aa5874

Well, at last. At least you have openly displayed that you are willing to argue from Ignorance until Hell freezes over.

There is no real expectation that "hell" will freeze over--there is NO hell.

You will be consumed by your own arguments from Ignorance.

Sheshbazzar

And you know this for a fact.....How?

aa5874

I ARGUE that there is NO Hell because you have UTTERLY FAILED to present any actual dated credible corroborative evidence from anyone who has witnessed such a place.

Your Hell is Your Imagination.

Grog

Wallace claims that a fragment of gMark can be documented to the first century, and indeed has by paleography. Now, this claim is rightly viewed as tentative as no one else has had a chance to see the evidence and the supporting arguments.

However, if it is found to be from the 1st century, what will that do to your theory? How would you adjust to accommodate that evidence?

Duvduv

I think paleography is like grasping at straws. Hell, are paleographers more omniscient that ancient apologists or revered modern writers?! Especially on scraps of parchment.

Grog

I don't know if they are omniscient, but I think generally speaking we can accept their broad ranges. They might not always be correct, true, so there's some wiggle room if you don't want to accept a particular dating. But, then, that would be cherry picking, wouldn't it? However, sometimes there might be grounds to entertain doubts, such as p52 being dated to 125 CE.

aa5874

You seem to have forgotten that MY argument is that gMark is the EARLIEST Canonised book--NOT the Pauline letters.

Close your eyes. Imagine anything. Now Imagine the opposite.

I no longer accept imagination and speculation.

When new recovered DATED sources are found then I will REVIEW my argument.

This is basic and is a solid methodology employed throughout the world.

I use the Scientific approach. A scientific theory is IN STEP with the DATA.

My arguments are Synchronised with DATED sources of antiquity.

Duvduv

I think when we see a disagreement as between Kim and Griffin as one example, we can put the value of paleography into perspective. It applies equally to the discussions over the DSS. Same thing.

Grog

Ummm...yes, I am not suggesting it is an exact science, such as measuring the number of atoms in a mole. Certainly, there can be disagreements, so then we look at it statistically...where does the consensus lie?

In the case of Kim and Griffin, it seems that Kim is an outlier and so while we wouldn't just ignore that early date, we would probably rest on the broader consensus against it:

Papyrus_46 Comfort and Barrett [23] have claimed that \mathfrak{P}46 shares affinities with the following:

P. Oxy. 8 (assigned late 1st or early 2nd century),
P. Oxy. 841 (the second hand, which cannot be dated later than 125–150),
P. Oxy. 1622 (dated with confidence to pre-148, probably during the reign of Hadrian (117–138), because of the documentary text on the verso),
P. Oxy. 2337 (assigned to the late 1st century),
P. Oxy. 3721 (assigned to the second half of the 2nd century),
P. Rylands III 550 (assigned to the 2nd century), and
P. Berol. 9810 (early 2nd century).

This, they conclude, points to a date during the middle of the 2nd century for \mathfrak{P}46."

Comfort, Barrett, and Griffin agree against Kim. Griffin provides a detailed explanation of his disagreement.

Duvduv

That's fine. But it is an analytic argument that developed and was used to harness the "truth" of the traditional dating of the NT, which didn't include carbon dating, which itself has problems. If disputes can arise over a century or so they can arise over a century or two as well.