{ "row": "enoch-dss-dating", "entity": "enoch-dss-dating", "address": "Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls", "addresses": [ { "address": "Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls", "slug": "enoch-ai-dating-dead-sea-scrolls-aio-20261031", "addr_id": "ADDR-80645e150808", "obs_id": "OBS-ff5da0726928", "axn": "AXN:0B35.CAPTURE.🪐➖🌹🌔🎆🌘" } ], "epoch": "2026-10-31", "type": "C (public entity on which the archive bears: a machine-learning date-prediction model for manuscripts and the study that introduces it; an entity of the Revelation First meta-aggregator, 'the field')", "surface": "Google AI Overview (expanded)", "auth": "signed out, incognito", "status": { "procedure": "EA-NEGONT-02 v0.9, #1690: equal case, ρ = extends, read from the Revelation First census record, the capture record and the deposits that bear on the classes the field sources for the entity (#202, #832, #860, #1443, #1409); archive selected by D/R/O (no D or R candidate: no archive text names the model; 5 deposits admitted by reading at O-class, 13 claims, with 10 S4 instances; hop of 92 read and rejected), with the Revelation First census record (35 claims) and the Capture Registry's findings, reading, analysis, query note, title and reader's notes (12 claims) ledgered as the archive's records of the entity; the field B by four origins (9 cards, no own page beyond card 1, 2 census third-party sources, 2 Wikipedia articles' sections), 68 field claims; composed 2026-10-31 by Claude (Opus 5.5), subagent", "ledger": "unaudited (§3.8: one extractor per ledger); field quotes 68/68 verified by script against saved text, the Wikipedia rendered text and wikitext, or the card text; archive quotes 60/60 verified against the registry, census.json, questions.json and the deposit texts", "frozen": false, "breaches": [] }, "spec": "EA-NEGONT-02 v0.9, #1690", "objects": { "T": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/T1-enoch-ai-dating-dead-sea-scrolls-aio-20261031.txt", "sha256": "60f20db18afccf8e9978d5e21e28cc6a64c03718a0824f40708ba583153edd6a", "words": 285, "cards": 9, "words_note": "one transcript at one address (285 words in the answer body with its quotation and closer, by whitespace, inline links reduced to their text and citation markers removed, the card rail excluded; 9 cards)", "claims": [ "T1-1 definition: 'Researchers at the University of Groningen developed an artificial intelligence model named Enoch to re-date the Dead Sea Scrolls.'", "T1-2 Training Data: 'The model was trained on 24 radiocarbon-dated scroll samples from four Judean Desert sites.'", "T1-3 Methodology: 'It combines Bayesian ridge regression, radiocarbon dating, and machine-learning handwriting analysis (evaluating angular and allographic stroke geometries from manuscript images without reading the text itself).'", "T1-4 Accuracy: 'Enoch predicts dates with a mean absolute error of roughly 28 to 31 years, and 79% of its estimates for 135 undated scrolls aligned realistically with human paleographic evaluations.'", "T1-5 Older Timelines: 'Enoch indicates that a significant portion of the scrolls are 50 to 150 years older than traditional paleographic estimates.'", "T1-6 Specific Texts: 'The Daniel fragment (`4Q114`) and Ecclesiastes manuscript (`4Q109`) were backdated substantially—with Ecclesiastes potentially pushed back from 175–150 BCE to roughly 300–250 BCE.'", "T1-7 Specific Texts: 'Some copies appear closer in time to their presumed historical authors or predate major periods like the Hasmonean kingdom expansion and the Qumran settlement.'", "T1-8 Support: 'Supporters view Enoch as an objective \"time machine\" that injects quantifiable error margins into handwriting analysis.'", "T1-9 Skepticism: 'On platforms like Reddit, opinions are mixed, with some researchers and users raising caution over black-box AI models, carbon-dating uncertainties, and traditional historical assumptions.'", "T1-10 reaction: 'Opinions on the reliability and implications of AI-driven dating for ancient manuscripts vary among researchers and the public.'", "T1-11 quotation (Haaretz): '“More research is needed to understand how Enoch's work will affect our understanding of the chronology of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Popovic cautions.”'", "T1-12 closer (content replaced by use): 'Would you like to explore how radiocarbon dating works for ancient parchment, or look into specific texts like the Book of Daniel fragments?'" ], "register": { "register": "data/EA-WG-CAPTURES-01.json", "slug": "enoch-ai-dating-dead-sea-scrolls-aio-20261031", "obs_id": "OBS-ff5da0726928" }, "transcripts": [ { "slug": "enoch-ai-dating-dead-sea-scrolls-aio-20261031", "address": "Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls", "addr_id": "ADDR-80645e150808", "obs_id": "OBS-ff5da0726928", "axn": "AXN:0B35.CAPTURE.🪐➖🌹🌔🎆🌘", "date": "2026-10-31", "surface": "Google AI Overview (expanded)", "auth": "signed out, incognito", "sha256": "60f20db18afccf8e9978d5e21e28cc6a64c03718a0824f40708ba583153edd6a", "sha256_of": "the registry's 'transcript' string (utf-8)", "sha256_raw": "e76920221b760292e07db6e5cbc8feb709e152cf583f3fe0eb40f6bb63637a02", "words": 285, "cards": 9, "card_rail": [ "1. PLOS — Dating ancient manuscripts using radiocarbon and AI-based writing style analysis | PLOS One", "2. Biblical Archaeology Society — Can AI Date the Dead Sea Scrolls?", "3. Reddit·r/AncientCivilizations — New AI Study Suggests Dead Sea Scrolls Are Older Than We Thought! - Reddit", "4. The Jerusalem Post — AI model 'Enoch' reveals Dead Sea Scrolls are older than believed | The Jerusalem Post", "5. Haaretz — Dead Sea Scrolls May Be Older Than We Thought, AI-Based Study Says", "6. National Institutes of Health (NIH) | (.gov) — Dating ancient manuscripts using radiocarbon and AI", "7. Facebook·National Geographic UK — the Dead Sea Scrolls. By combining time honoured excavation techniques ...", "8. YouTube·Religion For Everybody — How AI Redated the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Enoch Machine Revealed", "9. YouTube·Past Unsealed — AI Just Decoded the Dead Sea Scrolls — What It Found Changes Everything" ], "claims": [ "T1-1 definition: 'Researchers at the University of Groningen developed an artificial intelligence model named Enoch to re-date the Dead Sea Scrolls.'", "T1-2 Training Data: 'The model was trained on 24 radiocarbon-dated scroll samples from four Judean Desert sites.'", "T1-3 Methodology: 'It combines Bayesian ridge regression, radiocarbon dating, and machine-learning handwriting analysis (evaluating angular and allographic stroke geometries from manuscript images without reading the text itself).'", "T1-4 Accuracy: 'Enoch predicts dates with a mean absolute error of roughly 28 to 31 years, and 79% of its estimates for 135 undated scrolls aligned realistically with human paleographic evaluations.'", "T1-5 Older Timelines: 'Enoch indicates that a significant portion of the scrolls are 50 to 150 years older than traditional paleographic estimates.'", "T1-6 Specific Texts: 'The Daniel fragment (`4Q114`) and Ecclesiastes manuscript (`4Q109`) were backdated substantially—with Ecclesiastes potentially pushed back from 175–150 BCE to roughly 300–250 BCE.'", "T1-7 Specific Texts: 'Some copies appear closer in time to their presumed historical authors or predate major periods like the Hasmonean kingdom expansion and the Qumran settlement.'", "T1-8 Support: 'Supporters view Enoch as an objective \"time machine\" that injects quantifiable error margins into handwriting analysis.'", "T1-9 Skepticism: 'On platforms like Reddit, opinions are mixed, with some researchers and users raising caution over black-box AI models, carbon-dating uncertainties, and traditional historical assumptions.'", "T1-10 reaction: 'Opinions on the reliability and implications of AI-driven dating for ancient manuscripts vary among researchers and the public.'", "T1-11 quotation (Haaretz): '“More research