1715 Clement edition

[AdamKvanta]

According to A. T., Mar Saba had a 1715 edition of Clement's works, so why wouldn't a claimed added text be added there?

I'm a little bit confused. When I read A. T.'s report I understood that patriarch Nicodemus sent the 1715 edition of Clement's works to the monastery of St. Sabba in 1887. But the Letter to Theodore was supposed to be copied in the 18th century, right? So he couldn't copy it to the 1715 edition which was sent there in the 19th century. Am I missing something?

[StephenGoranson]

a) The Letter was in a hand, made later, imitating an earlier script, according to A. T.
Correct, imo.

b) A.T.'s report, included, to repeat:
"12. Interesting is the case of the existence of old printed books in the Library
of St. Sabba. According the catalogue of 263 old printed books that
patriarch Nicodemus sent to the monastery of St. Sabba in 1887 and
derived from the multiple ones of the Central Library, the edition of the
works of Ignatius is not included. Nor in the record of the books of the
monastery dating from 1923. In oposite, between these books is the edition
of Clement’s works of Oxford in the year 1715. Therefore the edition of
Ignatius entered into the library of the monastery after the year 1923."

"In oposite [sic], between these books..."
is ambiguous, as to what and how the contrast was intended.
Evidently, the writer here, A. T., intended to mean that the Clement book-set (2 vols., folio) was in Mar Saba and was not chosen to be used.

c) This, btw, is yet another hint that M.S. brought the Voss book, rather than the strawman argument (iirc, has been made somewhere) that M.S. was not capable of penning it one evening in his cell at Mar Saba

d) Lest we forget, or be misled by piecemeal views,
the faked--non Clementine, at a minimum--
fragment
--in a book not attested at Mar Saba from 1646 to mid-1958--
in a book of claimed-to-be-genuine letters
ended abruptly
when precisely just about to reveal "truth"
which as been pointed out before
is precisely the sort of bitter (Swift-ian) humor
of R. Morton Smith.

[Secret Alias]

If this isn't deflection what is? Did you address his point at all? Sadly this is not at all surprising. Admit he's right. Thanks.

[Secret Alias]

Oh I forgot. Goranson is only a first generation Mar Saba letter commenting bot. He only has two settings. Setting One: making on topic assumptions that the letter is a fake. Setting Two: making off topic assumptions that the letter is fake. Only the next generation Stephen Goranson Mar Saba commenting bot is able to consider other possibilities.

[StephenGoranson]

SA wrote, Mon Apr 22, 2024 7:02 am, in part:
"I would be very surprised if you could even one example of a text of one author being written into the blank pages of a book written by the same author. [etc. etc.]"

I have some books. Most of my books I do not write in.
But three of them come quickly to mind that I have annotated with information about the same authors.
As was done, with some of his own books, by Morton Smith.

[Secret Alias]

Deflection. Please you can never accuse anyone at this forum of this "sin." You are the king of deflection at Early Writings since you have only two settings with regards to posting at the forum on the letter. On topic and off topic accusations that Morton Smith did it. Your off topic comments are always attempts at deflection. They arise when you have no on topic way of addressing whatever has been put forward regarding authenticity.

[Secret Alias]

Please pretend that you are capable of seeing that there would be no volume of Clement of Alexandria available for an eighteenth century scribe to use. A thumbs up sign perhaps if you are incapable of typing words to this effect?

[StephenGoranson]

I wrote about the "Letter to Theodore."
SA accused me of writing about it too much and too little, both. Hm.
A deflection here might be, say, to write about soccer.

A.T., writing on 1715, was ambiguous. Apparently he thought it relevant.

[Secret Alias]

You're simply not capable of even pretending to see any other point of view than what you have decided is the truth. So in this case, the argument that there was a book of Clement of Alexandria in the Mar Saba library only works if you assume a priori that Morton Smith is the forger. What you can't see, apparently, (with you I never know if it is involuntary or deliberate ignorance) is that if the 18th century handwriting is from the 18th century then your argument falls apart. The Clement book at Mar Saba you mention has a documented attestation for when it was in the monastery. It can't have been available to the proposed 18th century author of the script. You consistently ignore any other possibilities except those that make Morton Smith the forger. That makes you "bot-like."

"I am a robot. Morton Smith is the forger. I am a robot. Morton Smith is the forger." Repeat. (1960s sounds of computerized electronics in the background).

[StephenGoranson]

If the handwriting were *actually* from the 18th century, not just similar-looking
--though AT says it was later, and I think so too--
then Smith would not be the writer (composer and maybe penner).

Btw, even if it *were* from 18th c. that would not necessarily prove it was penned at Mar Saba, especially given zero pre-1958 mentions of it nor Voss, so far shown.

The far simplest explanation--given *all* indications--is that Smith did it. IMO.

As to whether the 1715 edition was on that mentioned list, I don't know, because AT's writing at that point is unclear. Check the list. If so, then ok.
Why AT was unclear is unclear to me, and if he was mistaken in stating that it was relevant, then so be it.

I have repeatedly admitted errors on this list, e.g. recently mistyping Rabin for Roth.
I even offered an account of my being wrong about the origin of the phrase "the whole nine yards"--twice!

The Letter to Theodore is multiply bogus.
Similarly dishonest as an Oxford Professor making illegal mss sales.