1. Morton Smith claimed Seraphim as an "old friend"
2. the Patriarchate and the monastery bitterly fought over the transport of this battered book to the point and when they came to an agreement a certificate of authenticity acknowledging it as property of the monastery and that the letter of Clement was “unpublished and without any doubts about its authenticity."
3. Seraphim was vehemently arguing the transport kicking and screaming when the four outsiders came to remove it.
4. One of those outsiders David Flusser when he meets Quesnell confesses that he is surprised that the book wasn't returned to the angry Seraphim
After all this, you can imagine a scenario where Seraphim and Kallistos thought the manuscript was authentic but didn't think the book was in monastic library in 1958. You think there is a reasonable possibility that if you asked them whether the book was in the monastery in 1958 there is a chance that they would say no it wasn't.
I am very interested in hearing how the certificate of authenticity could have been issued in 1976 AND there was somehow a scenario where the authorities didn't suppose that the manuscript was in the library of Mar Saba before 1958. Please explain that scenario.
No apology for claiming Smith hurt me.
On to the next false claim?
Consider the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
Do different monks claim different ownership to portions and times?
There is no evidence the book was in Mar Saba before 1958. It does not appear in the books catalogs there--
as has been noted,
repeatedly.
Except for the fact that a certificate of authenticity was issued in 1976 and brought forward by Tselikas. Please outline a scenario where the Patriarchate could have issued such a scenario without supposing that the manuscript was in library before 1958. Repeatedly.
Can you at least answer a yes or no question. Could the Patriarchate have issued a certificate of authenticity without considering the question of whether the manuscript had been in the monastery before 1958? Is it possible.
So you won't answer the question of whether it is possible for the Patriarchate to have issued a certificate of authenticity without at least considering whether the book and the manuscript had been in the monastery before 1958.
A certificate of organic certification https://www.ams.usda.gov/services/organic-certification assumes certain things about the about the way produce was raised, doesn't it? They may not be listed on the certificate but they are assumed. A certificate of authenticity with respect to a manuscript found at Mar Saba necessarily assumes that the manuscript was in the library before 1958. It must have at least been considered.