is needed to understand how Enoch's work will affect our understanding of the chronology of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Popovic cautions.”'", "T1-12 closer (content replaced by use): 'Would you like to explore how radiocarbon dating works for ancient parchment, or look into specific texts like the Book of Daniel fragments?'" ], "markers": "The paste is the Overview expanded (operator's default of 2026-10-01; the 'AI Mode Conversation' view is the expanded Overview, ruling of 2026-10-18); signed out and incognito by the operator's default of 2026-10-14; received 2026-10-31 00:04 EDT; the 'You said' line carried the query twice, run together, given once in the registry's transcript.", "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/T1-enoch-ai-dating-dead-sea-scrolls-aio-20261031.txt" } ] }, "KO": { "title": "Enoch (AI dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls)", "genre": "knowledge object, equal case, under EA-NEGONT-02 v0.9 (#1690): the archive's sources and the field's admitted on equal terms, ontology included, in one claim space; the archive's genre for the entity, a field-census record composed by sense", "status": "composed 2026-10-31 under v0.9 on the operator's ruling ('as against their wikipedia articles if they exist, their own pages, etc.'); not frozen; ledgers unaudited", "sentences": [ { "n": 1, "para": 0, "sense": "what it is", "text": "Enoch is a machine-learning date-prediction model for the Dead Sea Scrolls, trained on radiocarbon-dated samples, together with the study that introduces it, in the Revelation First record's kind, which names it 'Enoch: dating ancient manuscripts with radiocarbon and AI-based writing-style analysis'; the study presents it as 'an AI-based date-prediction model, trained on the basis of 24 14 C-dated scroll samples' (PLOS One, 2025, and its NIH copy).", "claims": [ "RF-02", "RF-01", "F2", "F31" ] }, { "n": 2, "para": 0, "sense": "what it is", "text": "The Jerusalem Post and the European Research Council describe the Groningen researchers' combination of radiocarbon dating with handwriting analysis to date individual scrolls, and Wikipedia, which has no article on the model, gives it in its articles on the Dead Sea Scrolls and on their carbon dating as an AI-based 'date-prediction model called \"Enoch\"', trained on 24 radiocarbon-dated samples, for the dating of some 135 undated manuscripts.", "claims": [ "F46", "F57", "F63", "F68" ] }, { "n": 3, "para": 0, "sense": "operator", "text": "The study is by Popović, Dhali, Schomaker, van der Plicht, Lund Rasmussen, La Nasa and colleagues, published in PLOS One on 4 June 2025 and funded by the European Research Council under grant 640497 (HandsandBible), the project the ERC names The Hands that Wrote the Bible, its lead author at the Qumran Institute of the University of Groningen (PLOS One; NIH copy; ERC); the record gives the operator as Popović and colleagues at Groningen and partners, ERC-funded, and the entity's address as the article's DOI.", "claims": [ "F30", "F62", "F33", "RF-03", "RF-04" ] }, { "n": 4, "para": 0, "sense": "operator", "text": "The article is open access under the Creative Commons Attribution License, with its data, code and test film on Zenodo (PLOS One); the record gives data access as an open-access article and the licence as 'the article's copyright line names Popović et al. (licence text not read)', leaves the model's code and data and the scimex release unchecked, and dates the study as historical, published 2025-06-04, read 2026-10-30.", "claims": [ "F29", "RF-21", "RF-22", "RF-28", "RF-23", "RF-24" ] }, { "n": 5, "para": 1, "sense": "the dating problem", "text": "The problem it answers is stated in the study's first sentence, that dating the scrolls by palaeography is essential 'but there is an almost complete lack of date-bearing manuscripts', the record carrying that sentence as a stated limit; palaeography dates manuscripts by their handwriting, and its subjectivity and unmeasurable features 'poses a problem' (PLOS One, whose references for the method include studies of early Christian codices and early New Testament manuscripts), it 'lacks a solid empirical foundation due to the absence of securely dated reference materials' (ERC), and radiocarbon dating 'is a destructive method' (Popović, in the Jerusalem Post).", "claims": [ "F1", "RF-14", "F6", "F59", "F50" ] }, { "n": 6, "para": 1, "sense": "the dating problem", "text": "The archive's Revelation First thesis holds of the same kind of evidence, on the New Testament, that 'Papyrological dates are ranges, not certainties', and that where composition dates are inferential and manuscript dates contestable ranges, 'material attestation must be allowed to unsettle inherited priority' (#202, claim 3); its mint names this papyrological sovereignty: 'The authority of the material manuscript record over inferential chronology' (#860, RF-M01).", "claims": [ "O202-01", "O860-02" ] }, { "n": 7, "para": 1, "sense": "the dating problem", "text": "The papyrological inversion that thesis rests on, the earliest physical New Testament witness Johannine (𝔓52, commonly dated c. 125 CE) and the earliest copy of the Apocalypse (𝔓98) older than the earliest copy of Romans (𝔓46) (#202), takes its first receipt from a handwriting date: 'Gospel of John (𝔓52): c. 125 CE (Hadrianic handwriting baseline)' (#832).", "claims": [ "O202-02", "O832-03" ] }, { "n": 8, "para": 2, "sense": "the radiocarbon anchors", "text": "The model's anchors are radiocarbon: the team dated 30 manuscripts from four sites spanning about five centuries, 27 dates were valid, and 24 form its primary training set (PLOS One), 'two dozen scrolls, from four different sites in the Judean Desert' in BAS's account; one of the radiocarbon results, 4Q114, a fragment of Daniel 8–11, falls at 230–160 BCE, overlapping the period in which the end of Daniel was presumably written (PLOS One).", "claims": [ "F9", "F11", "F36", "F10" ] }, { "n": 9, "para": 2, "sense": "the method", "text": "It applies Bayesian ridge regression to angular and allographic writing-style features of the ink traces, depending on no pre-trained model and trained on no palaeographic estimates, and in the study 'style' 'is not related to textual content or wording' (PLOS One); its features 'have a solid basis in writer identification', and BAS writes that 'In effect, the model performs its own comparative paleographic analysis', while the record's method and unit restate the study: regression on writing-style feature vectors, trained on 24 radiocarbon-dated samples and applied to 135 undated scrolls, each date predicted 'from the angular and allographic features of its handwriting'.", "claims": [ "F3", "F12", "F23", "F13", "F14", "F35", "RF-09", "RF-07" ] }, { "n": 10, "para": 2, "sense": "the method", "text": "The archive reads that basis at its own grain: writer identification establishes that 'Handwriting is individuating at a statistically demonstrable level' given sufficient sample and cannot 'Attribute a single short inscription with forensic confidence', its accuracy degrading 'sharply on short samples' (#1443, §5.1), and the archive's specification of the machine-eligible handwritten artifact takes the computational validation of handwriting, its 'discriminating elements are measurable and individuating', into its own genealogy (#1409, §I.2).", "claims": [ "O1443-04", "O1409-01" ] }, { "n": 11, "para": 3, "sense": "accuracy and validation", "text": "Against the radiocarbon dates the model's mean absolute error is 27.9 to 30.7 years (PLOS One; the record's first finding); applied to 135 undated scrolls, its predictions were 'aligning with 79% in palaeographic post-hoc evaluation', 107 realistic and 28 not, with a 7% margin (PLOS One; NIH copy), an evaluation made by 'Expert palaeographers among the article’s authors' (PLOS One); the record carries the 79% alignment as a stated limit, beside its