Ask Porphyry and ask yourself. What? Hard copies of the synoptics could not possibly have existed in the late first century?

I never said they could not exist. I said we don’t have them.

Stop deliberately misrepresenting what I’ve said.

It’s not what you said, it’s not just that: it has to be a coherent position.
Mine is a perfectly coherent position. We have no first-century gospel manuscript.

The screen shows “First Century” and the narration says “And voila they move the gospel papyri as close to the late first century as they can.” So, what are you even talking about Porphyry? My paraphrase matches that.

Is someone arguing that we have a first century manuscript or not? (I will remind you that you previously wrote, “No one is arguing we have a first century copy of a gospel. No one is a loon.”)

If someone is, I return to my original, perfectly coherent comment, “is anyone arguing that we have a first century copy of a gospel? Because that pretty much immediately makes them a loon.”

The screen shows “First Century” and the narration says “And voila they move the gospel papyri as close to the late first century as they can.” So, what are you even talking about Porphyry? My paraphrase matches that.

I need to add, your paraphrase continues to be inaccurate. He says “move the gospel papyri as close to the first century as they can” while the worlds “first century” flash on screen. That doesn’t make your paraphrase an accurate paraphrase of his words. It isn’t. What he actually said and what you wrote are two different things with substantially different meanings.

I’m suspect you can see that. I’m not confident you can admit it.

Deliver me out of the mire, and let me not sink: let me be delivered from them that hate me, and out of the deep waters. . . .

That’s a charitable read, but I tried to clarify that issue up-thread somewhere (and what I’ve actually written has been consistent). The whole discussion has been about the date the gospel papyri *that we have*, not the date of original composition.

Derek said as close to the first century then he said earlier period.

He said “earlier period” referring to “third or fourth century,” not late fist century. Who is arguing that we have papyri that can be dated to an *earlier* period than the late first century?

I captured what he said.
No, you did not.

You do not want to admit people are provisionally giving ministers and scholars the benefit of the doubt by holding: yes there are first century gospel copies to be found.

Nope. I never said anything even remotely like that. I’m perfectly happy to admit there could be first century manuscripts yet to be found. Quote for me the line where I cast aspersions on those who hold out hope we might yet find a first century manuscript of a gospel. You can’t because I didn’t.

You have some sort of syndrome that I have to be inaccurate/wrong:
The only syndrome I have is a decided distaste for being unjustly maligned. You are wrong. And intransigently, incorrigibly, even arrogantly so.

Because ? ? ? ?
Because it isn’t what he said, nor is it substantially equivalent.

Once again, I ask:

Is someone arguing that we have a first century manuscript or not? (I will remind you that you previously wrote, “No one is arguing we have a first century copy of a gospel. No one is a loon.”)

A straight answer would be appreciated.

How the hell did we get back to Hitler?

Is this some sort of sick joke?

Thanks for the laugh!

At some point that’s all that’s left to do.