The Question of the Greek New Testament

[Aractus]

No, the delay does not make me sceptical. As you well know, it's not the theologians or scholars who own them. For all we know they decided to pull a whole bunch more masks apart and search for more interesting ancient texts. Who cares why it's taking so long, the fact is that two leading scholars have said that a new testament manuscript exists and that to the best of their knowledge it dates to the first century AD. They're the ones doing the work, not you. You can criticise when they publish the material, your eagerness to criticise now before they've published anything from the finds shows your clear lack of respect for historians that do the ground work.

And stop saying "my alleged mss". Again, what I said was that there is evidence of a first century mss, and that evidence is the testimony of two respected New Testament scholars. If you were to swear under oath and under penalty of purgery that you have a hen that shits gold nickels, then yes that could be accepted as evidence. The absurdity of your claim however may have your evidence dismissed. As it is, Wallace and Evans have not made an absurd claim. They aren't claiming to have a hen that shits gold nickels, nor are they saying that they have the newly discovered first century mark mss, all they're claiming is that such a mss exists, that it has been determined to be a copy of Mark, that it has been dated to their satisfaction (and on this point in a court of law they may be considered expert witnesses to testify on the age of New Testament era Greek documents) using carbon-14 and palaeographic dating methods, and that the dating showed the mss is from the first century.