Stephen Carlson’s Questionable Questioned Document Examination

In the world of biblical scholarship, the authenticity of ancient manuscripts is of paramount importance. This brings us to the case of Clement of Alexandria’s Letter to Theodore, famously associated with the discovery of the Secret Gospel of Mark. The manuscript, referred to as Mar Saba 65, was discovered by Morton Smith in the Mar Saba Monastery near Jerusalem in 1958. However, the authenticity of this manuscript has been hotly debated, particularly with the controversial analysis by Stephen Carlson.

Hershel Shanks, the editor of Biblical Archaeology Review, announced that the magazine had arranged for a Greek paleography expert and a Greek forensic document examiner to analyze the handwriting of the manuscript. This announcement brought renewed focus on the capabilities and methods used by Carlson, who, at the time of his analysis, was a patent attorney with no formal training in questioned document examination.

The Questionable Expertise of Stephen Carlson

Carlson applied principles of questioned document examination to argue that the handwriting of the manuscript was forged by Morton Smith. However, his autodidactic approach stands in stark contrast to the standards set by the American Board of Forensic Document Examiners (ABFDE). The ABFDE asserts that competence in distinguishing between authentic and inauthentic documents is acquired through a structured training program and extensive mentoring in a recognized forensic laboratory. This is followed by comprehensive examinations. Carlson’s lack of formal training and experience raises significant doubts about the validity of his conclusions.

J. F. McCarthy succinctly put it: “the judgments of those dabbling in the field are quite apt to be wrong.” Carlson’s analysis, given his lack of proper training, falls into this category of potentially erroneous judgments. His methods and conclusions have faced surprisingly little scrutiny from many readers of his book, The Gospel Hoax, despite evident misapplications of forensic principles, such as incorrectly identifying scribblings in Mar Saba 22 as forgeries.

The Role of Julie C. Edison

One reason Carlson's analysis gained some acceptance was his appeal to Julie C. Edison, a professional forensic document examiner. Carlson described her as someone who reviewed his work and provided a positive assessment of his methods. However, Carlson’s description of Edison’s role is vague, and he only posted excerpts from her letter. These excerpts, filled with ellipses and lacking full context, raise questions about what was omitted and why.

Carlson’s assurances that omitted sections would bolster his case are unconvincing without the full text. This selective presentation casts doubt on whether Edison truly validated his competence or merely commented on specific aspects of his methodology without a thorough examination of the manuscript’s handwriting.

Issues with Reproductions and Photographic Evidence

Another critical issue is the quality of the images used in Carlson’s analysis. Authenticity examinations often rely on high-quality, original photographs, which can reveal more detail when enlarged. In contrast, halftone reproductions, which Carlson used, lose essential visual information and distort the line quality upon magnification. These reproductions create optical illusions that can lead to incorrect conclusions about the handwriting’s authenticity.

Ordway Hilton, a renowned figure in forensic document examination, noted in 1956 that halftones and line cuts are unsuitable for reproducing material subjected to document examinations. Hilton emphasized that these reproductions do not reveal hidden details and their use significantly limits the effectiveness of document analysis.

Misleading Representations

Carlson’s portrayal of Edison’s role and his reliance on inadequate photographic evidence have led to misleading representations of his findings. For instance, Craig A. Evans has promoted the idea that experts, based on color photographs, discovered clear evidence of forgery. However, this assertion is based on Carlson’s selective and potentially misrepresentative use of Edison’s letter.

Conclusion

The examination of Clement of Alexandria’s Letter to Theodore by Stephen Carlson highlights significant issues in questioned document analysis when conducted by those without proper training and experience. Carlson’s reliance on halftone reproductions and the selective use of an expert’s letter further undermine 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.