It has zero to do with referencing or not referencing Jesus. It’s literally just how the process works.
The process of carbon dating just estimates the age of something before a specific date arbitrarily called the “present” which is not the present, but 1950, (which was the present when they started carbon dating things.)
Uncalibrated radiocarbon dates are expressed as “years BP” and are not directly equivalent to calendar dates. Calibrated dates, on the other hand, are expressed as “cal years” or “cal BP” and provide a precise estimate of the calendar year.
Nonetheless, it’s still an estimate and it’s bad form to assign a proper calendar date to something that potentially varies quite a bit.
“The process of carbon dating just estimates the age of something before a specific date arbitrarily called the “present” which is not the present, but 1950, (which was the present when they started carbon dating things.)”
The article uses the calibrated BP abbreviation which you indicate is 1950s we subtract 1950 to contextualized to popular and well understood literature?
I think it is bad form to write an article to the general public and assign a date the no one knows what it means. Why speak above everyone’s head. It is better to assign a calendar date range. I am still not sure of even what millennia they are talking about.