The Modern Forgery Hypothesis

[asteckley]

What evidence supports forgery?

If we have a definitive bullet-point list conversations can be more directed and productive.

Most of that evidence is well outlined in Rich's blog series, along with his detailed arguments. A simple bullet-point list might be useful in some situations (I have actually made a somewhat similar request), but if that were done in THIS forum, it would likely NOT promote more productive conversation. (I base that simply on the way I have seen biased and flawed arguments against it put forth here numerous times in the past.) It would probably be much better for people to actually read his arguments in full, rather than think they know what they are criticizing because they read simplified summary bullet points. 

I do not, by the way, subscribe fully to Rich's modern forgery theory. But I can recognize when evidence is present, when it has been logically presented, and when it therefore warrants serious consideration. And I recognize when evidence is accepted too uncritically as it is often done with the standard 15th century origin scenario.

Added:   I did not see Rich's most recent comment above when I wrote this. He already has given, effectively, a bullet summary with the red-flag list and he has referenced his blogs as well.