avi

Agree.

Averaging is important, particularly in non-destructive studies, where one has placed an entire codex into the apparatus--what if half of the pages date from a century earlier than the other half?

Radioactive Carbon 14 dating is not infallible, it has limitations, it is only accurate to within several decades, and until recently required destruction of the original source.

I am optimistic for the future, and anticipate learning with greater confidence than by palaeography, the approximate range of dates of issuance for a particular manuscript, including those for which Pete has argued, a fourth century origin.

Certainly, the date of origin of any particular ancient document reflects only the date when the papyrus was growing, it says nothing about the date of composition of the original/forgery, apart from indicating a range of dates, before which, that particular, unique composition/forgery did not exist.

avi

spin

I don't see any point of you citing something that you neither read nor respond to.


spin

Toto

Pete has raised some C-14 issues in the Scence Forum and had admitted that the Bell Curves are the product of his active imagination.

Roger Pearse

Especially if you look at a list of manuscripts of the Greek and Latin classics and see how many are extant only in copies made in the 15th century or later.

Worse yet, very often the manuscripts that reached the age of printing were simply sent to the printer, and then thrown away afterwards.

The oldest surviving text of Macarius Magnes is the printed edition made in the 1890's, the manuscript from which is was made having vanished.

The oldest surviving text of Velleius Paterculus is the 1520 printed edition, the manuscript being last seen in the 18th century, when it was described as being 8th century.

The oldest surviving text of Tertullian's De ieiunio adversus psychicos is the 1545 Paris edition. The two manuscripts that survived the middle ages were both chopped up some time later in the same century.

The date of the oldest manuscript of any text will reflect, not the date of composition, but the popularity or otherwise of the text during the Dark Ages and the accidents of survival.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

OLDMAN

Pete, like Perry Marshall, have presented interesting arguments that show they thinking outside the box. While most of us may find their arguments circular or without evidence, I for one have learned quite a lot from reading the counter arguments. People like them should be welcomed to a form like this...

stephan huller

Except that the conversation immediately becomes co-opted by Pete. We abandon the original discussion in favor of his wacked out theories. It's like finding a fly in your soup. You no longer remember how much you enjoyed the taste of the broth. It's now all about the fly.

Transient

Well I cannot speak of other forums but here you are the one who co-opts the threads very quickly - just have a look at the frequency of your own posts, but then this is the Stephan Huller forum after all.

bacht

I dunno, I'm not sure how much explanatory power Pete's theory has. A conspiracy to invent a new state religion, with no prior history on the ground? Isn't this tinfoil hat territory?

Stephan brings a lot to the forum. He's personally involved in current literary and archeological research. He's asking new questions, and trying to be nice to the wackos here.

Transient

I agree largely but not with the final bit - if it wasn't for the treatment of so-called wackos I would have no problem with him at all. As far as Pete's theories go, they cannot be defeated very easily on the basis of evidence because it is largely lacking, so it is best to use deductive logic as far as possible until better evidence, for or against, turns up. On that basis, for reasons I have stated elsewhere here, I think his theory fails.

Toto

But there is no evidence in favor of Pete's theories. How has he been able to convince you that his theory should hold until it is disproven, however unlikely it is?