Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

SA, you missed the point that the supposed earlier fragment would have been earlier writing.
Smith mentioned an earlier fire for his scenario.

I am merely giving my opinion, Peter, that, given the huge publicity about this, that some reader would have found it, were it extant.
That is apparently different than your opinion.
OK, two opinions, then.
I am not accusing you of dishonesty, and I hope the same applies to me.

If a pre-1976 monastic publication has that, by 2024, would not someone by now have found it? Tselikas surely thought the hand (ductus) was modern, given his comments. A particular alternate explanation is quite unlikely: If some monk copied the text in circa 18th century, then why would he try to i...

Not a question of "winning a debate" with you.
This may be a lose-lose situation.
One hopes, though, there are better readers out there.

A 1976 certificate claim is not proof of that, no, answered.
Like conflicting claims that I just mentioned.

Do you even read:
"Consider the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
Do different monks claim different ownership to portions and times?"

No apology for claiming Smith hurt me.
On to the next false claim?
Consider the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
Do different monks claim different ownership to portions and times?

There is no evidence the book was in Mar Saba before 1958. It does not appear in the books catalogs there--
as has been noted,
repeatedly.

No, I mentioned Ben C. Smith as one indication why most scholars would not come or stay here.

Obviously one need not have seen the document before 1958 to think it legit. Like, say, you.
You are a faster typist than I am. Do you just hope to wear people down?