Unveiling the Truth: A Detailed Paleographic Analysis of the Letter to Theodore

After confirming Agamemnon Tselikas's initial analysis, I embarked on a meticulous journey to further investigate the authenticity of the controversial Letter to Theodore. Using Quesnell's specialized photographs, I analyzed every instance of words ending in "οι" (31 occurrences) and "ος" (30 occurrences) within the manuscript (Figure 1). This comprehensive analysis aimed to provide a clearer understanding of the scribe's writing patterns and ultimately determine whether the key word on the 67th line was "γυμνοί" (gymnoi) or "γυμνός" (gymnos).

The Methodology

Inspired by the initial findings and my ongoing interactions with Greek paleographic experts, I decided to take my analysis a step further. I identified every instance of the suffixes "-νος" and "-νοι" within the manuscript, highlighting these occurrences with a red border around the photos. The rationale behind this approach was that the scribe, being consistent in their writing, would exhibit similar motions when forming these suffixes. By comparing these instances, we could better determine the accurate reading of the word in question.

The Nuanced Analysis

The analysis revealed significant variation in the way iotas were written, coupled with the relatively low frequency of words ending in "νοι." Given the brevity of the original letter (only two and a half pages, seventy-one lines of written text) and the anonymity of the original scribe, a simple comparison of accents was insufficient. To address this, I focused on matching instances where the scribe wrote "nu," followed by "omicron," and then either "iota" or "sigma." This pattern recognition approach allowed for a more precise determination of the key word.

Collaboration with Experts

This innovative methodology developed organically through my correspondences with Dimitrios Georgakopoulos from the University of Ioannina. Dimitrios was introduced to me by another Greek expert, Alexandros Alexakis, Professor of Byzantine Philology and Co-editor of the Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library (HUP) at the Department of Philology, Faculty of Philosophy, University of Ioannina. Their expertise and insights were invaluable in refining the analytical process and ensuring the accuracy of the findings.

Results and Implications

The rigorous analysis concluded that the word on the 67th line was indeed "γυμνοί" (gymnoi), not "γυμνός" (gymnos). This distinction is crucial as it undermines many of the forgery theories centered around Morton Smith's discovery of the manuscript. The plural form "γυμνοί," which could include women, shifts the focus away from the homoerotic themes often attributed to Smith's motives.

Conclusion

The painstaking analysis of the Letter to Theodore, supported by Quesnell's photographic enlargements and expert collaborations, has provided new clarity on the manuscript's authenticity. This work not only challenges the forgery accusations against Morton Smith but also demonstrates the power of detailed paleographic examination. By meticulously comparing the scribe's writing patterns, we have taken a significant step towards resolving one of the most contentious debates in biblical scholarship.

The journey continues, but with each analysis and expert collaboration, we move closer to uncovering the true history and authenticity of the Letter to Theodore.