Once more I continue my thread of discussions on Dorothy Murdock (I refuse to call her by her pseudonym anymore). I was made aware of a recent blog on a similar subject, brought to light by Unreasonable Faith (h/t) from Ari’s Blog of Awesome. Here is a snippet:
When legitimate historical issues are dismissed in such a way it is not hard to understand why her attempt at history has turned out so bad. In order to push a conspiracy theory it is essential that the theorist view the evidence as irrelevant or as it was so tactfully put by Murdock, “crap”. While the historian adjusts their theory in light of careful consideration of the evidence, the conspiracy theorist picks and chooses the evidence to confirm their preconceived conspiracy theory. This is evident throughout the work, whether it be simply dismissing historical sources as forgeries (e.g. Tacitus) or by being oblivious to their very existence (e.g. numerous sources on persecution of Christians, early NT manuscripts and patristic citations, etc.)
Well worth the read.