Morton Smith's 1958 (verso) Photo of the Tear vs Quesnell's (inverted recto) 1983 Photo of the Tear

the two "humps" in Smith's recto photo of the page:

the "two humps" in Quesnell's inverted recto photo of the same page:

the extension beyond the "two humps" in Smith's photo:

the extension beyond the "two humps" in Quesnell's photos:

the tear stayed the same size between 1958 to 1983

Why would Smith, an alleged first time forger, have chosen to imitate complex eighteenth century ligatures, and rigidly straight sentences and columns on a rough bumpy surface (see previous posts) with tears on it? He could have used any book. No one saw the book for 25 years. It could have been ANY old book.

How did he know when starting to form sentences in this 18th century script that the perfectly arranged sentences weren't going to force him "into the gutter" of this large tear in the paper? He couldn't have. Clearly the script was inscribed into the book before the endpapers got rough and bumpy and torn.