A Critique of Watson: Smith's Prior Work

III. 1. Watson thinks that Smith's scholarly work in the 1950s prefigured the content of his 1958 discovery to can extent that cannot be coincidence. But as I explain in this post, why can't we simply ascribe insightfulness to Smith on the point of esotericism? His critics are willing to ascribe all manner of talents to Smith--why is it inconceivable to them that he happened to be on the right track before he made his discovery? And why should Smith not be the discoverer of the evidence confirming his hypothesis? It might seem suspicious, but who better to take the effort to search eastern monasteries for lost manuscript evidence of gospel sources (as Smith spent the 1950's doing, not only at Mar Saba, but also in Greece)? It may not be much of an accident at all that Smith was the one to discover the manuscript. I am also quite puzzled by Watson's claim that "In the context of a discussion of rabbinic beliefs, Smith is not obliged to refer to this passage [from Clement on Jesus' esotericism]." But...so what? Smith might not have been obliged to refer to it, but it is indubitably appropriate to the discussion. Smith correctly noticed this. And, of course, he was not the only scholar in the 1950s pursuing these subjects.