Being new here I thought I would examine this topic as I have an interest in History and the Bible.
Welcome to the forum. Reading over your post, it seems more that you "examined" comments & opinions you've read about
the topic, and not really examining
the points of the topic itself, at least, not with any depth, which is what would be inferred from the word "examine", no?
What do I find?
I find it interesting that many reject it outright. That is an indication of either a closed mind or .. well never mind.
Fair enough. I haven't taken a poll on it, so I'll take you at your word on this one for the moment.
But is it not also the case that some have accepted it outright, and that being an indication of a gullible a mind?
I have seen arguments about Uncial script, yet such existed in the 1st century as is known.
Indeed, which is why Acharya for one never even so much as insinuated that it didn't.
She did however point out that it was most commonly used from the 3rd century onward.
Plus she pointed out the usage of lowercase uncial in the fragment, and according to scholar Linda I. House in her book Introductory Phonetics and Phonology: A Workbook Approach
, page 242-
"Lowercase Miniscule Letters
Lowercase or miniscule letters date to Uncial writing in the 3rd century. It was used from the 4th to the 8th centuries and the letters were derivatives of the capital version."
Others will take the potential date range to the extreme end to reject it, yet ignore that it could easily fit within the needed time frame.
I suppose. Can you cite a comment of someone doing so? I'm curious to see what they wrote. But this in itself is weird. Why would someone both accept the "extreme end" (I assume you mean the latter
extreme end as opposed to the extreme early
end of the range, yes?) and yet "reject" it? If they are "rejecting" it, they wouldn't need any date range, whether early or late, because they are REJECTING
it. So yeah, definitely re-post one of those comments here so I can see it because that's so weird to reject it yet accept its date range.
Moreover, what exactly is the "needed" time frame? Needed for what?
Does academia have an apriori "need" into which they try and stuff the evidence? Some round hole for which they only allow round pegs and ignore the squares? Or do they just let the facts speak for themselves and build & reform their model upon that? I should hope the latter.
I mean, if this particular fragment does date to the 2nd or even 3rd century CE, what "need" would be left desired?
The gospel itself could still have been authored in the 1st century, regardless of when this particular copy of it was written down, no?
Some descend to ad hominem attacks as though a man of faith cannot tell the truth, but those with no faith can????? Typical; when no real argument actually exists, so denigrate the supporters.
Yeah, I feel you on this one.
I immediately saw ad hominem attacks myself as soon as I linked to this thread on Facebook. They were ad hom attacks against Acharya though. The typical comments along the lines of 'pffft, that fringe nut-job, I'll just wait until a REAL scholar comments on it, hahaha!', which we've all seen time and again. The people leaving these ad hom comments never addressed her actual points. They just tried to smear her in a sentence or two and then punched out for the day.
Even questionable comments by some who evidently have a decent knowledge of the language and seem to be willing to dismiss it, with marginal evidence against it.
Marginal evidence against what? The 1st century dating of it, I assume?
Well, on that same note, there is so far only marginal evidence FOR
such an early date, which is exactly the point Acharya has been making. She's never forbade a 1st century dating, she is simply correctly pointing out that such an early date can't be pinned down for certain until more evidence comes forward, so be cautious about jumping on the bandwagon right now. That's it. And that is a warning echoed by professionals in the field as well, and she even cited one or two as I recall.
Many just heap scorn it with their own unsubstantiated opinions.
Indeed, just as many have heaped praise & hope upon it with their own unsubstantiated opinions (even though further evidence and even an exact date is still pending).
Good thing Acharya never did either.
Question it, challenge it, but what I have read from many seems to be motivated by an urgent desire to discredit it so that even if true it can't support anything that disagrees with their position.
"even if true", I assume you mean if the 1st century dating is true? What position would that disagree with?
So far the wisest course is simply to see what is found by the scholars who are investigation it and then address, dare I say it, the facts.