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.
My critique is that I am doubtful (a) this latest piece of “evidence” is the only foundation for his view, and (b) also that it is not one of many other “translations” and “interpretations” - which he mentions in earlier writing - that also formed his view. In all truth, we don’t know if before her EVER started into scriptural and textual critique of scriptures - long ago - he already had his bias - with no prior such scholarly exploration - or of it formed during that process.
Again, that is not to confirm his conclusions.