"deeply entrenched in the scholarship" .. rational discussion .. canonical .. incapable of challenge

[Steven Avery]

The following very astute observation was sent to me in August, 2014, by a scholar who has worked with mss and has worked with Sinaiticus:

As for how we "know" Sinaiticus is from the 4th century, this is actually something I have wondered myself, but this dating seems too deeply entrenched in the scholarship of early Christianity to have a rational discussion about it. I have no proof of any sort it is dated later, and the 4th century dating may well be right, but it seems to me an example of a the sort of thing which becomes "canonical" at a very early date in the history of modern scholarship, and then becomes virtually incapable of challenge, because so many things are built upon that.

Spot-on!

this dating seems too deeply entrenched in the scholarship of early Christianity to have a rational discussion about it.

"canonical" at a very early date in the history of modern scholarship, and then becomes virtually incapable of challenge,

====================

This gets right to the heart of the difficulty that the modern scholars and lay writers have in simply considering the evidences, the "facts on the ground" now available. The a priori assumption and presumption is "impossible".

However, today is a new day. The challenges are clear and powerful.