Yesterday I said:
>The rest I really need to have the book to hand for. Your comments helped
>me understand the argument better, so thanks for that. But this will have
>to do for now.

Well I found the book and some more questions, so let's say this is part
two.

Here I want to ask whether Stephen has rightly identified the texts in No
22 (acc to SC the Madiotes text = plate 5A and Front Cover). This is a
simple question with far-reaching implications.

Acc to SC: there are three handwriting styles that basically equate to the
three which Smith's catalogue identifies as appearing on f.1.r (Carlson, p.
42f). The first of these is crucial as (acc to SC) it is the Madiotes hand
which Smith dated 20th Cent but actually looks 18th Cent (i.e. this
provides a parallel example of Smith attempting to imitate an 18th Cent
hand).

BUT According to Smith the three hands (Madiotes, Dionysios, Anobos) appear
on f.1.r and it is not at all clear to me that the right hand text in the
photograph 5A can be f.1.r (else how can we explain the text and other
pages facing on the left - f.1.r should be the first folio of the book).
Acc to Smith's Catalogue (helpfully given in ET here on p100f - I assume
this is an ET of the Greek translation of the original rather than the
original english script) No 22 contains primarily an 18th Cent MS in a 17th
Cent printed book. This was written on the first 11 sheets and the final 6
sheets. f.1.r identifies earlier owners (as we would expect, on the first
opening of the book). Later Smith says: 'The final sheet (r), a Romanian
writing with Latin characters, pertains to a brother of a certain Dionysios
and is dated 1779.' It seems to me that the right hand text in the photo 5A
(and front cover) is actually this text. It looks like a final sheet (in 5A
you can see the backboards behind it). It clearly follows the main
manuscript text (so it can't be f.1.r). It clearly has the date 1779 about
half way down. It is not all very clear as to what is being said here (as I
commented previously), so I can't confirm the other details, but the date
itself would seem to prove this is not f.1.r but rather 'the final sheet
(r)' (presumably f.17.r but this is not stated).

If I am right on this then it creates a big problem for Stephen's case at
this point. If I am right (in thinking that Stephen has misidentified the
page as the claimed Madiotes text) then this page is NOT 20th Cent writing
trying to look 18th Cent and attributed to the bald swindler. "M. Madiotes"
is at the extreme other end of the book. This is quite a separate 18th Cent
hand. This section of Stephen's case would, I fear, collapse.

But I should note that I haven't seen the larger photo in Secret Gospel; or
anything of 'Monasteries and their Manuscripts'; nor the Greek of Smith's
Catalogue. So hopefully I'm wrong on this.

I hope some of you may be able to check me out on this in case I am wrong
here. If I am right then there is an additional layer of irony to the
investigation in the failure to properly check the physical manuscript! It
may not be fatal to Stephen's whole argument, that depends on a few other
areas to which I hope to return.

Cheers

Peter



>Cheers
>
>Peter
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>