Questioning the Authenticity of Clement of Alexandria’s Letter to Theodore: A Critical Analysis of Stephen Carlson’s Examination

The authenticity of ancient manuscripts is a matter of great significance in the realm of biblical scholarship. One such manuscript that has been at the center of a heated debate is Clement of Alexandria’s Letter to Theodore, famously linked with the Secret Gospel of Mark. Discovered by Morton Smith in the Mar Saba Monastery near Jerusalem in 1958, the manuscript, known as Mar Saba 65, has been the subject of scrutiny, particularly following the controversial analysis by Stephen Carlson.

Stephen Carlson’s Analysis

Stephen Carlson, a patent attorney with no formal training in questioned document examination, took it upon himself to analyze the handwriting of Mar Saba 65. In his book, The Gospel Hoax, Carlson argued that the manuscript was a forgery created by its discoverer, Morton Smith. Carlson applied principles of forensic document examination to support his claims. However, this autodidactic approach is problematic, especially considering the standards set by the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ABFDE). The ABFDE emphasizes that competency in document examination requires a structured training program, extensive mentoring, and comprehensive examinations.

The Role of Julie C. Edison

One factor that lent some credibility to Carlson’s analysis was his consultation with Julie C. Edison, a professional forensic document examiner. Carlson claimed that Edison reviewed his work and provided a positive assessment. However, the details surrounding Edison’s involvement and the nature of her review were vague. Carlson only posted excerpts from her letter, raising questions about what was omitted.

When contacted, Edison stated, “Regretfully, I do not recall offering a professional opinion regarding Morton Smith’s Letter of Clement.” She recalled spending a single afternoon in 2005 with Carlson, presumably looking at black-and-white halftone reproductions of the letter. She added, “Mr. Carlson paid me for my consulting time, but we did not communicate after that.” Importantly, she clarified, “no professional evaluation of mine was put into writing.”

The Missing Sections of Edison’s Letter

The full text of Edison’s letter, which she provided upon request, sheds light on what Carlson omitted. The excised sections reveal critical information:

1. Lack of Expertise in Ancient Greek: Edison admitted, “Although my undergraduate degree is in history, my knowledge of ancient Greece, Rome, and early Christianity is basic at best. And I have a limited knowledge of the Greek alphabet.”
2. Fundamental Issues with Document Examination: She emphasized the need to compare the questioned document to known standards. Edison noted, “Mr. Carlson has Greek writing samples attributed to the 17th or 18th century, he has no known handwriting from Clement or the unknown monk who allegedly transcribed his letters. Therefore, Mr. Carlson may not be able to conclusively state this text is non-authentic – solely on the basis of forensic document examination.”

These admissions contradict Carlson’s portrayal of Edison’s endorsement and highlight fundamental problems with his approach.

The Issue of Photographic Evidence

Carlson’s analysis relied heavily on halftone reproductions of Smith’s black-and-white photographs. Unlike original photographs, halftone images lose essential visual information and distort line quality when magnified. This can lead to incorrect conclusions about handwriting authenticity. Document examiners have long recognized the limitations of halftone reproductions. In 1956, Ordway Hilton noted that halftone images do not reveal hidden detail and are unsuitable for document examination.

Misleading Representations

Carlson’s selective use of Edison’s letter and reliance on inadequate photographic evidence have misled many into believing his findings. For instance, Craig A. Evans promoted the idea that professional experts validated Carlson’s conclusions, but this was based on a misrepresentation of Edison’s role.

Conclusion

The examination of Clement of Alexandria’s Letter to Theodore by Stephen Carlson reveals significant issues when questioned document analysis is conducted without proper training and experience. Carlson’s reliance on halftone reproductions and selective presentation of expert opinions further undermines the credibility of his conclusions.

For a deeper exploration of these concerns, refer to the detailed critique by Scott Brown and Allan Pantuck in their paper, 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 in forensic document examination to ensure the integrity and accuracy of scholarly conclusions.

The Implications for Biblical Scholarship

The case of Mar Saba 65 underscores the importance of rigorous standards in manuscript analysis. It also highlights the potential for significant scholarly impact based on flawed methods. As the debate continues, it is crucial for scholars to critically assess the methodologies and qualifications of those conducting such analyses to avoid misleading conclusions that can shape the understanding of early Christian texts and history.