count, 24 samples and 135 scrolls as of 4 June 2025, and its coverage, the Judaean Desert in the Hellenistic and Roman periods.", "claims": [ "F3", "RF-12", "F4", "F32", "F18", "RF-15", "RF-11", "RF-10" ] }, { "n": 12, "para": 3, "sense": "accuracy and validation", "text": "The study answers the objection that the predictions echo their radiocarbon training with leave-one-out validation and holds that '14 C date ranges are evidently superior to style-based predictions' (PLOS One), where the ERC says the model predicts within about 30 years, 'more accurate than standalone radiocarbon dating in this period'; the Jerusalem Post gives the 135 scrolls as spanning about 200 BCE to 100 CE.", "claims": [ "F22", "F15", "F58", "F49" ] }, { "n": 13, "para": 4, "sense": "the finding", "text": "The finding, in the study's words, is that the radiocarbon ranges and the model's predictions 'are often older than traditionally assumed palaeographic estimates, leading to a new chronology of the scrolls', the Herodian script emerging earlier than thought, beside the Hasmonaean (PLOS One; the record's second finding; Wikipedia: 'earlier dates and coexistence of the Herodian and Hasmonean scripts').", "claims": [ "F5", "F25", "RF-13", "F64" ] }, { "n": 14, "para": 4, "sense": "the key texts", "text": "Two different results carry the headline: the radiocarbon date of 4Q114 and the model's third-century BCE prediction for 4Q109, a copy of Ecclesiastes, which together, the study says, 'establish these to be the first known fragments of a biblical book from the time of their presumed authors' (PLOS One); the Jerusalem Post and the ERC report the pair, Wikipedia gives 4Q114 as 'as much as 60 years earlier than previously thought', and Christopher Rollston, in BAS, calls the 4Q114 range 'Enoch’s calibrated date range' and judges it too high, since Daniel 7–12 cannot be dated before 167 BCE.", "claims": [ "F26", "F27", "F44", "F61", "F65", "F41" ] }, { "n": 15, "para": 4, "sense": "copies, not compositions", "text": "What the model dates is the copy: the record's negative tag is 'NOT a composition date: it dates the copies', and among what the evidence does not answer is 'when any work copied on a scroll was composed' (Revelation First record); the study's own claims are stated of copies, fragments from the time of their 'presumed authors' and literary manuscripts copied before the Hasmonaean expansion (PLOS One; Jerusalem Post), and BAS reports texts associated with the Qumran community dated before the site's first settlement.", "claims": [ "RF-26", "RF-19", "F27", "F26", "F52", "F37" ] }, { "n": 16, "para": 4, "sense": "copies, not compositions", "text": "The archive states the distinction as a rule of its own dating argument: 'Manuscript attestation does not equal composition date' (#832, with its later versions and the Josephus-thesis papers), its papyrological section 'does not argue that papyrological dating of copies establishes composition dates' (#832), and its mint autograph inference holds that 'All NT dating is autograph inference — the autograph is lost; what survives is copies of copies' (#860, RF-M19).", "claims": [ "O832-01", "O832-02", "O860-01" ] }, { "n": 17, "para": 5, "sense": "what the evidence can settle", "text": "The record keeps the study's object apart from the New Testament, 'NOT a New Testament study: Hebrew and Aramaic scrolls', with 'the dates of Greek New Testament papyri (not in its corpus)' among what it does not answer, and gives what it answers as 'how far palaeographic dates of the scrolls move against radiocarbon anchors' and that a style-based model can date undated manuscripts 'within about thirty years on this corpus' (Revelation First record).", "claims": [ "RF-25", "RF-18", "RF-16", "RF-17" ] }, { "n": 18, "para": 5, "sense": "what the record asks", "text": "The record files it under three of the census's four intersections, AI and ancient texts, papyrology and discovery, and New Testament scholarship, with machine, radiocarbon and palaeographic dating as its kinds of evidence, the Dead Sea Scrolls as its text object and the scrolls' digital library as the corpus it uses, in a census whose question is 'What evidence does each resource hold on when and from what the New Testament writings were composed, and how do machines now read those texts?' and whose correction is 'Revelation First ≠ Revelation Early' (Revelation First record).", "claims": [ "RF-05", "RF-06", "RF-08", "RF-27", "RF-29", "RF-30" ] }, { "n": 19, "para": 5, "sense": "the bearing on the field", "text": "On the record's reading the bearing is on dating: 'New Testament papyri are dated by palaeography alone, and this study moves palaeographic dates earlier against radiocarbon anchors'; it 'does not date New Testament papyri' and is 'the method the papyrological-inversion and dating workstreams would watch' (Revelation First record, rf_intersection), and the thesis those workstreams serve states its first falsifier as a matter of secure dating, 'a document in the NT can be securely dated earlier than any plausible date for Revelation' (#202).", "claims": [ "RF-20", "O202-03" ] }, { "n": 20, "para": 5, "sense": "the bearing on the field", "text": "The census's worked questions give the ground: 'A papyrus dates its copy, and the composition must come before it', and most early New Testament papyri are dated by handwriting alone, where Enoch stands as 'a method that moves palaeographic dates earlier against radiocarbon anchors, on the Dead Sea Scrolls'; machine dating 'is calibrated on a corpus', Enoch's style-based dates are 'often older than palaeographic estimates', and none of the four machine-reading resources 'dates a New Testament papyrus or a composition' (Revelation First, questions papyri-revelation-date and machine-dating).", "claims": [ "RF-32", "RF-31", "RF-35", "RF-33", "RF-34" ] }, { "n": 21, "para": 6, "sense": "what it offers palaeography", "text": "The study offers its dates as 'probability-based options' to aid palaeographers and historians, claims to be 'the first complete machine-learning-based model' of its kind with an 'explainable design', calls itself 'a first step' whose advantage is 'quantified objectivity to palaeography' (also in the Jerusalem Post), and leaves 'black box' pre-trained models as a future option that depends on palaeographers' acceptance (PLOS One); its authors say it opens the ancient world 'like a time machine' (Jerusalem Post, after Ars Technica), and the ERC calls it 'a robust and objective framework for dating over a thousand manuscripts'.", "claims": [ "F8", "F20", "F21", "F24", "F52", "F47", "F60" ] }, { "n": 22, "para": 6, "sense": "machine reading of ancient texts", "text": "The archive's survey of machine reading reads the same design at Ithaca: the hazard of a machine's early reading 'is a property of single-verdict interfaces, not of machine reading as such', ranked alternatives are its mitigation, and Ithaca's gain comes from interface design, ranked hypotheses that the historian evaluates 'rather than accepting an answer' (#1443, §2.3); such systems 'work on authors who cannot be consulted' (#1443).", "claims": [ "O1443-01", "O1443-02", "O1443-03" ] }, { "n": 23, "para": 6, "sense": "lineage and sequel", "text": "The study sets itself beside Ithaca, which combined AI and epigraphy to date Greek inscriptions (PLOS One), and Haaretz's card opens 'From Ithaca to Judea Enoch is not the first artificial intelligence used to study ancient texts'; after it, Popović plans to apply the model to more scrolls and to Aramaic texts such as the Elephantine Papyri (Jerusalem Post), and Wikipedia records a five-year project he leads with the Israel Antiquities Authority, announced in June 2026, a distinct project.", "claims": [ "F16", "F53", "F51", "F66" ] }, { "n": 24, "para": 6, "sense": "stated limits", "text": "The study's limits stand with its findings: for 11Q5 it gives a date after 100 CE, against the reconstruction