“And I found he not only has taken sides long ago, but was heavily invested in the side his technical critism favored. I prefer expert witnesses without a dog in the fight.”
Actually, regardless of publishing dates of the author’s various works, it is actually a chicken versus the egg question as to whether the author’s “bias” or his analysis of scripture - which caused disagreement with traditional translations/interpretations - came first. I am sure the one scriptural reference this article proceeds from is not a singular foundation of or singular scriptural disagreement he has formed.
I am NOT defending the author’s position.
I am only challenging your view that all the author had was a bias that preceded any scriptural, textual analysis and critique he did. Yet, that process might have in fact led, in his view, to his “bias”. He would not be the first scholar whose route to disagreement with traditional views took that course. Again, I say that not to validate the view of the author. Interpreting scripture in error is as old as Christianity.
I am considering the force of a new piece of evidence. I have not the means to evaluate it myself, so I observe those who do.
Now if an expert who was neutral or in the opposed camp before he saw the evidence came along and that piece of evidence made him switch his stance, I would take that as an affirmation to the strength of the evidence.
However in this case the expert was heavily into a camp for decades and wrote books and outspoken about it BEFORE he saw this new bit of evidence in question...which did not just come to him, but which he found himself.
In this latter case, it is certainly plausible that the expert has always been right to be firmly in the one camp rather than the other. And further it is quite plausible the expert sought and found strong evidence and is now presenting it.
But I don't know of any other experts agreeing or switching sides over this strong evidence. If it were what the guy was looking for, I would expect him to be able to change minds.
Thus in conclusion, the new evidence doesn't have much weight one way or another with a reasonable person that does not have the expertise to personally evaluate it. I have to rely on the experts, but I still get to use common sense. I want to see experts switch their opinions over the evidence before I will give the evidence weight.