1715 Clement edition

[AdamKvanta]

"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.

For me, it wasn't so ambiguous. What I understood is that A. T. meant there are two lists of books (that were sent to Mar Saba in 1887) and the works of Ignatius are not among them but in opposite, the edition of Clement’s works is.

Further confirmation of this interpretation is found in his Anexe 4. List of books 2:

The first page of the list of printed books [s]ent to the monastery by patriarch Nicodemus. In the number 6 is mentioned the edititon [sic] of Clement’s works. (i.e. the Oxford edition).

[StephenGoranson]

Maybe so, Adam.
As the formula goes: he writes English better than I write Greek.
At least on the surface, there may be some tensions between portions of his report.
But
this sentence (no. 19 in Textological observations) is clear:
"Once we prove that the handwriting of the letter is alien to the genuine
and traditional Greek, we can accept that it is an imitation of an older
script."

[AdamKvanta]

I want to address one more ambiguous text from A.T.'s report. It is connected to the question of whether in 1887 the Clement edition was sent from Jerusalem to Mar Saba or from Mar Saba to Jerusalem:

It is worth noting that all the manuscripts of the monastery, except for a few modern and historically lower or some that were forgotten in the cells, as well as some foreign language (Arabic and Russian) moved from the Patriarch Nicodemus the year 1887 and joined the central library of the Patriarchate in Jerusalem.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/wp- ... ations.pdf (3.)

It seems this reading could be interpreted as describing an event when all the manuscripts were sent to Jerusalem (they joined the central library in Jerusalem). I presume this interpretation is behind the argument of StephenGoranson:

Why go to Mar Saba for rare items, when they were moved to Jerusalem?

However, this interpretation contradicts other statements by A.T.:
- The first contradiction is right in the quoted text above: "moved from the Patriarch Nicodemus".
- The second statement was already mentioned in the previous post: "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 third one was also already mentioned previously: "The first page of the list of printed books [s]ent to the monastery by patriarch Nicodemus".

My explanation is that the phrase "joining the central library of the Patriarchate in Jerusalem" wasn't about the joining of the physical manuscripts of Mar Saba with the other books in the Jerusalem library but only that Mar Saba became an official extended library of the central library in Jerusalem. And this Mar Saba library was created by sending there books from Jerusalem library (by the Patriarch Nicodemus) in 1887.

But regardless of where the rare items were located, I don't think Morton Smith was much interested in cataloged items. I presume, he was rather hoping he would find something rare in uncataloged books, like the books he saw in Mar Saba and that's why he went there.

[StephenGoranson]

Mar Saba had books and manuscripts long, long before 1887, when "multiple ones"--which may mean duplicate copies--were sent. (added: sent from Jerusalem to Mar Saba.)
I don't endorse your presuming vis-a-vis me.
Smith's announced reason for going there in 1958 was to catalog books. (added: not manuscripts. Again, he was not a librarian nor bibliographer.)
Though he knew of the movement of many materials to Jerusalem.
And just, um, happened to "find" an otherwise-unattested, and anomalous, manuscript in an otherwise- unattested-there book.

[AdamKvanta]

Though he knew of the movement of many materials to Jerusalem.

Thanks for correcting me, I was presuming wrongly. There was indeed a transfer of manuscripts from Mar Saba to Jerusalem in 1865. Morton Smith wrote:

The manuscripts of Mar Saba proved, on examination, to be mostly modern. This was no surprise, since it was well known that the rich collection of ancient manuscripts, for which the monastery was famous in the early nineteenth century, had been transferred to Jerusalem for safekeeping in the eighteen-sixties. Little seems to have been left behind at that time except scraps and printed books. But in subsequent years there has been a gradual accumulation of other manuscript material, both new and old. During my stay I was able to examine, label, and describe some seventy items. Besides these there were some twenty distinct manuscripts and two large folders full of scraps which I did not have time to study.

Clement of Alexandria, Preface ix

It is a pity that there is no adequate catalogue of the contents of the Mar Saba library prior to its transfer to Jerusalem in 1865. Of the earlier catalogues known to Papadopoulos-Kerameus, the most nearly complete listed only 536 MSS; he found over 700 in the Jerusalem material brought from Mar Saba (Papadopoulos-Kerameus, II.695). Similarly, a list of books dated 1910 which I found in the Mar Saba library (no. 76 of my 'Ελληνικά χειρόγραφα) lists only 191 titles; the library at present must have at least double that number. In Monasteries, 172, 175, I discuss reasons for the inadequacy of the earlier catalogues; Papadopoulos-Kerameus makes similar observations (II.695). Since the catalogues are incomplete, their silence cannot be used as an argument against the existence of material in the monastery at the time when they were made (particularly material extant on isolated leaves).

Clement of Alexandria, p. 289-290

[StephenGoranson]

Thank you, Adam.
As to the suggestion that MS intended to publish that 1958 "Manufactured" document,
which was never published in that form till his death, nor now,
according to its Preface, it was to prevent others from publishing.

[DCHindley]

Thank you, Adam.
As to the suggestion that MS intended to publish that 1958 "Manufactured" document,
which was never published in that form till his death, nor now,
according to its Preface, it was to prevent others from publishing.

Now you're actually getting somewhere. Why would he have to justify his decision? Who else would want to publish his catalogue?

It was not uncommon to use a typewriter for the text (with obvious mechanical or handwritten corrections) along with Greek or Hebrew words written by hand. The work was often mimeographed and circulates among colleagues. Often these handwritten words are pretty awkwardly drawn. Perhaps this indicates the real Greek handwriting abilities of scholars studying dead languages. Yes?

Has anyone looked at the Greek handwriting of this handwritten 1958 ms of holdings? Does it in *any way* resemble the Mar Saba ms that MS says he found? Or in his personal papers, if only to show off his abilities? I don't remember hearing that he boasted of his Greek handwriting skills. There are a few modern calligraphers who may be able to imitate the minuscule scripts in a smooth continuous way, I have seen one in action on a TV special who was playing a medieval monk. He was filmed writing very smoothly, employing ligatures and all, and relatively quickly (could have been sped up for TV).

Perhaps I have not been paying attention, as I think this was brought up many years ago, maybe not here or the predecessor boards. The level of detail available then (many of the documents and mss under discussion had never been published) was much less than now, where several authors and scholars have dug up a good deal of it.

But back to the first sentence of my response. If MS had indeed faked his own discovery, it will be betrayed by these little statements. He may even be giving you, SG and others, a clue to solve it, like the Riddler on the campy 1960s Batman & Robin US TV series. There may be something concrete there to find, and it won't be silly things like Morton Salt, baldness or swindling.

The other odd thing I had noticed, even when I read the books at the library, was how exuberant he says he felt to have discovered the document, and entertaining delusions of grandeur, but ultimately acknowledging that he has letting himself get carried away and then knuckled down with his inquiries of other significant scholars he consulted, those for and against it being a genuine Clement document. That would be a psychological clue, but those kind of clues we are finding are often subjectively pursued (Morton Salt, baldness or swindling, and now a Lawrence of Arabia like dalliance with a swarthy local).

DCH