Why forge three pastoral letters rather than one?

Tim Challies recently linked an article that discusses some of the reasons for accepting the Pauline authorship of the pastorals. I want to highlight one of those reasons here, one that I think has been especially neglected.

If the letters were forged by one individual, thus explaining their similarities, why forge three letters instead of one or two? There doesn't seem to be sufficient motive to forge any of them, given their contents and the time when they allegedly were forged, for example. But if somebody wanted to forge such content, why not put it in the form of a smaller number of letters? The more letters you forge, the harder it is to convince people that the letters are genuine despite a lack of the evidence you'd expect to accompany genuineness (the lack of previous discussion of the documents, the lack of the documents' presence in other locations, etc.). Why try to get away with forging so often when you can so easily do it less?

How Do The Dead Sea Scroll Forgeries Impact Christianity?

DSS forgeries

Wesley Huff

Because I have had a number of people contact me and have been seeing others ask similar questions: yes the Dead Sea Scrolls from the Museum of the Bible are fake. However, this has NO BEARING ON THE RELEVANT ISSUES CONCERNING THE TEXT OF THE BIBLE.

The manuscripts the Museum of the Bible possessed were very fragmentary in nature with little to no text on them to begin with. As far as I can figure out they contained no relevant textual variation from the Masoretic Text or comparative sections in other Dead Sea Scrolls. They were a minor contribution to the picture of the overall text compared to the nearly 100,000 authentic manuscripts of the Dead Sea Scrolls that reside at the Israel Museum.

The Dark Tower

Critical Bible scholars claim that several NT documents (as well as OT documents) are forgeries. Bart Ehrman wrote a book on the subject. There's nothing original about Ehrman's allegation, but he's an influential popularizer for the gullible masses. In the computer age, it's tempting to develop "rigorous, "scientific" methods to authenticate or impugn traditional authorship. One example is stylometric analysis. And this has been extended to forensics: 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg13918872-500-linguistics-on-trial-forensic-scientists-have-fiercely-condemned-a-technique-used-in-court-to-show-that-confessions-have-been-tampered-with/

C. S. Lewis editor and trustee Walter Hooper published an allegedly unpublished story by Lewis: The Dark Tower. Kathryn Lindskoog and A. Q. Morton applied stylometric analysis to The Dark Tower, concluding that it was a forgery, and Hooper was the suspected forger:

With the 1994 release of the movie Shadowlands, Lindskoog reissued her book as Light in the Shadowlands, adding two new chapters. In this edition, she reported on a new study by the Rev. A. Q. Morton, which employed cusum (cumulative sum) statistical analysis of the first 23 sentences of chapter one of The Dark Tower, the first 24 sentences of chapter four, and the first 25 sentences of chapter seven, comparing them with similar passages from Out of the Silent Planet and That Hideous Strength. This type of style analysis has been used to prove that Shakespeare did not write his plays, that Paul did not write some epistles attributed to him, and that Jesus did not speak some sayings attributed to him. It assumes that a person’s use of language remains constant over one’s lifetime and in all situations. Morton concluded that Lewis could not have written chapters one and four, but that he did write chapter seven. Therefore, The Dark Tower was "a composite work." Harry Lee Poe, "Shedding Light on The Dark Tower: A C.S. Lewis mystery is solved." Christianity Today 51 (Feb 2, 2007), 1-3.

However, that struck a barrier reef when Alastair Fowler, professor of rhetoric and English literature at the University of Edinburgh, published an article detailing his experience as a doctoral student of Lewis: 

Not that he always wrote without difficulty; sometimes he had to set a project aside for a long period. He showed me several unfinished or abandoned pieces (his notion of supervision included exchanging work in progress); these included “After Ten Years,” The Dark Tower, and Till We Have Faces. Another fragment, a time‑travel story, had been aborted after only a few pages. Getting to the “other” world was a particular problem, he said; he had given up several stories at that stage. His unfamiliarity with scientific discourse may have played a part in this. The vehicles of transition in Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra, although suggestive in other ways, are hardly plausible as scientific apparatus. In the Narnia stories Lewis turned to magical means of entry: teleportation rings from E. Nesbit and Tolkien, or else a terribly strange wardrobe. Alastair Fowler, "C. S. Lewis: Supervisor." Yale Review, 91/4 (October 2003), 64–80.

As he went on to say in the CT article:

“Lewis certainly talked about TDT [The Dark Tower],” Fowler wrote to me. “He said he had been unable to carry it further. He didn’t say when he had written the fragment. I got the impression that tdt had been meant as a sequel, but I have no idea at what stage in the development of the published trilogy.”  Harry Lee Poe, "Shedding Light on The Dark Tower: A C.S. Lewis mystery is solved." Christianity Today 51 (Feb 2, 2007), 1-3.

Apparently, Lewis was experimenting with plots and characters for The Space Trilogy. He dropped The Dark Tower because it was a blind alley. 

If it hadn't been for the incidental anecdotes of his doctoral student, the authenticity of The Dark Tower might still be suspect. It's a fluke that we have that corroboration. And that's a cautionary tale for confident allegations that the NT contains forgeries–even forgeries "proven" by "scientific" analysis. 

One Way that Forgery Plays a Role in Aquinas and the Historical Development of Roman Catholic Doctrine

Forgeries, too, went into
his “synthesis” 

Thomas Aquinas seems to be making a comeback, among Roman Catholics, but also, we are seeing this take place especially among a trendy group of Reformed believers. My question is, how much should we take into account (or ignore) the role that Thomas played, as it is said, when:

The monstrous forgeries of the Pseudi-Isidore Decretals of the ninth century (115 wholly forged documents of the bishops of Rome from the first centuries, from Clement of Rome onward; 125 documents with interpolations) were now employed to buttress the claim of the teaching authority of the pope.

This occurs in the greatest of all of Aquinas’s works, the Summa Theologica, II-II, q1 a10. The question is “Whether it belongs to the Roman Pontiff to Draw Up a Symbol of Faith?” Here is one analysis of this “Question” from the Summa: The author continues: