C-14 and GJW

[bcedaifu]

So there is really very little reason to use C-14 dating if (a) it will destroy the small item you are testing and (b) you don't get a better date.

Non destructive testing of the ink on the papyrus is safer, and more accurate. There is no harm done to the document itself. It overcomes the objection that ancient papyrus could have been taken from mummies. The forger would have been obliged to locate an ancient bottle of ink, as well....(not impossible to imagine!)

http://gospelofjesusswife.hds.harvard.edu/ink-study

Similarly, Pete Brown wants all the NT manuscripts tested by C-14 dating, but so far we haven't got any of the oldest ones tested that way.

Pete Brown is absolutely correct in demanding that Codex Alexandrinus be tested to establish its date.
http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredte ... xalex.html

Peter Kirby was, in my opinion, absolutely incorrect, to have expelled Pete Brown from this forum. We are obliged to read drivel from the likes of Stephan Heller, while someone with both humor and integrity, like Pete Brown, has been removed from our midst by mismanagement.

Please reconsider, Mr. Kirby, your decision. We need more folks on this forum, with an open mind, and a sense of inquisitiveness, a willingness to challenge the status quo, and an appreciation for empiricism. Pete exemplifies those traits.

[Peter Kirby]

Similarly, Pete Brown wants all the NT manuscripts tested by C-14 dating, but so far we haven't got any of the oldest ones tested that way.

Pete Brown is absolutely correct in demanding that Codex Alexandrinus be tested to establish its date.
http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacredte ... xalex.html

Peter Kirby was, in my opinion, absolutely incorrect, to have expelled Pete Brown from this forum. We are obliged to read drivel from the likes of Stephan Heller, while someone with both humor and integrity, like Pete Brown, has been removed from our midst by mismanagement.

Please reconsider, Mr. Kirby, your decision. We need more folks on this forum, with an open mind, and a sense of inquisitiveness, a willingness to challenge the status quo, and an appreciation for empiricism. Pete exemplifies those traits.

Okay. He is no longer banned.

Just to be clear, I am not some strange curmudgeon who does not like when more evidence can come to light. I'd be happy if Alexandrinus and others could get tested.

[Stephan Huller]

Peter Kirby

Yes myopic people dominate this particular field and on their own they can't be relied upon any more than trusting your ex-wife to set you up on a blind date. Both have obvious agendas

[Peter Kirby]

Just to be clear, I am not some strange curmudgeon who does not like when more evidence can come to light. I'd be happy if Alexandrinus and others could get tested.

My point is that it can be irrational to withhold any kind of opinion until more evidence is available. It makes sense as a tactic because there are often reasons for believing that a certain class of evidence will not become available anytime soon. That's a tactic, but its motivation is obscurantism. We have to decide, based on the evidence we do have, whether conclusions are justified or not justified. If they are justified, our inability to consider an unavailable piece of evidence does not make them unjustified.

[Stephan Huller]

I have no problem with opinions of any kind. I don't think we should be manipulating the media with a 'maybe so' misrepresented as a 'certainty.'

[Peter Kirby]

To be fair, the media is fairly hapless. These journalists are going to need some gentle prodding if they're going to be even half-right.

[Stephan Huller]

But scholars aren't supposed to be spin doctors. They aren't supposed to be advancing a 'position' designed to be well received by the general public. They are supposed to be engaged solely in gathering evidence and analyzing it and advancing the cause of understanding early Christianity inter pares. They shouldn't be drafting 'press releases' to ensure that 'the other side' doesn't win the PR battle with the hapless media. This isn't supposed to be a cockfight.

[Stephan Huller]

The irony that I see is that they are so two dimensional that they create the boogeymen (and women) of liberal scholars manipulating the media to justify their own activities.

[Peter Kirby]

I'm not sure exactly what you're talking about, but I don't notice anywhere in their contracts that they have to be shut off from contact with the press.

[Stephan Huller]

Their motives are transparent. I was talking to Bob Price the other day and made a joke like 'how's the anti-Christian thing coming along ...' It's the same thing. It's all become politicized. It's all about the implications of the research rather than letting the evidence speaking for itself.