Greek Monks Who Thought the Letter to Theodore was in the Mar Saba Monastery Before Morton Smith Arrives

[Secret Alias]

Kallistos thought the manuscript predated Morton Smith. End of story.

Next Seraphim.

[Secret Alias]

Here is what Quesnell wrote about his conversation with Flusser on his second day in Jerusalem [June 2, 1983]



I've just determined that Seraphim was a monk at Mar Saba for the first time in 1939 - almost a generation before Morton Smith arrived there. He lived on to 2002. Who would have thought! This is new information. Very important. So when Flusser who was there in 1976 seeing a tug of war between the Patriarchate and the monastery for possession of the manuscript it is clearly right to infer that Seraphim believed it belonged to the monastery. I will revisit Stroumsa's testimony. But clearly Flusser thought that Seraphim was so attached to the manuscript that he would have demanded it's return. Hardly the way you act if you know the book didn't belong in the library at Mar Saba. I feel like I am in the Twilight Zone arguing about this. It's like you pretend you don't see the obvious inference of explicit behavior.

[StephenGoranson]

Not him. Agamemnon Tselikas, who, elsewhere you have declared the best.

(Plus, K. never, reportedly, showed that. Again, he said no such thing was there in Jerusalem, the bigger library.)
(Any such at Duke or in Clark microfilm? If so name it.)
(Nor any like that, end of printing-press book, three pages like that, previously-unknown ancient believable text-------but you ignored that.)

[StephenGoranson]

Flusser thought it was a fake.

[Secret Alias]

What does Tselikas have to do with any of this? So just to make it is explicit for you.

- 1939 Seraphim is a monk at Mar Saba.
between 1939 - 1958 Seraphim figures out which books are in the catalog of the library (there's not a lot to do in a monastery. No Playstation for instance)
- 1958 Morton Smith comes to the library and asks for books. He is given the Ignatius book.
1958 - 1960 Everyone at the monastery figures out they have a value manuscript after the Patriarchate took all the manuscripts that formerly resided at Mar Saba
- 1970s Patriarchate is going around to all the monastic libraries and claiming whatever manuscripts should be preserved from robbers.
- 1976 a group of scholars remind them that there is manuscript written inside of a book. Big fight breaks out between Seraphim the man who was there when Morton Smith discovered the manuscript and Kallistos the librarian of Jerusalem Patriarchate.

It is hardly outrageous to suggest that

a) Seraphim and Kallistos were fighting over a book which both acknowledged was the property of the Mar Saba library and had always or at least originally been the property of the Mar Saba library.
b) the only reason Kallistos was there in 1976 was to preserve the manuscript. The book was expendable.
c) Seraphim's desperate attempts to preserve control of the manuscript may have influenced him.

More on what Kallistos told Quesnell:

"Says there were heretics and heretical schools often at M[ar] S[aba] and this fragment is part of a Hapousa? to one of their books. He does not think it is from S Clement. He remembers someone noting in some publication that some did report seeing this in the 16th 17th century."

[Secret Alias]

How does Tselikas know better than Seraphim whether or not the book was originally in the Mar Saba library? This is a crazy conversation. Tselikas likely wasn't 10 years old in 1958. The person who knows best whether the Voss book belonged in the library was Seraphim. That's why Flusser writes:

Knows Meliton Charistos. Both scholars but Meliton much more effective. Ousted by new Patriarch. (But how come Xaristos didn't seem to know Flusser?)
Of both were in on the recovery of the ms. from Mar Saba?)
Oh yes, Flusser was one of those who went out. The library was a mess. They did not find the book. And then they did - in the middle of a pile of books carelessly thrown on the floor, all covered with dust. What kind of a scholar, he asks about Smith, could have permitted this? Walked off, leaving his great discovery to such a fate?
They were about to bring it back when Abbott Seraphim raised hell, said they had to request it, & he would sent it. They did & he did. So Flusser was surprised it was still in Jerusalem - thought surely Seraphim would have demanded it back by now.

[StephenGoranson]

Tselikas is relevant because he evaluated the hand as fake, modern imitation.
Among other inaccuracies, e.g.,: "everyone" there 1958-1960 knew they had "a value manuscript".......utterly evidence-less, besides false and ridiculous.

[Secret Alias]

Are you on medication? The thread is about monks who thought the manuscript was already at Mar Saba before Morton Smith got there. What does Tselikas have to do with any of this? It's like you're having a separate conversation. I've shows that two monks thought that the manuscript was already there, one of whom had been at Mar Saba since 1939 - 19 years before Morton Smith. What does Tselikas have to do with any of this or any of the other stuff you are bringing up?

[Secret Alias]

This is a powerful testimony of a longtime resident of Mar Saba, a resident who was there when Smith discovered the manuscript, thought the book and the manuscript belonged to the Mar Saba monastery.

"They were about to bring it back when Abbot Seraphim raised hell said they had to request it the[y] would sent it. They did & he did. So Flusser was surprised it was still in Jerualem. Thought surely Seraphim would have demanded it back by now."

How do you get around this? I didn't know Seraphim was a resident at Mar Saba when Morton Smith discovered the manuscript. Surely you didn't either.

[StephenGoranson]

Again, no person said the manuscript was at Mar Saba before 1958.
Tselikas is additionally relevant for indicating modern forgery.