Leucius Charinus wrote:
These very wide date ranges are rarely completely specified. For example you wrote above:"Manuscripts of gLuke [Papyri 4 and Papyri 75] are dated by Paleography to the late 2nd to early 3rd century."
Is this an appropriately estimated date range? The fact is that I have provided reasoned arguments by which these same palaeographical date ranges must also be inclusive of the 4th century. Additionally I have presented one extremely relevant item of evidence that no one seems to have had addressed, including the Biblical Scholars and academics studying the papyri from the Oxyrhynchus rubbish dumps. The bulk of these rubbish dumps were commissioned in the 4th century when the population of the city went through the roof and another city - of "monks" - was expanded outside the city walls.
How is this not relevant to the dating of Oxyrhychus papyri?
The flaw with your argument is that you must reject all writings dated by Paleography before the 4th century when dating by Paleography is universally accepted.
Now,even with a very wide date range for Paleograhic dating NT manuscripts are not dated to the 1st century and this is extremely significant.
Christian writers claimed Justin Martyr wrote in the 2nd century during the reign of Antoninus [c138-160]. Examine the writings attributed to Justin and it is found that there is no mention of gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, Saul/Paul and the Epistles.
The writings attributed to Justin appear to corroborate the late dating of NT manuscripts by Paleography, that is, the NT books were not composed before c 138-160 CE.
Christian writers claimed Celsus wrote against the Christians sometime in the 2nd century c 175 CE. Examine excerpts from "True Discourse" attributed to Celsus.
Again, there is no mention in excerpts of "True Discourse" of gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, Saul/Paul and the Epistles.
It would appear that both Justin and Celsus knew stories of Jesus and the disciples but had zero knowledge of NT manuscripts.
If it is assumed that it was the 4th century Roman Church who invented all the Jesus stories and NT Manuscripts then it makes no sense to invent writings attributed to Christian and non-Christian which do not make mention of gMatthew, gMark, gLuke, gJohn, Acts of the Apostles, Saul/Paul and the Epistles.
During and after the 4th century virtually all Christian writers knew NT manuscripts however before the 4th century many Christian writers have no reference at all to Gospel authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John or Epistles written by Peter, Paul, James, John and Jude.
The writings attributed to Philo, Josephus, Pliny the Elder, Tacitus, Suetonius Pliny the younger and the Dead Sea Scrolls support the argument that there was no story or cult based on a character called Jesus or a Jew called Paul in the 1st century.
The writings attributed to Aristides, Justin, Celsus, Tatian, Municius Felix, Athenagoras, Theophilus, Lucian, Arnobius support the argument that Gospel authors called Matthew, Mark, Luke and John or Epistles written by Peter, Paul, James, John and Jude were late inventions as late as the 3rd century.
My argument is that the 4th century Roman Church or its agents hijacked the pre-existing Jesus stories and cults and then invented their own history.
The 4th century Roman Church or its agents invented bogus lists of bishops of Rome and other places. There is no historical evidence of any person called Bishop of the Roman Church before the 4th century.
All writings with a lists of bishops of Rome and other cities supposedly since the 1st century attributed to writers before the start of the 4th century Roman Church are most likely forgeries/false attribution or corrupted.
Writings attributed to Ignatius, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, Clement and Hippolytus are forgeries/false attribution or corrupted writings in whole or in part. These writings contain bogus lists of bishops of Rome and other cities since the 1st century.
All writings before c 362 CE or before Julian's Against the Galileans which claimed Josephus, Tacitus or Suetonius wrote about Jesus are forgeries/false attribution or corrupted since Julian knew of no well-known writer who wrote of Jesus and Paul.
Examine the words in "Against the Galileans" attributed to Julian Emperor of Rome 361-363 CEhttp://www.tertullian.org/fathers/julian_apostate_galileans_1_text.htm
But if you can show me that one of these men is mentioned by the well-known writers of that time,----these events happened in the reign of Tiberius or Claudius,----then you may consider that I speak falsely about all matters.
In other words, 'Church History' itself attributed to Eusebius appears to be corrupted, that is, parts of "Church History" appear to have been written after the supposed Eusebius was dead.
The forgery called the "TF" found in Antiquities of the Jews" 18.3.3 and "Church History" 1.11.7-9 were most likely fabricated after c 361-363 CE.