that the scrolls were hidden before summer 68 CE; its results are 'the first published results on date estimation for this collection', with validation to come, though it dates both halves of the Great Isaiah Scroll to one period; and its Herodian-type dates challenge the default typology, where 'More research is needed to solve this issue' (PLOS One).", "claims": [ "F17", "F19", "F28" ] }, { "n": 25, "para": 7, "sense": "reception", "text": "Reception divides, 'not all scholars are convinced' (BAS): Rollston finds the results 'not earth-shattering' and mostly what Frank Moore Cross had stated sixty years earlier, Ben-Dov finds points 'we would have otherwise missed' and asks whether the study is 'reliable enough to substantiate a re-shuffle of the entire chronological paradigm of Qumran', and Adler calls it 'a way to move forward' (BAS).", "claims": [ "F34", "F38", "F39", "F42", "F40" ] }, { "n": 26, "para": 7, "sense": "the magnitude in the press", "text": "The press gives the shift a size the study does not, which says 'often older': the Jerusalem Post, 'by 50 to 150 years earlier than previously believed', Popović, 'dates that are 50 years older or maybe even a century older', and a Reddit card, 'up to 100 years older'; video cards title it 'How AI Redated the Dead Sea Scrolls' and 'AI Just Decoded the Dead Sea Scrolls — What It Found Changes Everything', and a National Geographic UK post's title is cut at 'By combining time honoured excavation techniques'.", "claims": [ "F5", "F45", "F48", "F43", "F55", "F56", "F54" ] }, { "n": 27, "para": 8, "sense": "the composition at the name", "text": "At the name 'Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls' on Google's AI Overview, signed out, on 2026-10-31, a new address whose record was built the day before and which no card cites, the composition holds the study's figures, the 24 samples, the method, the roughly thirty-year error and 79% of 135, and keeps copies apart from their authors, 'the distinction the field turns on' (Capture Registry, 2026-10-31).", "claims": [ "CAP-1-08", "CAP-1-01", "CAP-1-02", "CAP-1-06", "CAP-1-12" ] }, { "n": 28, "para": 8, "sense": "the composition at the name", "text": "The registry records its departures, 'a significant portion … 50 to 150 years older' for the study's 'often older', the radiocarbon date of 4Q114 credited to the model, figures for 4Q109 not in the saved sources, the study's own limit unsaid while doubt goes to Reddit and Popović's caution to Haaretz, and the study's frame surviving only as what 'Supporters view'; its reader noted the first two departures without charging them and found the funder and the commitments absent, and its analysis is that the study is 'composed nearly at its own grain', its 'figures grow where the press rounded them, and its doubts are sourced to a forum' (Capture Registry, 2026-10-31).", "claims": [ "CAP-1-03", "CAP-1-04", "CAP-1-05", "CAP-1-11", "CAP-1-09", "CAP-1-10", "CAP-1-07" ] }, { "n": 29, "para": 8, "sense": "the name", "text": "The name is shared: the study says the model is 'named after the ancient Jewish science hero', and Wikipedia's disambiguation page gives the bare name as a biblical figure, the subject of the Book of Enoch, and lists no model (Wikipedia, Enoch (disambiguation)).", "claims": [ "F7", "F67" ] } ], "joins": [ { "act": "order of senses", "sentences": "1–29", "claims": [], "note": "equal case (§4.7): the entity's dependency order (what it is, operator, the dating problem, the anchors and the method, accuracy, the finding and the key texts, what it dates, what the evidence can settle and its bearing on the field, what it offers, lineage and limits, reception, the composition at the name, the name), field and archive claims ordered together by genealogy within each sense; neither ledger placed first as a block" }, { "act": "holding together (palaeographic dating: the study's problem and the archive's reading of papyrological dates)", "sentences": [ 5, 6, 7 ], "claims": [ "F1", "F6", "F59", "F50", "RF-14", "O202-01", "O860-02", "O202-02", "O832-03" ], "note": "the field's statement of the dating problem (2025) and the archive's claims on the dates of New Testament papyri (2026) composed in one sense, the class 'palaeographic dating' sourced by B1 Abstract and §1, B10 ¶3; the archive's claims are of the class, never of the study's corpus" }, { "act": "holding together (copies and compositions)", "sentences": [ 15, 16 ], "claims": [ "RF-26", "RF-19", "F27", "F26", "F52", "F37", "O832-01", "O832-02", "O860-01" ], "note": "the study's claims stated of copies and the record's and archive's rule that a copy's date is not a composition's, in one sense (class 4, sourced by B1 §6, B4, B10 and the census's negative tag)" }, { "act": "rival claims composed (P_coh)", "sentences": [ 12 ], "claims": [ "F15", "F58" ], "note": "the study ranks radiocarbon above the model's predictions; the ERC calls the model more accurate than standalone radiocarbon; both composed, each with its source" }, { "act": "rival claims composed (P_coh)", "sentences": [ 14 ], "claims": [ "F27", "F41" ], "note": "the study gives 4Q114 as a radiocarbon result; Rollston (BAS) calls the range Enoch's and too high; both composed" }, { "act": "holding together (the magnitude)", "sentences": [ 26 ], "claims": [ "F5", "F45", "F48", "F43" ], "note": "the study's 'often older' beside the press's sizes; the composer's coordinating act is the phrase 'a size the study does not', entailed by F5 against F45, F48, F43" }, { "act": "holding together (machine reading of ancient texts)", "sentences": [ 21, 22, 23 ], "claims": [ "F8", "F20", "O1443-01", "O1443-02", "O1443-03", "F16", "F53" ], "note": "the study's probability-based options and the archive's reading of ranked alternatives at Ithaca composed in adjacent senses; class (3) sourced by B1 §3 and B5; no archive category is applied to Enoch by the composer" } ], "plan": { "order": [ "RF-02", "RF-01", "F2", "F31", "F46", "F57", "F63", "F68", "F30", "F62", "F33", "RF-03", "RF-04", "F29", "RF-21", "RF-22", "RF-28", "RF-23", "RF-24", "F1", "RF-14", "F6", "F59", "F50", "O202-01", "O860-02", "O202-02", "O832-03", "F9", "F11", "F36", "F10", "F3", "F12", "F23", "F13", "F14", "F35", "RF-09", "RF-07", "O1443-04", "O1409-01", "RF-12", "F4", "F32", "F18", "RF-15", "RF-11", "RF-10", "F22", "F15", "F58", "F49", "F5", "F25", "RF-13", "F64", "F26", "F27", "F44", "F61", "F65", "F41", "RF-26", "RF-19", "F52", "F37", "O832-01", "O832-02", "O860-01", "RF-25", "RF-18", "RF-16", "RF-17", "RF-05", "RF-06", "RF-08", "RF-27", "RF-29", "RF-30", "RF-20", "O202-03", "RF-32", "RF-31", "RF-35", "RF-33", "RF-34", "F8", "F20", "F21", "F24", "F47", "F60", "O1443-01", "O1443-02", "O1443-03", "F16", "F53", "F51", "F66", "F17", "F19", "F28", "F34", "F38", "F39", "F42", "F40", "F45", "F48", "F43", "F55", "F56", "F54", "CAP-1-08", "CAP-1-01", "CAP-1-02", "CAP-1-06", "CAP-1-12", "CAP-1-03", "CAP-1-04", "CAP-1-05", "CAP-1-11", "CAP-1-09", "CAP-1-10", "CAP-1-07", "F7", "F67" ], "senses": { "what it is": [ 1, 2 ], "operator": [ 3, 4 ], "the dating problem": [ 5, 6, 7 ], "the radiocarbon anchors": [ 8 ], "the method": [ 9, 10 ], "accuracy and validation": [ 11, 12 ], "the finding": [ 13 ], "the key texts": [ 14 ], "copies, not compositions": [ 15, 16 ], "what the evidence can settle": [ 17 ], "what the record asks": [ 18 ], "the bearing on the field": [ 19, 20 ], "what it offers palaeography": [ 21 ], "machine reading of ancient texts": [ 22 ], "lineage and sequel": [ 23 ], "stated limits": [ 24 ], "reception": [ 25 ], "the magnitude in the press": [ 26 ], "the composition at the name": [ 27, 28 ], "the name": [ 29 ] }, "case_by_sense": { "equal (one claim space; nothing translated)": [ "what it is", "operator", "the dating problem", "the radiocarbon anchors", "the method", "accuracy and validation", "the finding", "the key texts", "copies, not compositions", "what the evidence can settle", "what the record