25-05-2016, 06:42 PM
So here I find a thread where most (all?) people seem to agree that the most sensible thing to do at the moment is to accept the proposed 1405-1438 date range. This seems like the most logical conclusion for me as well. In the other thread, some doubts were raised, so I thought I'd try to refocus the discussion to this thread, with some genuine questions:
- Is there any good reason to doubt these findings?
- Do I understand it correctly that the untested quires are generally believed to have the same (material) age as the tested ones?
- Is there any good reason to believe that the manuscript was written on old vellum, allowing for a more recent date of creation?
- Should any well-aimed additional tests be carried out to bring more clarity? Which ones?
- ...
