Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

His dating was from paleography!
Not from graphology!
Why, do you suppose, most game-changing conversations don't happen here?

He, the best expert, already gave them.
My restatement, in this case, like yours, is of less value.

Rather, I'm suggesting that, in terms of contradicting the paleography assessment by A. T.,
Peter Kirby and Secret Alias
got nothin'.

One possibility, though I do not claim certainty:
you two (maybe?) prefer to think that the Voss book contains 18th-century writing,
even though he denies that.

Not authentically dated to 18th-century is what he concluded.
Rather, later, he concluded.
Misrepresenting that is no contribution to learning.
But deflection.

Incorrect.

I could review his report, with some pros and cons,
but, if one does not first allow that he knows Greek paleography dating
better than anyone here
better, likely, than anyone else alive today
that's a deflection.

The question shows a lack of understanding of the OP. The main, and widely-recognized, paleographic matter is dating! Not, in this one matter, whodunnit. (Did person X have an accomplice, blah, blah, blah--different question.) If A. T. was speculating about some different matters--maybe so--that is ...

Why attempt to deflect? Many readers--even you S. A.!, previously and repeatedly!-- know that A. T. has extraordinary expertise in Greek paleography. Paleography has to do with dating handwriting. Graphologists address a different subject, whether well or not. He did that dating, in detail, writing,...

Agamemnon Tselikas wrote that "...it is an imitation of an older script."

His full report report is available here:
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dai ... is-report/