asks", "the bearing on the field", "what it offers palaeography", "machine reading of ancient texts", "lineage and sequel", "stated limits", "reception", "the magnitude in the press", "the composition at the name", "the name" ] }, "carried": { "archive": 60, "field": 68, "not_composed": {} }, "conflict_log": [ { "rule": "D_pres vs channel", "result": "no cut: the KO carries every field and archive claim; the compression's bound met with no channel log" }, { "rule": "P_coh", "result": "F15 ('14 C date ranges are evidently superior to style-based predictions', the study) against F58 ('more accurate than standalone radiocarbon dating in this period', the ERC): both composed (sentence 12)" }, { "rule": "P_coh", "result": "F10, F27 (4Q114 a radiocarbon result, the study) against F41 (Rollston: 'Enoch’s calibrated date range for 4Q114', too high): both composed (sentence 14); CAP-1-04 composed with them in sentence 28" }, { "rule": "P_coh", "result": "F29 (the article under the Creative Commons Attribution License) against RF-22 ('licence text not read'): both composed (sentence 4); the record's field is out of date against the saved page (notes)" }, { "rule": "P_coh", "result": "F45 (the Jerusalem Post's '50 to 150 years') against CAP-1-03 ('The range and the 'significant portion' are not in the saved sources'): both composed (sentences 26, 28); the registry's 'saved sources' are the census's, and the range is on card 4 (notes)" } ] } }, "P": { "title": "Enoch (AI dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls)", "genre": "the compression: AIO's interaction grammar (lede, headed clusters, bolded labels, card rail), composed from the v0.9 plan in one claim space; it faces on the card, with T a record within it", "status": "composed 2026-10-31 from the v0.9 knowledge object; not frozen", "lede": { "text": "is an AI-based date-prediction model for the Dead Sea Scrolls, trained on 24 radiocarbon-dated samples, and the 2025 PLOS One study by Popović and colleagues (Groningen; ERC) that introduces it. It dates copies, not compositions, and not the New Testament (Revelation First record).", "claims": [ "RF-02", "F2", "F30", "RF-26", "RF-25" ] }, "sections": [ { "icon": "🔎", "head": "The problem and the study", "items": [ { "label": "Dates:", "text": "almost no date-bearing manuscripts; palaeography subjective, radiocarbon destructive (PLOS One; ERC; JPost).", "claims": [ "F1", "F6", "F59", "F50", "RF-14" ] }, { "label": "Who:", "text": "Popović and colleagues, Qumran Institute, Groningen; ERC grant 640497; open access, data on Zenodo.", "claims": [ "F30", "F33", "F62", "F29", "RF-03", "RF-04", "RF-21", "RF-22", "RF-23", "RF-24", "RF-28", "F46", "F57", "RF-01", "F31", "F63", "F68" ] } ] }, { "icon": "🧪", "head": "How it works", "items": [ { "label": "Anchors:", "text": "30 manuscripts radiocarbon-dated, 27 valid, 24 for training (PLOS One; BAS).", "claims": [ "F9", "F11", "F36" ] }, { "label": "Method:", "text": "Bayesian ridge regression on angular and allographic ink-trace features, not the text (PLOS One).", "claims": [ "F3", "F12", "F13", "F14", "F23", "F35", "RF-07", "RF-09" ] }, { "label": "Error:", "text": "27.9–30.7 years; 79% of 135 undated scrolls realistic, judged by palaeographers among the authors.", "claims": [ "F3", "F4", "F32", "F18", "RF-12", "RF-15", "RF-11", "F22", "F49", "RF-10" ] }, { "label": "Rank:", "text": "the study puts radiocarbon above its predictions; the ERC calls the model more accurate.", "claims": [ "F15", "F58" ] } ] }, { "icon": "📜", "head": "What it found", "items": [ { "label": "Older:", "text": "often older than palaeographic estimates; the Herodian script earlier (PLOS One; Wikipedia).", "claims": [ "F5", "F25", "F64", "RF-13" ] }, { "label": "Two results:", "text": "4Q114 by radiocarbon, 4Q109 by the model; Rollston calls the 4Q114 range Enoch's, too high (BAS).", "claims": [ "F10", "F26", "F27", "F44", "F61", "F65", "F41" ] }, { "label": "Copying:", "text": "literary manuscripts copied before the Hasmonaean expansion (PLOS One; BAS).", "claims": [ "F37", "F52" ] } ] }, { "icon": "⚖️", "head": "What it can settle", "items": [ { "label": "Copies:", "text": "'it dates the copies' (record); 'Manuscript attestation does not equal composition date' (#832); 'All NT dating is autograph inference' (#860).", "claims": [ "RF-26", "RF-19", "O832-01", "O832-02", "O860-01", "CAP-1-02" ] }, { "label": "Corpus:", "text": "Hebrew and Aramaic scrolls, no Greek New Testament papyri (record).", "claims": [ "RF-25", "RF-18", "RF-16", "RF-17", "RF-34", "RF-35", "RF-05", "RF-06", "RF-08", "RF-27" ] }, { "label": "Bearing:", "text": "New Testament papyri are dated by palaeography alone (record); their dates are 'ranges, not certainties' (#202), 𝔓52's a 'Hadrianic handwriting baseline' (#832).", "claims": [ "RF-20", "RF-31", "RF-32", "RF-33", "O202-01", "O202-02", "O202-03", "O832-03", "O860-02", "RF-29", "RF-30" ] } ] }, { "icon": "🧭", "head": "Design and lineage", "items": [ { "label": "Options:", "text": "probability-based dates, an explainable design, 'a first step' (PLOS One); 'like a time machine' (authors).", "claims": [ "F8", "F20", "F21", "F24", "F47", "F60" ] }, { "label": "Interfaces:", "text": "after Ithaca (PLOS One; Haaretz); the hazard lies in 'single-verdict interfaces' (#1443).", "claims": [ "F16", "F53", "O1443-01", "O1443-02", "O1443-03" ] }, { "label": "Hands:", "text": "handwriting 'measurable and individuating' (#1409); attribution degrades 'sharply on short samples' (#1443).", "claims": [ "O1443-04", "O1409-01" ] }, { "label": "Limits:", "text": "11Q5 after 100 CE; first results; 'More research is needed' (PLOS One).", "claims": [ "F17", "F19", "F28" ] }, { "label": "Next:", "text": "the Elephantine Papyri; a new ERC project (JPost; Wikipedia).", "claims": [ "F51", "F66" ] } ] }, { "icon": "🗣️", "head": "Reception", "items": [ { "label": "Scholars:", "text": "'not earth-shattering' (Rollston); 'a way to move forward' (Adler); 'reliable enough'? (Ben-Dov).", "claims": [ "F34", "F38", "F39", "F40", "F42" ] }, { "label": "Press:", "text": "'50 to 150 years earlier' (JPost); 'up to 100 years' (Reddit); videos 'Redated', 'Decoded'.", "claims": [ "F45", "F48", "F43", "F54", "F55", "F56" ] }, { "label": "Overview:", "text": "holds figures and copies; makes 'often older' 50 to 150 years; credits 4Q114 to the model (Capture Registry).", "claims": [ "CAP-1-01", "CAP-1-03", "CAP-1-04", "CAP-1-05", "CAP-1-06", "CAP-1-07", "CAP-1-08", "CAP-1-09", "CAP-1-10", "CAP-1-11", "CAP-1-12" ] }, { "label": "Name:", "text": "after 'the ancient Jewish science hero'; no Wikipedia article.", "claims": [ "F7", "F67" ] } ] } ], "open": [ { "question": "Is the model more or less accurate than radiocarbon?", "rests_on": [ "F15", "F58", "F3" ], "modality": "self-description (the study) against attributed (ERC)", "would_resolve": "the study's per-sample comparison of predicted and radiocarbon ranges (its S8 appendix), read against the ERC's sentence" }, { "question": "Whose is the 4Q114 date, and is it too high?", "rests_on": [ "F10", "F27", "F41", "F44", "F61", "CAP-1-04", "CAP-1-09" ], "modality": "documented (the study) against attributed (Rollston); documented (Capture Registry)", "would_resolve": "the study's Fig 1 and S4 appendix for 4Q114; a dated witness for Daniel 7–12 before 167 BCE, or none" }, { "question": "How much older?", "rests_on": [ "F5", "F25", "F45", "F48", "F43", "CAP-1-03" ], "modality": "documented (the study, 'often older') against attributed (press magnitudes)", "would_resolve": "the per-manuscript differences between Enoch's dates and the palaeographic estimates (the study's S12 worksheet)" }, { "question": "Does the method reach New Testament papyri?", "rests_on": [ "RF-18", "RF-20", "RF-32", "RF-34", "O202-01", "O832-03", "O202-03", "F6" ], "modality": "interpretation (record; #202, #832); hypothesis (#202's falsifier)", "would_resolve": "a radiocarbon-anchored style model trained on Greek papyri, published; a