Posted: Apr 25, 2017 6:13 am
dejuror wrote: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.
But you have just admitted that palaeographical dating estimates are to be universally associated with error bounds, and I have supplied various articles suggesting that it is quite within reason to associate palaeographic dates in the 2nd or 3rd centuries with error bounds that include the 4th century.
Consequently it is not a flawed argument to point out that the Christian writings dated by Paleography before the 4th century may in fact, when a more reasonable error bound is universally applied, be Christian writings from the 4th century.
Additionally you have not responded to the historical evidence that suggests the rubbish dumps of Oxyrhychus were commissioned in the 4th century when a second city - of "monks" - formed outside the old city walls.