Professional Examination of a Foreign Script: Revisiting the Carlson Document Controversy

The examination of questioned documents, especially those in unfamiliar scripts, requires a level of expertise that extends beyond basic recognition. This principle is underscored in the ongoing debate surrounding the authenticity of Clement of Alexandria’s Letter to Theodore, particularly in the context of Stephen Carlson’s analysis presented in The Gospel Hoax. Carlson, a patent attorney without formal training in forensic document examination, concluded that the manuscript was a modern forgery by its discoverer, Morton Smith. This conclusion has been widely scrutinized and debated, especially given the critical nature of expertise in the field of questioned document examination.

The Limitations of Unfamiliar Script Analysis

Jay Levinson, an expert in document examination, emphasized that professional judgments about the peculiarities of handwriting are grounded in a deep understanding of what constitutes typical handwriting in the script being examined. Without this expertise, an examiner is essentially "working in the dark." This sentiment is echoed by J. F. McCarthy, who warned that examining writings in foreign scripts can lead experienced examiners to make errors akin to those of novices. According to Levinson, the appropriate professional response is to acknowledge these limitations: "The document examiner can admit professionally that there are certain types of handwriting problems that he cannot handle."

Julie C. Edison, who briefly consulted with Carlson, adhered to this professional ethic by acknowledging her limitations in her letter to Carlson and in discussions with researchers. She admitted that her knowledge of ancient Greek and her exposure to the Greek alphabet were limited. This honest acknowledgment calls into question her ability to validate Carlson’s methods and conclusions regarding the manuscript’s authenticity.

The Necessity of Standards of Genuine Writing

A fundamental aspect of forensic document examination is the comparison of questioned documents to known standards of genuine handwriting. This comparison allows examiners to identify signs of forgery and signs of genuineness. Signs of forgery, such as tremors, hesitations, and blotting, must be evaluated against known standards to determine whether they are characteristic of the writer’s normal habits or indicative of fraudulent activity. Katherine Koppenhaver highlighted that the presence of any signs of forgery does not necessarily indicate fraudulent handwriting unless they deviate from known handwriting standards.

Albert S. Osborn, a foundational figure in the field, emphasized that superficial knowledge or hasty examination can lead to serious errors. Genuine handwriting is determined by the number and nature of its characteristics, and a positive opinion requires an adequate amount of standard writing for comparison. This principle underscores the necessity of comprehensive standards to accurately assess questioned documents.

Carlson’s Analysis: A Case of Insufficient Standards

Carlson’s analysis of Mar Saba 65 lacked the necessary standards for comparison, which is a fundamental flaw in his approach. Edison’s letter, which Carlson selectively excerpted, underscored this issue by noting the absence of known handwriting samples from Clement or the monk who allegedly transcribed his letters. Edison observed that the manuscript displayed a high degree of natural variation, a characteristic typically associated with authentic documents. Forensic document examiners recognize that natural variation is a sign of genuineness, as it reflects the free and spontaneous nature of genuine handwriting.

Edison’s observations align with established forensic principles. Her inability to read Greek and the lack of adequate standards fundamentally undermine Carlson’s conclusions. Moreover, the high degree of natural variation in the manuscript suggests authenticity rather than forgery.

Misleading Representations and the Need for Rigorous Standards

Carlson’s selective use of Edison’s letter and reliance on inadequate photographic reproductions have misled many into believing his findings. By omitting critical sections of Edison’s letter, Carlson created the impression that she unequivocally endorsed his work. In reality, her limited expertise and the absence of comprehensive standards call into question the validity of Carlson’s analysis.

This issue is further complicated by the nature of the photographic evidence used. Halftone reproductions, which Carlson relied upon, lose essential visual information and distort line quality when magnified. Document examiners have long recognized that halftone images are unsuitable for forensic examination because they do not reveal hidden details and can create false impressions of the handwriting.

The Experiment Illustrating the Importance of Adequate Standards

An experiment involving court-qualified state forensic document examiners illustrated the pitfalls of attempting questioned document examination without adequate standards. Examiners incorrectly judged 68 percent of arthritic-impaired signatures as forgeries when unaware of the writers' conditions. However, with comprehensive standards that included samples of both normal and impaired writing, they correctly identified 92 percent of the signatures as authentic. This experiment underscores the necessity of thorough knowledge about the writer and the context to accurately interpret signs of forgery.

Conclusion

The controversy surrounding Clement of Alexandria’s Letter to Theodore and Stephen Carlson’s analysis highlights the critical importance of rigorous standards and comprehensive expertise in forensic document examination. Julie C. Edison’s candid acknowledgment of her limitations and the high degree of natural variation in the manuscript suggest authenticity rather than forgery. Carlson’s selective representation of Edison’s letter and reliance on inadequate evidence have misled many in the academic community.

For a detailed critique of Carlson’s analysis and further insights into the importance of proper forensic document examination methods, refer to the paper by Scott Brown and Allan Pantuck, Stephen Carlson’s Questionable Questioned Document Examination: A Guest Post by Scott G. Brown & Allan J. Pantuck. Their work underscores the necessity of adhering to rigorous standards to ensure the integrity and accuracy of scholarly conclusions.

The case of Mar Saba 65 serves as a reminder that expertise, comprehensive standards, and transparency are essential in the analysis of ancient manuscripts. As debates continue, it is crucial for scholars to critically assess methodologies and qualifications to avoid misleading conclusions that can significantly impact our understanding of early Christian texts and history.