secure date for a New Testament document earlier than any plausible date for Revelation (#202's falsifier)" }, { "question": "Do probability-based options avoid the single-verdict hazard?", "rests_on": [ "F8", "F20", "O1443-01", "O1443-02", "CAP-1-11" ], "modality": "self-description (the study); interpretation (#1443); documented (Capture Registry)", "would_resolve": "a study of how palaeographers use Enoch's ranked dates, or a composition that carries them as options" }, { "question": "Opacities", "rests_on": [ "F43", "F53", "F54", "F55", "F56", "F32", "RF-28" ], "modality": "documented (card titles and snippets only)", "would_resolve": "Reddit (a script bot check), Haaretz (URL not found), the three video cards and the scimex release (HTTP 403) unread; the PLOS page's saved text drops the inline figures of its Table 2 summary, recovered from the NIH copy (F32)" } ], "rail": [ { "lineage": "what it is: an AI-based date-prediction model for the scrolls and the study that introduces it", "claims": [ "RF-02", "RF-01", "F2", "F31", "F46", "F57", "F63", "F68", "RF-08", "RF-27" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "operator, funding, licence and data", "claims": [ "F30", "F62", "F33", "RF-03", "RF-04", "F29", "RF-21", "RF-22", "RF-28", "RF-23", "RF-24" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "the dating problem: palaeography without date-bearing manuscripts", "claims": [ "F1", "RF-14", "F6", "F59", "F50" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "palaeographic dates as ranges against inferential chronology: the papyrological inversion", "claims": [ "O202-01", "O860-02", "O202-02", "O832-03", "O202-03" ], "earliest": 202 }, { "lineage": "the radiocarbon anchors: 30 manuscripts dated, 27 valid dates, 24 for training", "claims": [ "F9", "F11", "F36" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "the key texts: 4Q114 by radiocarbon, 4Q109 by Enoch, copies from the time of their presumed authors", "claims": [ "F10", "F27", "F44", "F61", "F65" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "accuracy and validation: errors of 27.9 to 30.7 years; 79% realistic on 135 undated scrolls", "claims": [ "F3", "RF-12", "F4", "F32", "F18", "RF-15", "RF-11", "RF-10", "F22", "F58", "F49" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "the method: Bayesian ridge regression on writing-style features read from the ink trace, not the text", "claims": [ "F12", "F23", "F13", "F14", "F35", "RF-09", "RF-07" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "writer identification: measurable hands, short samples", "claims": [ "O1443-04", "O1409-01" ], "earliest": 1409 }, { "lineage": "stated limits: radiocarbon superior, a first step, more research needed", "claims": [ "F15", "F17", "F19", "F28" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "the finding: dates older than the palaeographic estimates, a new chronology", "claims": [ "F5", "F25", "RF-13", "F64" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "copying before the Hasmonaean expansion and before Qumran", "claims": [ "F26", "F52", "F37" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "reception: scholars for and against", "claims": [ "F41", "F34", "F38", "F39", "F42", "F40", "F55", "F56", "F54" ], "earliest": "B2" }, { "lineage": "what the evidence can settle: copies, not compositions; not the New Testament", "claims": [ "RF-26", "RF-19", "O832-01", "O832-02", "O860-01", "RF-25", "RF-18", "RF-16", "RF-17", "RF-35", "RF-34" ], "earliest": 832 }, { "lineage": "what the record's schema asks", "claims": [ "RF-05", "RF-06", "RF-29", "RF-30" ], "earliest": "RF" }, { "lineage": "the bearing on the field: the method the dating workstreams watch", "claims": [ "RF-20", "RF-32", "RF-31", "RF-33" ], "earliest": "RF" }, { "lineage": "what it offers palaeography: probability-based options, quantified objectivity, explainable design", "claims": [ "F8", "F20", "F21", "F24", "F47", "F60" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "machine reading of ancient texts: ranked alternatives, authors who cannot be consulted", "claims": [ "O1443-01", "O1443-02", "O1443-03" ], "earliest": 1443 }, { "lineage": "lineage and sequel: machine dating of ancient texts before and after Enoch", "claims": [ "F16", "F53", "F51", "F66" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "the magnitude in the press: 50 to 150 years, a century, up to 100 years", "claims": [ "F45", "F48", "F43" ], "earliest": "B4" }, { "lineage": "reception: the record and the cards", "claims": [ "CAP-1-08", "CAP-1-12", "CAP-1-07" ], "earliest": "CAP" }, { "lineage": "the composition at the name: the study held", "claims": [ "CAP-1-01", "CAP-1-06" ], "earliest": "CAP" }, { "lineage": "the composition at the name: copies kept apart from compositions", "claims": [ "CAP-1-02" ], "earliest": "CAP" }, { "lineage": "the composition at the name: the finding enlarged", "claims": [ "CAP-1-03" ], "earliest": "CAP" }, { "lineage": "the composition at the name: two results made one", "claims": [ "CAP-1-04", "CAP-1-09" ], "earliest": "CAP" }, { "lineage": "the composition at the name: the stated limit, elsewhere", "claims": [ "CAP-1-05", "CAP-1-11", "CAP-1-10" ], "earliest": "CAP" }, { "lineage": "reception: the encyclopedia and the name", "claims": [ "F7", "F67" ], "earliest": "B1" } ], "body_words": 350, "entity": "Composed under v0.9, equal case (ρ = extends): KO_B sentences surviving 0 of 15; every field claim carried." }, "P_B": { "title": "Enoch (AI dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls)", "arm": "B (the field alone)", "genre": "popup — the compression from the field ledger alone (cards, census third-party source, Wikipedia)", "status": "composed 2026-10-31 from the field ledger alone; not frozen", "lede": { "text": "is an AI-based date-prediction model for the Dead Sea Scrolls, trained on 24 radiocarbon-dated scroll samples, from a 2025 PLOS One study by Popović and colleagues at Groningen.", "claims": [ "F2", "F31", "F30", "F33", "F46", "F57", "F63", "F68" ] }, "sections": [ { "icon": "🧪", "head": "How it works", "items": [ { "label": "Method:", "text": "regression on ink-trace style features, not the text; 27.9–30.7-year errors; 79% of 135 realistic.", "claims": [ "F3", "F4", "F9", "F11", "F12", "F13", "F14", "F23", "F35", "F36", "F32", "F18", "F22", "F49", "F1", "F6", "F59", "F50", "F15", "F58", "F29", "F62" ] } ] }, { "icon": "📜", "head": "What it found", "items": [ { "label": "Older:", "text": "often older dates; 4Q114 and 4Q109 from their presumed authors' time.", "claims": [ "F5", "F25", "F64", "F10", "F26", "F27", "F44", "F61", "F65", "F37", "F52" ] }, { "label": "Limits:", "text": "radiocarbon superior; a first step; more research needed.", "claims": [ "F8", "F20", "F21", "F24", "F47", "F60", "F17", "F19", "F28", "F16", "F53", "F51", "F66" ] } ] }, { "icon": "🗣️", "head": "Reception", "items": [ { "label": "Scholars:", "text": "Rollston doubts; Ben-Dov and Adler welcome (BAS).", "claims": [ "F34", "F38", "F39", "F40", "F41", "F42" ] }, { "label": "Press:", "text": "'50 to 150 years' (JPost); 'up to 100 years' (Reddit).", "claims": [ "F45", "F48", "F43", "F54", "F55", "F56", "F7", "F67" ] } ] } ], "open": [ { "question": "More or less accurate than radiocarbon?", "rests_on": [ "F15", "F58" ], "modality": "self-description against attributed", "would_resolve": "the study's per-sample comparison" }, { "question": "How much older?", "rests_on": [ "F5", "F45", "F48", "F43" ], "modality": "documented against attributed", "would_resolve": "the per-manuscript differences in the study's worksheet" } ], "rail": [ { "lineage": "what it is: an AI-based date-prediction model for the scrolls and the study that introduces it", "claims": [ "F2", "F31", "F63", "F68", "F46", "F57" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "the dating problem: palaeography without date-bearing manuscripts", "claims": [ "F1", "F6", "F59", "F50" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "operator, funding, licence