It is absolute nonsense what Pete claims, and it has been refuted more than a few times over.
And Pete is only willing to give in where it doesn't hurt his theory, and
he is just as biased as most everyone else with an unproven pet theory
- Does Pete try to falsify his theory by following up on Thomasine priority? No, he rejects the challenges with a feeble "well I dunno, I'm no expert, could be any other way really" so no decisions are made, and that is the exact same strategy that is used by the apologetics with their oral memory and layered traditions: keep it all in the dark, let no conclusions be reached - because the only goal is that your theory does not get shot by others
- Likewise he semi embraces Philip, as it severely hurts his theory that Chrestianity existed prior to Christianity
- Likewise he is not interested at all in the fact that the nomina sacra in the NHL don't comprise even a third of what the Greek mss have, as that is an indication of their priority over that of the Greek texts, or at the very least indicates a decisively different stream of thought
- Pete could have tried to research and debunk / demonstrate his own theory but he doesn't even have the Brill series on the Nag Hammadi Library: the entire goal of his theory is just that, to have a theory
Is Pete an objective researcher, willing to negotiate pros and cons to his theory? Most certainly not - but then again I only know of four people out here who are: Bild, David, Charles and Irish. I count myself among those, by the way
And we can turn this into something really challenging when we extend this courtesy: how many out here believe Huller's theory of ISH? Zero, I would think although he'll likely get a few apologists on board
And the sad truth is that most out here are only interested in their own theory, even if it's only an incredibly shallow one that lacks motive as well as opportunity as well as evidence: we're here mostly to scream at one another, instead of listening to - and the best showcase for that is Huller himself
