spin

This rhetoric is not dealing with anything.

Look I have asked you to cite your sources. They seem to be wrong. I have cited my source previously. It gives 2CE as the latest 2-sigma value, calibration dated 1997, published 1998.

I would like something to respond to.


spin

John Deere

Spin:

All of this is in my original article published in Dead Sea Discoveries, Volume 11, Number 2, 2004, which I thought you had read. In the article I show that 2 BCE is the younger edge of the one sigma range using the curve that replaced the one that was shown to be inaccurate.

As I wrote:

"Where 1QpHab and 4Q267 are concerned, the 1998 recalibration was particularly significant as it brought both of those Scrolls’ two-sigma time range well into the First
Century CE."

For the recalibrated data sets and analysis see:

M. Stuiver and G. W. Pearson, “High-Precision Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950-500 BC� in Calibration Issue, edited by M. Stuiver and R. S. Kra,

Radiocarbon, vol. 28, no. 2B, 1986, pp. 805-838; G. Rodley, “An Assessment of the Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls,� Radiocarbon, vol. 35, no. 2,,1993, pp. 335-338.

For the 1998 corrections, see M. Stuiver, P. J. Reimer, E. Bard, J. W. Beck, G. S. Burr, K. A. Hughen, B. Kromer, F. G. McCormac, J. van der Plicht, and M. Spurk, INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000-0 Cal BP,� Radiocarbon, vol. 40, no. 3, 1998, pp. l041-83.

For further analysis, see:
M. Stuiver and P. J. Reimer, “Extended 14C Data Base and ]Revised CALIB 14C Age Calibration Program,� Radiocarbon, vol. 35, no. 1, 1993, pp. 215-30

or:

G. Rodley “Use of Radiocarbon Dating in Assessing Christian Connections to the Dead Sea Scrolls,� Radiocarbon, vol. 41, no. 2, 1999, pp. 169-182

or:

New Carbon-14 Results Leave Room for Debate� ( H.S. ), Biblical Archaeology Review, July/August, 1995, p. 61.

Hope this is illuminating.

Joe

John Deere

Spin:

A favor.

I have been unable to get a copy of your source: "The Dead Sea Scrolls After Fifty Years: A Comprehensive Assessment". Can you therefore quote me the passage in which Doudna claims that the two sigma range for iQpHab does not extend beyond 2 BCE using the recalibrated 1998 curve?

I have sent an email to Greg asking for an explanation, but he has not gotten back to me yet.

Joe

spin

Doudna supplies a table based on Stuiver et al. information. The 2-sigma 1997 decadal calibrated date for pHab is

160-149, 111BCE - [49BCE] - 2CE.

Of your list, the only one of use to me is:

For the 1998 corrections, see M. Stuiver, P. J. Reimer, E. Bard, J. W. Beck, G. S. Burr, K. A. Hughen, B. Kromer, F. G. McCormac, J. van der Plicht, and M. Spurk, INTCAL98 Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 24,000-0 Cal BP,� Radiocarbon, vol. 40, no. 3, 1998, pp. l041-83.

Now what do they say in this which specifically impacts on the carbondating of pHab?


spin

John Deere

Spin:

Let me get this straight. Are you saying that Doudna did not use the 1998 recalibration for his ranges?

Joe

John Deere

Spin:

You should read all of the articles as they are all in play in my paper. Here's the link to journal.

http://www.radiocarbon.org/index.html

Joe

spin

None but the latest has the possibility of impact on the dating of pHab. It is that simple. Doudna's article uses a specific recalibration of 1997, so the mumblings of Godley, Thiering, et al. are basically irrelevant to the case of pHab. They are just manipulating outdated information.

John Deere

Spin:

There was no "specific recalibration" in 1997, unless Greg invented one that is unknown to science, in which case please send me his data. This will be interesting to see as Doudna is not a mathematicain.


The recalibrations of the curve occurred in 1986, 1993, and 1999. Greg would have used either the 86 or 93 curve. Why don't you read the articles I sent you? If you do you will find that in both the 93 and 99 recalibrations the curve shifted for items c14 dates into the range of pHab and that it is now established as having a younger edge well in the first century CE.



Joe

spin

To quote Doudna's article:

In June 1997, at the Sixteenth International Radiocarbon Conference in Groningen (the Netherlands), the same laboratories announced updated calibration curves in light of a number of studies in the intervening years [between 1986] and also a correction of the Seattle data for a radon contamination factor that had offset previous dates by about ten years.

It is the dataset from this recalibration curve update that Doudna uses. He mentions that it was that which Stuiver et al. would use in a forthcoming Radiocarbon article -- which may have been the 1998 one.

You've side-stepped supplying specific data that impacts on pHab, or in fact any of the predominantly 1st c. BCE locus of dates.


spin

John Deere

Spin:

You are the one who is dancing.

Let me be clear. You have not revealed the 'error' that you claim exists in my analysis. Let us call this supposed error 'factor X'. Is 'factor X' an error in my calculation? Is it an error in copying? Is it an error in reasoning? Is 'factor X' a data set that I used was incorrect? Is it something else?

What exactly is 'factor X'? I am not going to try and guess what your ' factor X' is. I am not going to produce a correction for imagined errors in arithmetic or reasoning and then have you dance away and claim 'factor X' is something else. Something you keep hidden to yourself while you kep dancing.

I have given you both the article and its source material, it is now up to you to quit dancing and reveal 'factor X.

If you produce 'factor X' Spin, I will honestly work with you to discover the truth. Otherwise dance by yourself.


Joe