and data", "claims": [ "F30", "F33", "F62", "F29" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "the radiocarbon anchors: 30 manuscripts dated, 27 valid dates, 24 for training", "claims": [ "F9", "F11", "F36" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "accuracy and validation: errors of 27.9 to 30.7 years; 79% realistic on 135 undated scrolls", "claims": [ "F3", "F4", "F32", "F18", "F22", "F49", "F58" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "the method: Bayesian ridge regression on writing-style features read from the ink trace, not the text", "claims": [ "F12", "F13", "F14", "F23", "F35" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "stated limits: radiocarbon superior, a first step, more research needed", "claims": [ "F15", "F17", "F19", "F28" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "the finding: dates older than the palaeographic estimates, a new chronology", "claims": [ "F5", "F25", "F64" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "the key texts: 4Q114 by radiocarbon, 4Q109 by Enoch, copies from the time of their presumed authors", "claims": [ "F10", "F27", "F44", "F61", "F65" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "copying before the Hasmonaean expansion and before Qumran", "claims": [ "F26", "F37", "F52" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "what it offers palaeography: probability-based options, quantified objectivity, explainable design", "claims": [ "F8", "F20", "F21", "F24", "F47", "F60" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "lineage and sequel: machine dating of ancient texts before and after Enoch", "claims": [ "F16", "F53", "F51", "F66" ], "earliest": "B1" }, { "lineage": "reception: scholars for and against", "claims": [ "F34", "F38", "F39", "F40", "F41", "F42", "F54", "F55", "F56" ], "earliest": "B2" }, { "lineage": "the magnitude in the press: 50 to 150 years, a century, up to 100 years", "claims": [ "F45", "F48", "F43" ], "earliest": "B4" }, { "lineage": "reception: the encyclopedia and the name", "claims": [ "F7", "F67" ], "earliest": "B1" } ], "body_words": 86, "entity": "With no archive claim admitted, the entry is the study at its article's, its funder's and its press's resolution: what the model is, its anchors and method, its error, its finding and key texts, its offer and limits, and its reception." }, "KO_B": { "title": "Enoch (AI dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls)", "arm": "B (the field alone)", "genre": "knowledge object", "status": "composed 2026-10-31; not frozen", "sentences": [ { "n": 1, "para": 0, "text": "Enoch is 'an AI-based date-prediction model, trained on the basis of 24 14 C-dated scroll samples', presented in a 2025 PLOS One study to overcome 'an almost complete lack of date-bearing manuscripts' among the Dead Sea Scrolls; Wikipedia gives it within its articles on the scrolls.", "claims": [ "F2", "F31", "F1", "F63", "F68" ] }, { "n": 2, "para": 0, "text": "Its authors are Popović, Dhali, Schomaker, van der Plicht and colleagues at Groningen's Qumran Institute and partners, funded by the ERC through The Hands that Wrote the Bible; the article is open access and its data and code are on Zenodo.", "claims": [ "F30", "F33", "F62", "F29", "F46", "F57" ] }, { "n": 3, "para": 0, "text": "Palaeography dates manuscripts by their handwriting but is subjective and lacks an empirical foundation, and radiocarbon dating destroys material.", "claims": [ "F6", "F59", "F50" ] }, { "n": 4, "para": 1, "text": "The team radiocarbon-dated 30 manuscripts from four sites, obtained 27 valid dates and trained the model on 24, two dozen in BAS's account.", "claims": [ "F9", "F11", "F36" ] }, { "n": 5, "para": 1, "text": "The model applies Bayesian ridge regression to angular and allographic features of the ink trace, not to the text, with no pre-trained model and no palaeographic targets, on a basis in writer identification; BAS calls it comparative palaeography.", "claims": [ "F3", "F12", "F13", "F14", "F23", "F35" ] }, { "n": 6, "para": 1, "text": "Its errors against radiocarbon are 27.9 to 30.7 years; on 135 undated scrolls, 79% of its predictions were judged realistic by palaeographers among the authors, and leave-one-out validation answers the charge that it echoes its training.", "claims": [ "F3", "F4", "F32", "F18", "F22", "F49" ] }, { "n": 7, "para": 1, "text": "The study holds radiocarbon superior to its predictions, while the ERC calls the model more accurate than standalone radiocarbon in this period.", "claims": [ "F15", "F58" ] }, { "n": 8, "para": 2, "text": "Radiocarbon ranges and predictions are often older than palaeographic estimates, giving a new chronology in which the Herodian script appears earlier, beside the Hasmonaean.", "claims": [ "F5", "F25", "F64" ] }, { "n": 9, "para": 2, "text": "The radiocarbon date of 4Q114 (Daniel) and the model's prediction for 4Q109 (Ecclesiastes) make them the first known biblical fragments from their presumed authors' time, and literary manuscripts were copied before the Hasmonaean expansion.", "claims": [ "F10", "F27", "F26", "F44", "F61", "F65", "F37", "F52" ] }, { "n": 10, "para": 2, "text": "The study offers probability-based options to palaeographers, quantified objectivity and an explainable design, calls itself a first step and leaves black-box models to the future; its authors speak of a time machine.", "claims": [ "F8", "F20", "F21", "F24", "F47", "F60" ] }, { "n": 11, "para": 2, "text": "Its limits are a post-100 CE date for 11Q5, first results awaiting validation, and a challenged typology needing more research.", "claims": [ "F17", "F19", "F28" ] }, { "n": 12, "para": 3, "text": "It follows Ithaca's dating of Greek inscriptions, and Popović plans further applications and leads a new ERC project.", "claims": [ "F16", "F53", "F51", "F66" ] }, { "n": 13, "para": 3, "text": "Scholars divide: Rollston finds it unremarkable and its 4Q114 date too high, while Ben-Dov and Adler welcome it and ask how far it can be trusted.", "claims": [ "F34", "F38", "F39", "F40", "F41", "F42" ] }, { "n": 14, "para": 3, "text": "The press and the cards give its shift as 50 to 150 years, or up to a century, and video titles say AI re-dated or decoded the scrolls.", "claims": [ "F45", "F48", "F43", "F54", "F55", "F56" ] }, { "n": 15, "para": 3, "text": "Wikipedia has no article on it, and the bare name is the biblical figure the model is named after.", "claims": [ "F7", "F67" ] } ] }, "L_B": { "words": 426, "text": "Enoch is 'an AI-based date-prediction model, trained on the basis of 24 14 C-dated scroll samples', presented in a 2025 PLOS One study to overcome 'an almost complete lack of date-bearing manuscripts' among the Dead Sea Scrolls; Wikipedia gives it within its articles on the scrolls. Its authors are Popović, Dhali, Schomaker, van der Plicht and colleagues at Groningen's Qumran Institute and partners, funded by the ERC through The Hands that Wrote the Bible; the article is open access and its data and code are on Zenodo. Palaeography dates manuscripts by their handwriting but is subjective and lacks an empirical foundation, and radiocarbon dating destroys material. The team radiocarbon-dated 30 manuscripts from four sites, obtained 27 valid dates and trained the model on 24, two dozen in BAS's account. The model applies Bayesian ridge regression to angular and allographic features of the ink trace, not to the text, with no pre-trained model and no palaeographic targets, on a basis in writer identification; BAS calls it comparative palaeography. Its errors against radiocarbon are 27.9 to 30.7 years; on 135 undated scrolls, 79% of its predictions were judged realistic by palaeographers among the authors, and leave-one-out validation answers the charge that it echoes its training. The study holds radiocarbon superior to its predictions, while the ERC calls the model more accurate than standalone radiocarbon in this