Natural Variation: A Key Indicator of Authenticity

When evaluating the authenticity of handwritten documents, natural variation is a crucial factor that often distinguishes genuine writings from forgeries. Natural variation refers to the small, unconscious differences in a person’s handwriting that occur each time they write. This variability is a hallmark of spontaneous and genuine writing. In contrast, forgeries often lack such variation because forgers tend to replicate the same letter forms consistently, making their writing appear unnaturally uniform.

The Significance of Natural Variation

In the realm of forensic document examination, the presence of natural variation is considered a strong indicator of authenticity. As Koppenhaver explains, forgers usually limit the range of letter forms they copy, resulting in more consistent and less varied writing than genuine handwriting. Forgers replicate words exactly when they are repeated in a text, leading to a lack of variation that can be a telltale sign of forgery:

"Forgers limit the letter forms they copy, making fraudulent writing more consistent than genuine writing. Forgers duplicate words exactly when they are repeated in a text. Therefore, lack of variation and exact duplication are signs of spurious writing."

"The forger doesn’t recognize the need for natural variation and makes the words and letters as close to the known writing as possible. This is obvious when he or she attempts to copy extended writing. The forger will exactly duplicate the letter form, crossing the 't' at the same angle and in the same place, dotting the 'i' in the same location, forming the design of the letter exactly like the model, giving the writing a rubber stamp look."

Edison’s observations regarding the natural variation in Mar Saba 65, the manuscript of Clement of Alexandria’s Letter to Theodore, must be understood in this context. Her impression that the extent of natural variation in the manuscript is suspicious is based on her familiarity with important American documents and Greek book hands, which often have an artistic quality for the reader to appreciate. However, Mar Saba 65 is a documentary hand, used for everyday records, and it needs to be compared to other Greek documentary hands from the period. The Greek documentary hands seen by the authors do not display the mechanical quality that Edison is accustomed to in American documents.

Concluding Thoughts on Carlson’s Analysis

The insights provided by Edison, though initially presented as supportive of Stephen Carlson’s analysis, reveal significant gaps and limitations in his approach. Carlson’s reliance on Edison’s brief consultation and selective presentation of her letter has misled many into overestimating the robustness of his findings. If Carlson’s readers had known the full context—that Edison cannot read Greek, met with Carlson for only a few hours, examined only halftone reproductions of photographs, disavowed having given a professional opinion on the manuscript’s authenticity, and emphasized the critical need for known standards—they would have been far less impressed by his conclusions.

Carlson’s selective use of Edison’s letter and his omission of key criticisms highlight the necessity of transparency and thoroughness in forensic document examination. A proper analysis conducted by a qualified questioned document examiner, with access to adequate standards and original materials, would likely yield very different results from those presented in The Gospel Hoax.

The case of Mar Saba 65 underscores the importance of adhering to established principles in forensic document examination. It also serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of autodidactic approaches and the need for professional expertise when making claims about the authenticity of historical manuscripts.

For a detailed critique of Carlson’s methods and a deeper understanding of the issues at stake, refer to Scott Brown and Allan Pantuck's paper, Stephen Carlson’s Questionable Questioned Document Examination: A Guest Post by Scott G. Brown & Allan J. Pantuck. Their work provides a comprehensive examination of the flaws in Carlson’s analysis and underscores the importance of rigorous standards in forensic document examination.

The revelations about Edison’s consultation and the broader implications of Carlson’s methodological flaws make it clear that any conclusions drawn about the authenticity of Mar Saba 65 must be revisited with a more critical and informed perspective. This ensures that scholarly discussions are based on sound evidence and professional integrity, maintaining the credibility and accuracy of historical research.