Distinguishing some questions about the "Letter to Theodore"

[JoeWallack]

Hiya, Joe. Thanks. I did wonder if anyone would get a chuckle from my writing that Morton Smith was interested in the bitter humor of J. [Jonathan] Swift, not to be confused with T. [Taylor] Swift.
Three bitters!
Oh well, tough crowd.

("The Influence of Arbuthnot upon Swift," by R. Morton Smith, class of '36, senior Harvard thesis.)

JW:
As our fellow MotT famously said, "I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship".


Joseph Wallack

[JoeWallack]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohDB5gbtaEQ&t=77s

JW:
Previously identified issues with using AT as quality evidence for Smith forgery:

1) No direct paleographical evidence against Smith.

2) AT conclusion that Smith is forger is conditional on the Letter being a forgery.

Next, the AT claim of motive and opportunity:

Morton Smith was able to do it. He had the model (the described manuscripts), the appropriate and famous place for the discovery (St. Sabba Monastery), the reason (to become known and significant).

We have a Bible scholar who is interested in ancient mystical Christian ritual discover a Patristic letter from a relatively near Patristic in a monastery. Just for starters the Provenance seems pretty innocent to me. It's not like he traveled to Obama's mosque in Kenya and found the letter among 1 million uncounted ballots for Trump.

What Peter is torturously leading to is:

1) What would be good evidence that Smith was the Forger?

2) What is the evidence?

3) What is the distance between 1) and 2).

The great thing about being a Skeptic is you don't have to prove a conclusion you don't have.


Joseph

The New Porphyry

[StephenGoranson]

Joe, bro,
I'm sometimes skeptical of your skepticism.
Say, when you disdain when others question antiquity of "Secret Mark"--
seems pretty knee-jerk-y.

[Secret Alias]

No one out "knew jerks" you Stephen. No one. Except maybe me.