Theos-Talk Archives (May 1998 Message tt00198)

Paul, I think we are not connecting here at all in this discussion.  My entire
reason for entering this string in the first place was simply to point out that
it is a simple matter of fairness to acknowledge that the authenticity of the
letters are in dispute when using them as evidence.  Your reply makes it clear
that you were previously aware that Jean Overton Fuller disputed the
authenticity of these letters in her published biography.  How many more
researchers hold this opinion and what their arguments are is really irrelevant
to my one humble point that I have been trying to get across.  To say that you
did not acknowledge Fuller's opposition to the authenticity of these letters
because you did not feel that her logic was "not deserving of acknowledgment"
frankly leaves me at a loss for words.  Not because I agree or disagree with her
arguments; but simply because she is a fellow researcher and a published author,
who is just as deserving of acknowledgment as any other.  Regardless of your
personal feelings about her work, it is still a matter of fairness to
acknowledge the opposing view, whether you consider her writings worthy of your
standards or not. .

As for your question concerning who wrote what arguments, I'm sorry, but I
really cannot spare the time to dig out the material and summarize the issues
for you.  It is also a subject that I have taken no personal interest, and have
not done any original work of my own.  If you want to pursue this line of
research, I suggest that you contact Ted Davy.  He has done work on this
subject, it is of interest to him, and he is of the opinion that the letters are
not authentic.  I personally believe Ted to be one of the brightest scholars
that we have, and have a lot of respect for the tedious, careful and detailed
research he has done over the years.  If Ted has time, I'm sure that he will be
happy to kick the issue around with you.

Peace
Jerry