In order to have a book with sources that can be differentiated by C-14 dating, it would have to contain material from different historical time periods bound together. Examples do exist, but most texts were produced in a span of time too brief for C-14 testing to discern.
The primary assumption at issue is the "single source" hypothesis. Given the test data and the range of uncertainty, the dating overlaps. The four samples come from a single text. It is statistically possible to calculate a combined average date-range. [[ 1404 - 1438] > Not 1435!!
That is with 95% probability. What about 96%? 90% is pretty good.
Nothing contradicts the "single source" hypothesis - other than the fact that it is not the only hypothesis. The first choice here is the "two source" hypothesis. Less likely, perhaps. but still viable. A separation of a few decades is all the same to C-14, but not in human terms. And that is just the parchment date. Text creation was 'somewhat' later.
The primary assumption at issue is the "single source" hypothesis. Given the test data and the range of uncertainty, the dating overlaps. The four samples come from a single text. It is statistically possible to calculate a combined average date-range. [[ 1404 - 1438] > Not 1435!!
That is with 95% probability. What about 96%? 90% is pretty good.
Nothing contradicts the "single source" hypothesis - other than the fact that it is not the only hypothesis. The first choice here is the "two source" hypothesis. Less likely, perhaps. but still viable. A separation of a few decades is all the same to C-14, but not in human terms. And that is just the parchment date. Text creation was 'somewhat' later.