June 27, 2025
Ne Radiocarbon Dating off Dead Sea Scrolls
Timothy Birdnow
Well whattya know? Turns out the Dead Sea Scrolls are older than believed and date to the times of the authors themselves.
https://scitechdaily.com/new-ai-model-reveals-biblical-dead-sea-scrolls-are-far-older-than-we-thought/
Why is this important? Because it shows that the Bible itself is quite accurate (the scrolls comport well with the Bible as we know it). It also suggests that the authors were not just made up names but real people, making what they say far more credible.
FTA:
But new radiocarbon dating and modeling made it possinle to date them, and voila! Turns out they are pretty much contemporary with the alleged authors.
Score one for Biblical accuracy!
Well whattya know? Turns out the Dead Sea Scrolls are older than believed and date to the times of the authors themselves.
https://scitechdaily.com/new-ai-model-reveals-biblical-dead-sea-scrolls-are-far-older-than-we-thought/
Why is this important? Because it shows that the Bible itself is quite accurate (the scrolls comport well with the Bible as we know it). It also suggests that the authors were not just made up names but real people, making what they say far more credible.
FTA:
Since their discovery, the Dead Sea Scrolls have significantly deepened our understanding of Jewish and Christian origins. While scholars generally agree that the scrolls date from the third century BCE to the second century CE, pinpointing the age of individual manuscripts has remained uncertain. Now, an international team of researchers led by the University of Groningen has introduced a new model called Enoch, which uses radiocarbon dating, paleography, and artificial intelligence to produce more accurate, empirically grounded date estimates for each manuscript.
Their findings suggest that many scrolls are older than previously believed, and for the first time, they have confirmed that two biblical scroll fragments date back to the era of their traditionally attributed authors. The results were published on 4 June in the journal PLOS One.
Until now, most individual scrolls were dated primarily through paleography—the study of ancient handwriting. However, this method lacks a firm empirical basis. In most cases, calendar dates are unavailable, and there are no directly comparable date-bearing manuscripts from the relevant time period. A significant chronological gap exists between the few Aramaic and Hebrew manuscripts with known dates from the fifth to fourth centuries BCE and those from the late first to early second century CE, making it difficult to precisely date over a thousand Dead Sea Scrolls and fragments.
Their findings suggest that many scrolls are older than previously believed, and for the first time, they have confirmed that two biblical scroll fragments date back to the era of their traditionally attributed authors. The results were published on 4 June in the journal PLOS One.
Until now, most individual scrolls were dated primarily through paleography—the study of ancient handwriting. However, this method lacks a firm empirical basis. In most cases, calendar dates are unavailable, and there are no directly comparable date-bearing manuscripts from the relevant time period. A significant chronological gap exists between the few Aramaic and Hebrew manuscripts with known dates from the fifth to fourth centuries BCE and those from the late first to early second century CE, making it difficult to precisely date over a thousand Dead Sea Scrolls and fragments.
But new radiocarbon dating and modeling made it possinle to date them, and voila! Turns out they are pretty much contemporary with the alleged authors.
Score one for Biblical accuracy!
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
07:33 AM
| Comments (2)
| Add Comment
Post contains 327 words, total size 2 kb.
1
Oh great, someone has "introduced a new model," which means they programmed a computer to support whatever conclusion they wanted it to support, using artificial intelligence no less. Bullshit squared.
Posted by: Bill H at June 27, 2025 11:23 PM (FRG6e)
2
Yes, that is a red flag. I'm more convinced with the new radiocarbon dating than the "new model". Modeling can give whatever results you want.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at June 28, 2025 06:38 AM (zEe03)
23kb generated in CPU 0.0236, elapsed 0.3528 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.3383 seconds, 175 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.3383 seconds, 175 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
