Scott Brown's Twelve Enduring Misconceptions About "To Theodore" Misconception #9: Scholars Have Discovered Clues That Smith Left to His Hoax

The debate surrounding the authenticity of the Letter to Theodore attributed to Clement of Alexandria often includes discussions about supposed clues left behind by Morton Smith, leading some scholars to question the letter’s legitimacy. Scott Brown tackles this misconception head-on by examining the arguments put forth by Carlson and later supported by Francis Watson regarding these alleged clues (Carlson 2005; Watson 2010).

Carlson posited that Morton Smith intentionally left clues to his authorship hoax embedded within the text and external references. One of Carlson’s assertions involved a photograph from another manuscript at Mar Saba (MS 22), where he claimed the handwriting resembled that found in the Letter to Theodore (MS 65). Carlson also scrutinized Smith’s cataloging practices, suggesting dubious assignments to individuals with names like M. Madiotes, which Carlson interpreted as a play on words reflecting Smith’s own characteristics (Carlson 2005).

Furthermore, Carlson and later Watson drew attention to phrases within the letter that they believed subtly referenced Smith himself, such as the mention of salt losing its savor—an anachronistic nod to Smith’s given name and the later developments in the Morton Salt company (Carlson 2005; Watson 2010).

However, Brown challenges these interpretations by scrutinizing the evidence presented. He argues that Carlson’s identification of identical handwriting between MS 22 and MS 65 is flawed upon closer inspection of the original photographs and cataloging discrepancies. Brown and Pantuck demonstrate that the alleged connections to Smith, such as the M. Madiotes pseudonym and the Morton Salt references, lack substantial evidence when analyzed critically (Brown 2006; Pantuck and Brown 2008).

Moreover, Brown points out the methodological issues in Watson’s reasoning, criticizing the arbitrary nature of connecting Greek words to English names like “Morton” and suggesting that such interpretations are more about fitting evidence to a preconceived conclusion rather than objective scholarly analysis (Watson 2010).

The notion of finding deliberate clues left by Smith, as Brown asserts, resembles a game of "Six Degrees," where any tenuous connection can be stretched to implicate the suspected author retroactively. This approach, akin to detective work in reverse, starts with a suspect and seeks to mold ambiguous traces into subjective clues, rather than objectively sifting evidence to arrive at a conclusion (Brown 2006).

In conclusion, Brown’s critique of the clues purportedly left by Smith underscores the importance of rigorous scholarship and objective analysis in assessing historical texts. By debunking the supposed connections to Smith through meticulous examination of primary sources and scholarly arguments, Brown challenges the validity of using such clues to discredit the authenticity of the Letter to Theodore.

Stay tuned for more insights into Scott Brown's critique of misconceptions surrounding "To Theodore" as we continue our exploration of this intriguing scholarly debate.

---

Follow our series on "Scott Brown's Twelve Enduring Misconceptions About 'To Theodore'" for further analysis and insights into the ongoing discourse surrounding this controversial letter attributed to Clement of Alexandria.