The Hunter hypothesis

Sorry it's been so long; my busy life has intervened. Let's get back to our discussion of the James H. Hunter novel The Mystery of Mar Saba and whether or not it tells us anything about the likelihood of a forgery by Morton Smith.

Let's try to think about what one might term the "Hunter hypothesis", or the idea that because James H. Hunter wrote about a fictional discovery of a piece of bogus early Christian literature at Mar Saba, any subsequent discovery of early Christian literature at Mar Saba must also be bogus.

But does this apply to, say, any discovery of early Christian literatre at an eastern monastery? Probably not, since much of Hippolytus' Philosophumena was discovered at Mt. Athos in 1842! Think also of Tischendorf's discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus. Indeed, one should not be surprised if discoveries such as these were an inspiration for Hunter (along with the real forgeries of apocrypha in the decades preceding Hunter's novel).

So, it can't be impossible in principle for lost early Christian writings to be discovered in eastern monasteries, in any given year. The only suspicion introduced by Hunter's gospel is the involvement of Mar Saba specifically, as the location of some bogus early Christian literature. But why should we be surprised if some early Christian literature were discovered at Mar Saba? Does the writing of Hunter's novel somehow preclude this possibility? The idea is absurd.

We should only be surprised if any discovery at Mar Saba, after the publication of Hunter's novel, closely resembled the manuscript described in that novel. But the letter to Theodore in no way resembles this (fictional) manuscript--not even remotely.

So we see that the only connection between Hunter's novel and Smith's discovery is the fact that the Mar Saba monastery is the location for both.

The other connection that Smith's critics make is the connection between the forgery of the fragment in Hunter's gospel, and the purported forgery of To Theodore. But the forgery of To Theodore cannot be proved in this manner, because that would be taking the conclusion as a premise. The forgery in Hunter's novel does not resemble the discovery of To Theodore, unless the forgery of To Theodore can be independently demonstrated!

So Hunter's novel is of no help at all in proving that To Theodore is a forgery. Only after a probable case has been made for the forgery of To Theodore, can Hunter's novel be proposed as any supporting evidence at all.

Indeed, Hunter's novel relies on the plausibility that a fragment of early Christian literature could in principle be discovered at Mar Saba! Hunter's plot requires the reader to believe that the forgery of the Shard of Nicodemus is a plausible scenario. (Hunter himself also obviously found it plausible, otherwise he wouldn't have written a novel in which the world uncritically accepts the "Shard of Nicodemus" as authentic. Furthermore, his publisher obviously thought it would be plausible to the general readership. Hunter's novel is not presented as a work of fantasy; instead, it is presented as a thriller, set in the real world, however contrived its characters and plot.)

So, Hunter's novel can in some ways be seen as a small piece of evidence supporting the authenticity of To Theodore.

And at this point, I think we can leave the Hunter hypothesis aside, and instead consider only the real arguments for and against the authenticity of To Theodore.