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!

...

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?"

Yeah straw man. I never said that scholars don't debate the dating of manuscripts. I never said there was a consensus on that. And what does P52 have to do with what I was saying? Nothing, that's what. It could be dated to the fifth century and it wouldn't change P66 and P75's significance and dates. All available information on these two particular manuscripts dates them to around 200AD. With an upper limit of perhaps 225AD. Even if we take the upper limit they still had to have diverged at least 30 years in the past; and prior to that they were copied and circulated as well.

The scholars you just quoted aren't arguing that the synoptic gospels were written later than 90AD are they? No, and in fact the link you just gave me, if you'd bothered to read it, concludes that P66 was likely written within the late-second/early-third century.

I guess it is time to remind you what you did say.  That seems to happen a lot with you.

There are no serious scholars who date the Synoptics any later than 90AD. P66 & P75 were both written around 200AD, both clearly contain the "gospel according to John" titles like this:

First off, I'm used to this bullshit about anyone who disagrees with you being a "non-serious" scholar.  That bullshit is trotted out all the time and I will call you on it EVERY  TIME.  Because you don't get to say who is a TRUE SCHOLAR any more than our resident theistic nutjobs get to say who is TRUE XTIAN or TRUE MUSLIM.

Second, why do you assume this line:

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.

does not apply to the documents you so love?    There's a big difference between 200 AD and 399 AD.  You should study history more than religious bullshit.