This completely ignores that early Fathers quoted the DC as authoritative.

Our earliest codicies contained them.

Jews rejected the Greek texts because Christians were using them.

Using his logic, there were numerous NT books that were questioned up through the 5c:

"Of Peter, one epistle, that which is called his first, is admitted, and the ancient presbyters used this in their own writings as unquestioned, but the so-called second Epistle we have not received as canonical, but nevertheless it has appeared useful to many, and has been studied with other Scriptures" (Eccl. Hist. 3.3).

He expresses doubt for pauline authorship for Hebrews—the book contains no authorial claim—and contemplates the canonicity of The Shepherd of Hermas.

Some "historian." He ignores key data to weave his own narrative, which is misleading.

The guy exhibits a very amateur understanding of the history.