aa5874

My argument is that NO NT manuscripts of the Jesus story and Paul will ever be found and dated before c 70 CE even if ALL Palaeogrphers are Theologians and are ALL biased.

Essentially, the very same supposed biased Palaeographers will not ever corroborate your imaginative belief about Saul/Paul or Jesus in the 1st century even when the Church claimed Jesus and Paul existed at that time.

Now, If I am wrong to argue that the Jesus story and cult originated in the 2nd century then based on your statement mountainman must be in a far worse position than me.

Why are you not arguing against mountainman who has been claiming for years that Christianity began in the 4th century "something that is NOT at all implied by the work of, or held as being an established fact by any of these Papyrologists/Palaeographers".??

It is clear to me that you really do not understand what a Palaeographer does and that Paleography is indeed probably a very effective way to date ancient writings.

You fail to understand that C 14 does not date the text but the material on which the text is written. C 14 dating is within a TIME PERIOD which is the same as dating by Palaeography.

When the Dead Sea Scrolls were Dated by C 14 long after Palaeogrphers
it was found that C 14 dating and dating by Palaeography were compatible.

See http://dwb4.unl.edu/Chem/CHEM869Z/CH.../deadsea2.html

Duvduv

Palaeography is hopelessly subjective. If paleographers were to date a fragment, a scrap of a gospel to 90 CE, and it is realized that given all other available information this is IMPOSSIBLE, then all the insistence on the dating of the said scrap or fragment is of no use.

As I asked once before, let's say a letter was discovered referring to Barack Obama and paleographers insist the paper, ink, etc. is from the 1950s, what would anyone say about the proof of the said paleographical examination?!

It is utterly useless because Barack Obama was not alive in the 1950s. And if it is argued that this is empirically irrefutable, whereas dating a parchment to the 1st century is not, then it is only a matter of the weight of the proof, i.e. that short of irrefutability it is unlikely, then the situation is virtually the same.

So how on earth does it advance the discussion especially since it is not an exact science that can be replicated in the laboratory?!

aa5874

You post absurdities. Palaeography MUST be used to date ancient writings. C 14 does NOT date the text just the material.

You should try and do some research about Palaeography and C 14.

If you found some writing or inscription on a ROCK or stone--C14 is useles to determine the time period of writing.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hieroglyph

The science of Palaeography is far more extensive in dating writings than C 14.

Sheshbazzar

That may well be your argument, but the only thing that will verify if your argument is correct is the passage of time. All archaeological discoveries have not yet been made, and all ancient texts have not yet been recovered or translated. Hence no one is under any obligation to accept your speculations as being the proven facts.
I'll wait until more evidence is collected, collated, and disseminated thank you.

So you speculate and so you hope aa. Again only time will tell what will yet turn up. You are being a prophet, predicting what will not occur in the future.
Thus you are the subject of the true test of any prophet, which is the test of time. If nothing new turns up in the future, then you are a true prophet.
If gospel texts or Messianic Epistles do turn up that are clearly dated to within the 1st century CE -or earlier, you will be shown to be a false prophet.
I have at least until the end of my natural life to wait for the results of that test. And I expect that others will wait beyond that if needed.

Worse? I don't buy his theory that everything to do with Christianity originated in the 4th century, just as I don't buy your theory that everything to do with Christianity originated in the 2nd century.
Far as I'm concerned both of your conspiracy theories are equally wacky. I don't elevate or value one over the other.
As I have told you before, I and mountaiman have went our rounds over these subjects years ago in long and involved disputes, similar to those that I have been having with you.
I have found mountainman to be far less intransigent and much more open to considering alternatives than you are, and as a consequence we have exchanged considerable information, and reached many agreeing views on multiple subjects via means of Private Messages.
I love the fact that mountainman provides documented evidences that force us to look outside of our own paradigmatic boxes, and take fresh perspective from time to time.
To put it bluntly, I cannot but account mountainman my former adversary as one of my most valued friends gained on this site.

What you may think is clear to you, is simply based upon your ignorance of my knowledge of, or my appreciation of the work of Papyrologists/Paleographers.
I believe that most do their level best, but they by no means claim to be infallible, and have been known to revise their opinions and change their minds.

So you like to claim that I fail to understand.
I am very familiar with what c.14 can and cannot date, contrary to your repeated derogatory claims.

Duvduv

You are correct. I inadvertently morphed palaeography and carbon dating by mistake. However, the point is still relevant to either, whether the age of the paper/parchment and ink or the style of writing.