Gamera

All the paleography experts I have read are scholars in scribal and graphotactic traditions, and don't show any particular religious bias. Scribal analysis is pretty straighforward and isn't subject to much bias, just a lot of study.

In any case, since any papers they write are subject to peer review, to answer your question it just takes one such scholar to blow any conspiracy (and that's what you're implying) out of the water, resulting in all the conspirators being discredited.

So you must be claiming that every single paleography expert is in cohoots with the Vatican or something. Very unlikely.

S.C.Carlson

As a general matter, paleographers are biased towards getting it right. If you look at the famous Oxyrhynchus material, a majority of the texts are non-Christian (pagan or secular, such as governmental). The papyrologists who do the paleography on the earliest Christian texts also have to make sure their datings mesh with the much greater non-Christian material. To top it off, some the non-Christian material can be dated independently of paleography by reference to actual dates and political figures they mention, while the Christian material generally lacks such indicia. There is no reason to believe that the dating of all the texts is skewed to make the Christian writing as early as possible. If anything the opposite is true--the datable non-Christian material is used to drive the dating of the Christian texts.

Stephen Carlson

darstec

Exactly what type of training do you think they have? Who exactly are their "peers" other than those who have the same Christian upbringing? And no it doesn't just take one such scholar to blow any conspiracy. There are scholars who lay a foundation for an MJ yet it has swayed mainstream orthodoxy not one iota. There are in fact dissenters and that makes no difference.

How many paleographers do you think there are? Other than a biblical background in theology, and a couple of courses in old handwriting styles what makes them paleographers?

Try answering the questions I asked instead of talking around them. I know the apologic line. I used it for years. I was steeped in that same education. If you don't know the answers just don't comment.

Gamera

Actually my background is in mediaeval Anglo-saxon paleography, which entails a great deal more than just "a few courses in handwriting." I have some minor publication in the field. Clearly, you don't know anything about the subject and simply want to spout. Be my guest. When you're done, tell us how scholarly papers in paleography are published and reviewed, and you may get your answer.

darstec

That argument is pure balderdash. If something mentions a pollitcal figure, all it means is that the writing can be no earlier than that political figure. It could however be a forgery thousands of years later.

And it doesn't get around the fact that anyone writing a manuscript and wanting it to look old and authorative, need only copy a handwriting style that they though old. Oxyrhynchus material was a garbage dump used for about 1000 years and therefore can only give the earliest date.

I know of many people who have backdated legal documents. That is what forgery is all about. Dates on documents unless one has an unbroken provenance authenticates nothing.

S.C.Carlson

Yeah right, the local officials decided to forge thousands of non-Christian documents just so that biased 20th century scholars can date a couple of scraps to the second century. Exactly how big is your conspiracy?

Stephen

darstec

You've said that before. However we are not talking about middle to late medieval manuscripts such as Anglo-saxon for which there is some provenance. We are concerned with first and second century CE documents for which there is no provenance and for with there is no substaniating evidence.

And again you comment without answering my specific questions. This seems to be your trademark for posts.

I do happen to know enough about handwriting analysis to be paid an advance to write a book about the subject by Holt, Rhinehart and Winston publishers. I just think you know little to nothing about the subject.

Perhaps you might enlighten us by answering the questions I asked.

darstec

Stephen, I thought you were a scholar (at least of sorts). You speak of thousands of documents. You mean thousands of fragments, don't you? And how many of those fragments have dates? Are any certified by an official with a seal as with our modern documents? And why do you think any of those scribes thought there would be a 20th century? All they needed to fool was the mass of semi-literate and illiterate people of their times. And no conspiracy was involved any more than putting some famous name to their writing. They used authority to impress. They used ancient authority to impress more. They used old handwriting to lend even greater authority. Or is any of that beyond possibility? I guess you maintain there was no such thing as forgery back then? How does one tell the difference?

And you didn't address any collaborating evidence other than mentioning a politician might be named. Under your guidelines if I write about Abraham Lincoln and use old paper and old script (I actually have the prerequisite knowledge but not the motor skills anymore) that places my work in the 19th century?

Are you implying that Oxyrhychus was discovered in the second century and has a provenance that far back? That is not the information I have. In fact everything I've read about that Egyptian group of sites is that the fragments were found in layers upon layers of garbage, a garbage dump used for about 1000 years.

S.C.Carlson

At Oxyrhynchus the datable texts are include such documents as marriage contracts, leases, guild regulations, tax records, wills, manumissions, letters to one's spouse/mother, etc. All these are forged?

As for politicians, that's how they dated years ("In the ninth year of so and so, ...").

S.C.Carlson

Has this book been published? Cite?

Stephen