17-07-2022, 08:22 AM
(17-07-2022, 06:52 AM)ReneZ wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.(16-07-2022, 08:06 PM)R. Sale wrote: You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.The C-14 test data has an inherent error of several decades, and, like a weak telescope that is unable to resolve a binary star, there may be more than one source date for the parchment. The most problematic sample is the youngest, which is another potential indicator of a slightly more recent VMs creation.
The first sentence is correct. The second is statistically incorrect. For a complete interpretation see:
You are not allowed to view links. Register or Login to view.
Summary: all four samples are statistically equivalent. None are an exception with respect to the other three. By definition, there is one that has the oldest centre of the probability distribution, and there is one that has the youngest. It is not valid to single out any of these apparent extremes.
As an academic I studied the Dead Sea Scrolls for 20+ years. From that experience I am wary of putting absolute faith ("scientism") in carbon dating, and even more wary of palaeography (which in the case of the Scrolls was a circus.) These are tools, and relatively blunt tools for all of that. I don't feel straightjacketed by them or intimidated by forensics. I'm looking at a 1450s scenario. The carbon dating terminus is 1438. On a small sample from a 600 year old document, I don't regard a leeway of a dozen years fatal to my argument.
The C-14 dating is generally useful to establish a ball-park and eliminate dates too early or too late. It's a great guide for that. Thankfully, we can now rule out all the 1500s scenarios, for instance, and importantly our document is before the discovery of the Americas. It flatters carbon dating to insist on a window of exactly 1404-1438 for the manuscript. I'm comfortable looking somewhat either side of that window.