Ultimately, radiocarbon dating accuracy for calculating Iron Age dates, and consequentially Bible chronology has varied from researcher to researcher.
When it comes to Bible chronology the difference between a “high” and “low” chronology is a matter of mere decades not centuries. Other opinions place the transition somewhere between the two—in about 950 B. The date is important because the date you choose will determine whether David and Solomon reigned in the archaeologically poor and archaeologically poorly documented Iron I or in the comparatively rich and richly documented Iron IIa.
In other words the particular sample is either too late or too early No doubt the rejection of certain dates as “outliers” and their exclusion from the model may lead to different dates.
Omitting outliers would be acceptable only so long as it is being done in a consistent, transparent way. Radiocarbon years differ from calendar years because the former are dependent on the varying content of carbon-14 in the atmosphere.
The question I would like to raise is whether radiocarbon dating is really more precise, objective and reliable than the traditional way of dating when applied to the problem of the date of the transition from Iron I to Iron IIa.This question is sharpened in light of the fact that the uncertainty in the usual radiocarbon readings (plus or minus 25 years or so) may be as large as the difference in dates in the debate. Measuring the remaining carbon-14 content in “long-term” organic samples, such as wood, will provide the date of growth of the tree, rather than the date of the archaeological stratum in which the sample was found.Furthermore, wooden beams were reused in later strata, which can result in even greater differences in date.Based on the material finds it is possible to compare sites and regions and create a cultural-chronological horizon.In some cases today scholars are comparing radiocarbon dates, even before publishing the finds.