-12-23T10:39:00.203+00:002009-12-23T10:39:00.203+00:00Thanks Stephan,
Roger Viklund's argument does...Thanks Stephan,<br /><br />Roger Viklund's argument does look very helpful, and does show examples where the black and white images seem to exaggerate the features Stephen Carlson was looking at (for?). <br /><br />The methodological problems of working with the black and white photos provided has been noted before (in the textual criticism discussion group there was a long discussion, with Stephen responding, back in Oct - Dec 2005, where some of these issues came out).Peter M. Headhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03379103292621457026noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-40115155084645975602009-12-21T08:28:29.634+00:002009-12-21T08:28:29.634+00:00Hi I just read your post and I wanted to alert you...Hi I just read your post and I wanted to alert you that a scholar has PROVEN that Carlson's methodology was fundamentally flawed to 'prove' the forgery hypothesis. <br /><br />http://salainenevankelista.blogspot.com/2009/12/tremors-or-just-optical-illusion.html<br /><br />As David Trobisch, the eminent expert on Biblical manuscripts notes, "His arguments are absolutely clear and convincing. The "forgery" accusations only works with the low resolution photos. An excellent article."<br /><br />Please go to the attached link and see how no one actually checked Carlson's methodology.Stephan Hullerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07712300237611095445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-57224829301097735632009-12-07T04:08:03.709+00:002009-12-07T04:08:03.709+00:00An essay on the subject, "A Letter to Theodor...An essay on the subject, "A Letter to Theodore," is up at magicinthenewtestament.com. It focuses on Smith's defense of the letter and traces the controversy through the recent BAR articles and Stroumsa's publication of the Smith/Scholem letters. Pointed criticisms of Carlson and Jeffery's methods are included.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17389112675414370421noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17859011.post-79491779109259966282008-12-09T03:22:00.000+00:002008-12-09T03:22:00.000+00:00I don't think Carlson's look at it from a lawyer's...I don't think Carlson's look at it from a lawyer's perspective is necessarily exclusive to him using the methodology of Biblical studies, though.Josh McManawayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03503876183620206761noreply@blogger.com