At 09:36 AM 11/3/2006 -0500, David Hindley wrote:
>I am not directing this response to you in particular Ken, but if one is
>making the claim that evidence for tremors almost certainly means forgery
>(or whatever semantic term we wish to employ for rhetorical effect), and I
>think Stephen has essentially done so in his book, he *should* include an
>examination of similar documents for indications of, or lack of, similar
>tremors. In other words, there has been no control study to compare the
>manuscript photos against. The fact that a tremor can be an indication of
>forgery, when other evidence rules out a contrary explanation, does not mean
>that these tremors prove forgery. This is basic scholarly method, as without
>controls we are only making allegations.
Actually, in my book, I specifically compared the photos of Smith's MS
against three manuscripts from Mar Saba: Sabas 452, 518, and 523 (See
FIGS. 2A, 2B, and 2C, respectively).
Stephen C. Carlson mailto:scarlson@...
Author of: The Gospel Hoax, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1932792481