Re: [asa] Tablet ignites debate on messiah and resurrection

From: Kirk Bertsche <Bertsche@aol.com>
Date: Mon Jul 07 2008 - 16:36:58 EDT

I haven't seen any mention of radiocarbon for this object, so I doubt
that it has been done. I suspect it would be difficult to get a good
date. It would also probably require removing some of the
characters, which would not be welcomed.

Biblical archaeologists are pretty confident that they can date
things to better than 50 years on the basis of paleography (writing
style). In some cases they have been wrong. But in this case I
would trust them, because the writing style on the stone can be
compared to that on the Dead Sea Scrolls, whose paleographic dates
have been confirmed by radiocarbon.

Kirk

On Jul 7, 2008, at 10:02 AM, Christine Smith wrote:

> I assume the "chemical examination" referred to would
> be a form of carbon dating, yes? If so, and also with
> respect to the linguistic techniques referenced, what
> kind of error/uncertainty would be expected with such
> techniques? Can we really definitively say that the
> writing would date from late first century BC, rather
> than early/mid first century AD (i.e. how confident
> can we be that this didn't stem from the time of
> Christ's teaching and ressurrection?)
>
> Thanks for the clarification :)
> In Christ,
> Christine (ASA member)

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Jul 7 16:36:37 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 07 2008 - 16:36:37 EDT