The Anonymous Gospel Manuscripts

[Minimalist]

So you have appropriated for yourself the ability to determine who is and who isn't a "serious scholar," Danny.  How very presumptuous of you!

http://thetextualmechanic.blogspot.com/

During the last few years there has been a pushback against some of the early dates posited for Christian New Testament papyri. Scholars such as Pasquale Orsini, Willy Clarysse, Don Barker, Roger Bagnall, and Brent Nongbri have criticized the theological and apologetic motivations behind some of these early dates.

I submit these men have better credentials than you.


http://vridar.org/2013/03/08/new-date-fo...pyrus-p52/

ABSTRACT. — The date of the earliest New Testament papyri is nearly always based on palaeographical criteria. A consensus among papyrologists, palaeographers and New Testament scholars is presented in the edition of NESTLE–ALAND, 1994. In the last twenty years several New Testament scholars (THIEDE, COMFORT–BARRETT, 1999, 2001 and JAROŠ, 2006) have argued for an earlier date of most of these texts. The present article analyzes the date of the earliest New Testament papyri on the basis of comparative palaeography and a clear distinction between different types of literary scripts. There are no first-century New Testament papyri and only very few papyri can be attributed to the (second half of the) second century. It is only in the third and fourth centuries that New Testament manuscripts become more common, but here too the dates proposed by COMFORT–BARRETT, 1999, 2001, and JAROŠ, 2006 are often too early.

The theologians have a vested interest in trying to push this shit back as early in time as they possibly can.  Are they serious "scholars" or serious "believers?"