Let me give a parallel nobody else would know about: my online religion nemesis has concocted the theory that the oldest "near complete" copy of the NT in Greek (Sinaiticus) is a 19th century forgery. Basically, he's a KJVO nut who wants to be able to dismiss evidence he doesn't like (sound familiar anyone?) and he does the same narcissistic playbook we've come to expect from the White House Medicine Man. (Coincidentally, this moron is also from Queens).
Here's what he does:
- he takes the discredited claim to authorship of a guy in 1862
- quotes a book from 1907 saying the issue had never been resolved (to that time)
- ignores all the quotes in the 1907 book that cause him problems
- finds "proof" in the most bizarre places that isn't proof, it's just speculation he calls proof
I've taunted him more than once, though, pointing out to him, "If you actually HAD EVIDENCE of what you're saying, you'd go down in history as one of the most famous researchers of NT paleography who ever lived, remarkable for a guy who cannot even read Greek".
But he has none. Instead, he uses known truths to "suggest" that this manuscript was forged and everybody knows it, but they're all part of the con job themselves or if not, they're just stupid.
He whines nobody has chemically tested the manuscript - because that's not how they're dated.
He quotes a renowned scholar telling that the day people showed up to "test" the manuscript, they were cancelled, but this moron left his blog on public settings and a bunch of us screen shotted the fact he was misrepresenting that person, too, who was denying his allegations.
He quotes both the director of the British Library and the head of the CSP SELECTIVELY and IMPLIES they agree with him - but he never discloses that even though he's quoting them, they've actually touched the manuscript in question and date it early. (Both are PhDs btw).
Much of his presentation is little more than ad hominem.
His argument (but not his name - way to go guys!) made it into a book in recent years where the scholar he emailed pointed out that using his methodology, one could deny the moon landing ever happened? He agreed with that and then quoted a NASA guy to allege NONE of the moon landings ever happened.
At that point, we're done.
