First discovered in 1947, the Dead Sea Scrolls are one of the most important collections of ancient texts ever found in the lands of the Bible. Despite decades of research, however, scroll scholars still struggle to conclusively answer some basic questions, such as when exactly the scrolls were written. Publishing in the journal PLOS One, an international research team proposes a new method for dating individual scrolls using artificial intelligence. According to the team, this analysis reveals that many of the scrolls are likely older than previously thought. However, not all scholars are convinced.I have already noted and commented on this story here. This BDH essay has a good summary with responses from some other scholars.[...]
I always want to hear what Professor Rollston thinks about epigraphic matters. But one of his quoted arguments needs some nuancing:
However, as Rollston points out, some of Enoch’s proposed dates are demonstrably too high based on the available historical and textual evidence. For example, Rollston said, “Enoch’s calibrated date range for 4Q114 is: 230–160 BCE. This manuscript contains portions of Daniel 8–11. Chapters 7–12 of Daniel reference the desecration of the Jerusalem Temple by Antiochus IV Epiphanes (r. 175–164 BCE), something which occurred in 167 BCE. Therefore, it has been recognized for centuries that this block of Daniel cannot be dated prior to 167.First, the possible date range that "Enoch" gives includes the generally accepted date for Daniel 8-11, so its results still fall within the correct range. C-14 dating of a couple of thousand years ago is not all that precise. It's true that it is imprecise tilting very early in this case.
Second, no, the fact that the Book of Daniel refers to supposedly future events does not prove that it was written after those events. It says it was a miracle. Arguments that miracles can't happen always involve circular reasoning. And there's nothing in the laws of physics that precludes transmission of information from the future to the past. We just don't know how to do it.
But, yes, I agree that Daniel was written after most of its predicted events—because at a certain point the supposed predictions go wildly wrong, as predictions of the future generally do. I have commented on this question in more detail here.
When this issue comes up, I perhaps make a nuisance of myself about what may seem like a fine point, especially since I am a late-dater of Daniel too. But I like to keep my metaphysical house in order. Ideological materialism need not be mistaken for objectivity.
Visit PaleoJudaica daily for the latest news on ancient Judaism and the biblical world.
