Bookbiting

This week's Weird Internet Thing seems to be the dust-up triggered by biblical scholar Dan McClellan's accusation that Christian apologist Wes Huff may have plagiarized in papers he wrote, starting about 10 years ago. The whole thing quickly became a teapot tempest with a plethora of online videos making, defending or explaining accusations against Mr. Huff and/or his critics. As someone who isn't religious, the sheer rapidity with which the whole thing went from 0 to 60 was remarkable.

It's the sort of thing that reminds me of why people seem to be so quick to chase virality. I'd heard of Dan McClellan before; he was a guest on a podcast I listened to some months back. But I hadn't really been following him all that closely. To suddenly seen him explode into my corner of the Internet was surprising. I don't know if he'll be able to capitalize on his fifteen minutes of fame or not, but if he can, that might really put him on the map more broadly (and good for him).

Before all of this, I hadn't really known Wes Huff from a hole in the ground. Looking into the controversy, it struck me that he'd made a name for himself an old-fashioned way; validating people's worldviews and self-images. And in so doing, had made himself somewhat indispensable to his audience. Which explained all of the back-and forth about the charges laid at Mr. Huff's feet. If one has built some part of one's identity on a certain understanding of the Bible, and Mr. Huff is backing that understanding, it makes sense that it would be difficult to let go of that. Or even to have it challenged. And Mr. McClellan, with his bona fides as a scholar of the text in question, is not the sort of critic who is easily blown off.

Of course, this being a teapot tempest, it will likely blow over soon, and the Internet will quickly move on to its next Weird Thing. But it's been interesting to watch this one unfold.