An In-Depth Analysis of the Textological Observations by Agamemnon Tselikas

Agamemnon Tselikas, a renowned paleographer, has meticulously examined the textological aspects of a controversial manuscript purportedly discovered by Morton Smith. His comprehensive report delves into the various inconsistencies and peculiarities of the text, raising significant questions about its authenticity. Here, we summarize Tselikas’ detailed observations, providing insights into his findings and the implications for the manuscript's credibility.

Textological Observations by Agamemnon Tselikas

1. Single Witness Transmission: Tselikas begins by noting that the text in question is transmitted by a single witness—two leaves in the edition of the works of Ignatius of Antioch. This manuscript is written by a hand that can be dated from the late 17th century to the late 18th century.

2. Historical Context: He points out that, according to historical records of Clement of Alexandria's works, no earlier manuscript contains this text. The lack of any older manuscripts containing the text before this date is significant.

3. Scribe’s Model: Tselikas asserts that the scribe who copied the text must have had a model in minuscule writing, likely dating from the 9th century onwards. He provides examples of similar manuscripts from the Holy Sepulchre collection, noting that these were often direct copies of earlier texts.

4. Loss of the Model: It is reasonable to assume that the scribe’s model might have been lost. However, Tselikas questions why no other manuscripts transmitting Clement’s letter exist if the text was indeed significant.

5. Unnatural Recent Witness: He argues that for a recent witness like the Mar Sabba manuscript, it is unnatural to assume the model’s loss without other supporting manuscripts.

6. Unique Attribution: None of the manuscripts containing Clement’s texts include this letter, making it unique. This raises questions about its authenticity.

7. Incomplete Text: The text of Clement’s letter ends abruptly in the middle of the third page. Tselikas notes that, typically, a scribe would indicate an incomplete model with a note, which is absent here.

8. Codicological Practices: The way the letter is transmitted does not align with standard codicological practices. Tselikas suggests that the scribe should have incorporated the text into a collection or anthology of patristic texts.

9. Location of Copying: Tselikas considers the most logical answer to be that the text was copied in the Monastery of St. Sabba during the specified date range. The monastery has a history of manuscript copying from the 13th to the 17th centuries.

10. No Matching Script: Upon examining the manuscripts of St. Sabba and the Patriarchate archive, Tselikas found no handwriting matching that of Clement’s letter. This suggests that if the scribe was active in the monastery, other examples of his work should exist.

11. Period of Codicological Inactivity: He notes that during the late 17th and early 18th centuries, under Patriarch Dositheos, the monastery was being rebuilt, and significant codicological activity was absent.

12. Absence of Printed Books: Tselikas finds it interesting that old printed books in the Library of St. Sabba, listed in a catalogue from 1887, do not include the edition of Ignatius. This book was also absent in a 1923 record.

13. Entry into the Monastery: He concludes that the edition of Ignatius must have entered the library of the monastery after 1923. This timeline raises further questions about the manuscript’s origins.

14. Missing Title Page: The title page of the Ignatius edition is missing, which could have provided information about the book’s provenance. The absence of any library stamps or numbers, except those given by Smith, adds to the mystery.

15. Timing of Writing: Tselikas questions whether the letter was written before or after the Ignatius edition entered the monastery. He considers several possible scenarios but finds it unlikely that someone wrote the text inside the monastery post-1923 due to strict supervision.

16. Morton Smith’s Involvement: Tselikas suggests that Morton Smith might have placed the edition of Ignatius with the letter already written in the library. Smith’s close relationship with the abbot and his frequent visits support this theory.

17. Handwriting Imitation: Tselikas asserts that the handwriting of the letter is an imitation of older Greek scripts. He suggests that Morton Smith could have written the text based on manuscripts he had seen and photographed during his travels.

18. Handwriting Comparison: Although a direct comparison of Smith’s Greek handwriting with that of the letter is inconclusive, several factors point to Smith’s involvement.

Morton Smith's Presence in the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and Greece

Agamemnon Tselikas provides further context about Morton Smith's visits to Palestine and Greece. Smith visited Palestine twice, first in 1941 during World War II, when he stayed at the Monastery of St. Sabba, and again in 1958, when he cataloged manuscripts and claimed to discover the edition of Ignatius with the Clement’s letter.

In 1951, Smith returned to Greece, visiting various remote libraries, including those in Cephalonia, Dimitsana, Skiathos, and Ioannina, studying manuscripts and seeking unknown texts. Tselikas questions the ease with which Smith accessed these libraries given the political situation and transportation difficulties of the time, suggesting the possibility of Smith being involved in some other type of civil service.

Tselikas also highlights Smith's maintained relations with the Patriarchate of Jerusalem, including a 1950 fundraising initiative for the Patriarchate. Smith’s efforts included a greeting letter to the librarian of St. Sabba, which accompanied an announcement of his discovery of the Clement’s letter.

However, the librarian's impression of Smith was less favorable. According to Tselikas, the librarian believed that Smith’s discovery was self-serving, aimed at generating notoriety rather than genuine scholarly contribution.

Conclusion

Agamemnon Tselikas' detailed textological and paleographic analysis casts significant doubt on the authenticity of the manuscript purportedly discovered by Morton Smith. His observations raise questions about the manuscript’s origins, the scribe's identity, and Smith's involvement in its creation. Tselikas’ meticulous work underscores the importance of rigorous scrutiny in verifying the authenticity of historical texts.

For a detailed examination, you can read Agamemnon Tselikas' full report here.