Re-examining the Controversy: The Authenticity of Clement of Alexandria’s Letter to Theodore

The authenticity of ancient manuscripts is a pivotal concern in biblical scholarship, particularly when such texts have the potential to reshape our understanding of early Christianity. One such manuscript is Clement of Alexandria’s Letter to Theodore, also known as Mar Saba 65. Discovered by Morton Smith in 1958, this manuscript has sparked extensive debate, especially following the contested analysis by Stephen Carlson in his book, The Gospel Hoax.

The Analysis by Stephen Carlson

Stephen Carlson, a patent attorney without formal training in questioned document examination, undertook the task of analyzing the handwriting of Mar Saba 65. Carlson concluded that the manuscript was a modern forgery created by Smith himself. He applied principles of forensic document examination to support his claims. However, the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ABFDE) emphasizes that competency in document examination requires structured training, mentoring, and rigorous testing—none of which Carlson had.

The Role of Julie C. Edison

Carlson bolstered his claims by consulting Julie C. Edison, a professional forensic document examiner. He claimed that Edison reviewed his work and provided positive feedback, which he presented as validation of his findings. However, the details of Edison’s involvement were vague, and Carlson only published excerpts from her letter, raising suspicions about what was omitted.

When contacted, Edison clarified that she did not provide a professional opinion on the manuscript’s authenticity. She spent a single afternoon with Carlson, presumably examining black-and-white halftone reproductions of the letter. Importantly, she stated, “no professional evaluation of mine was put into writing.” This revelation contradicts Carlson’s portrayal of her endorsement.

The Missing Sections of Edison’s Letter

The full text of Edison’s letter, which she provided upon request, contained crucial information omitted by Carlson:

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 necessity of comparing the questioned document to known standards, which Carlson lacked. She 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.”

The Issue of Photographic Evidence

Carlson’s analysis relied heavily on halftone reproductions of Smith’s black-and-white photographs. Halftone images lose essential visual information and distort line quality when magnified, leading to potential misinterpretations. Document examiners have long recognized these limitations. In 1956, Ordway Hilton noted that halftone images are unsuitable for document examination as they do not reveal hidden details and distort line quality.

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.

The Suspicious Feature: Natural Variation

The section of Edison’s letter omitted by Carlson also discussed a suspicious feature: the high degree of natural variation in the manuscript’s handwriting. Carlson interpreted this as evidence of forgery, but forensic document examiners typically see natural variation as indicative of authenticity. Edison noted, “Based upon Greek standards supplied by Mr. Carlson and this examiner’s exposure to early American documents; this examiner noticed the questioned manuscript contained a far greater degree of natural variation than what was typical for professional penmen of that era.”

Implications for Carlson’s Analysis

Edison’s observations highlight three significant issues with Carlson’s analysis:

1. Inability to Read Greek: Edison’s limited knowledge of Greek undermines her capacity to provide a fully informed opinion.
2. Necessity of Known Standards: The absence of authentic handwriting samples for comparison is a fundamental flaw in Carlson’s approach.
3. Natural Variation: The presence of natural variation typically supports the authenticity of a document, contradicting Carlson’s interpretation.

Conclusion

The examination of Clement of Alexandria’s Letter to Theodore by Stephen Carlson reveals substantial 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.