period. Radiocarbon ranges and predictions are often older than palaeographic estimates, giving a new chronology in which the Herodian script appears earlier, beside the Hasmonaean. The radiocarbon date of 4Q114 (Daniel) and the model's prediction for 4Q109 (Ecclesiastes) make them the first known biblical fragments from their presumed authors' time, and literary manuscripts were copied before the Hasmonaean expansion. The study offers probability-based options to palaeographers, quantified objectivity and an explainable design, calls itself a first step and leaves black-box models to the future; its authors speak of a time machine. Its limits are a post-100 CE date for 11Q5, first results awaiting validation, and a challenged typology needing more research. It follows Ithaca's dating of Greek inscriptions, and Popović plans further applications and leads a new ERC project. Scholars divide: Rollston finds it unremarkable and its 4Q114 date too high, while Ben-Dov and Adler welcome it and ask how far it can be trusted. The press and the cards give its shift as 50 to 150 years, or up to a century, and video titles say AI re-dated or decoded the scrolls. Wikipedia has no article on it, and the bare name is the biblical figure the model is named after.", "note": "L_F(B), the field composed in the field's ontology (v0.9 §0.4), realized as KO_B; its rail is P_B's, by lineage." }, "L_BA": { "words": 2249, "text": "Enoch is a machine-learning date-prediction model for the Dead Sea Scrolls, trained on radiocarbon-dated samples, together with the study that introduces it, in the Revelation First record's kind, which names it 'Enoch: dating ancient manuscripts with radiocarbon and AI-based writing-style analysis'; the study presents it as 'an AI-based date-prediction model, trained on the basis of 24 14 C-dated scroll samples' (PLOS One, 2025, and its NIH copy). The Jerusalem Post and the European Research Council describe the Groningen researchers' combination of radiocarbon dating with handwriting analysis to date individual scrolls, and Wikipedia, which has no article on the model, gives it in its articles on the Dead Sea Scrolls and on their carbon dating as an AI-based 'date-prediction model called \"Enoch\"', trained on 24 radiocarbon-dated samples, for the dating of some 135 undated manuscripts. The study is by Popović, Dhali, Schomaker, van der Plicht, Lund Rasmussen, La Nasa and colleagues, published in PLOS One on 4 June 2025 and funded by the European Research Council under grant 640497 (HandsandBible), the project the ERC names The Hands that Wrote the Bible, its lead author at the Qumran Institute of the University of Groningen (PLOS One; NIH copy; ERC); the record gives the operator as Popović and colleagues at Groningen and partners, ERC-funded, and the entity's address as the article's DOI. The article is open access under the Creative Commons Attribution License, with its data, code and test film on Zenodo (PLOS One); the record gives data access as an open-access article and the licence as 'the article's copyright line names Popović et al. (licence text not read)', leaves the model's code and data and the scimex release unchecked, and dates the study as historical, published 2025-06-04, read 2026-10-30. The problem it answers is stated in the study's first sentence, that dating the scrolls by palaeography is essential 'but there is an almost complete lack of date-bearing manuscripts', the record carrying that sentence as a stated limit; palaeography dates manuscripts by their handwriting, and its subjectivity and unmeasurable features 'poses a problem' (PLOS One, whose references for the method include studies of early Christian codices and early New Testament manuscripts), it 'lacks a solid empirical foundation due to the absence of securely dated reference materials' (ERC), and radiocarbon dating 'is a destructive method' (Popović, in the Jerusalem Post). The archive's Revelation First thesis holds of the same kind of evidence, on the New Testament, that 'Papyrological dates are ranges, not certainties', and that where composition dates are inferential and manuscript dates contestable ranges, 'material attestation must be allowed to unsettle inherited priority' (#202, claim 3); its mint names this papyrological sovereignty: 'The authority of the material manuscript record over inferential chronology' (#860, RF-M01). The papyrological inversion that thesis rests on, the earliest physical New Testament witness Johannine (𝔓52, commonly dated c. 125 CE) and the earliest copy of the Apocalypse (𝔓98) older than the earliest copy of Romans (𝔓46) (#202), takes its first receipt from a handwriting date: 'Gospel of John (𝔓52): c. 125 CE (Hadrianic handwriting baseline)' (#832). The model's anchors are radiocarbon: the team dated 30 manuscripts from four sites spanning about five centuries, 27 dates were valid, and 24 form its primary training set (PLOS One), 'two dozen scrolls, from four different sites in the Judean Desert' in BAS's account; one of the radiocarbon results, 4Q114, a fragment of Daniel 8–11, falls at 230–160 BCE, overlapping the period in which the end of Daniel was presumably written (PLOS One). It applies Bayesian ridge regression to angular and allographic writing-style features of the ink traces, depending on no pre-trained model and trained on no palaeographic estimates, and in the study 'style' 'is not related to textual content or wording' (PLOS One); its features 'have a solid basis in writer identification', and BAS writes that 'In effect, the model performs its own comparative paleographic analysis', while the record's method and unit restate the study: regression on writing-style feature vectors, trained on 24 radiocarbon-dated samples and applied to 135 undated scrolls, each date predicted 'from the angular and allographic features of its handwriting'. The archive reads that basis at its own grain: writer identification establishes that 'Handwriting is individuating at a statistically demonstrable level' given sufficient sample and cannot 'Attribute a single short inscription with forensic confidence', its accuracy degrading 'sharply on short samples' (#1443, §5.1), and the archive's specification of the machine-eligible handwritten artifact takes the computational validation of handwriting, its 'discriminating elements are measurable and individuating', into its own genealogy (#1409, §I.2). Against the radiocarbon dates the model's mean absolute error is 27.9 to 30.7 years (PLOS One; the record's first finding); applied to 135 undated scrolls, its predictions were 'aligning with 79% in palaeographic post-hoc evaluation', 107 realistic and 28 not, with a 7% margin (PLOS One; NIH copy), an evaluation made by 'Expert palaeographers among the article’s authors' (PLOS One); the record carries the 79% alignment as a stated limit, beside its count, 24 samples and 135 scrolls as of 4 June 2025, and its coverage, the Judaean Desert in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. The study answers the objection that the predictions echo their radiocarbon training with leave-one-out validation and holds that '14 C date ranges are evidently superior to style-based predictions' (PLOS One), where the ERC says the model predicts within about 30 years, 'more accurate than standalone radiocarbon dating in this period'; the Jerusalem Post gives the 135 scrolls as spanning about 200 BCE to 100 CE. The finding, in the study's words, is that the radiocarbon ranges and the model's predictions 'are often older than traditionally assumed palaeographic estimates, leading to a new chronology of the scrolls', the Herodian script emerging earlier than thought, beside the Hasmonaean (PLOS One; the record's second finding; Wikipedia: 'earlier dates and coexistence of the Herodian and Hasmonean scripts'). Two different results carry the headline: the radiocarbon date of 4Q114 and the model's third-century BCE prediction for 4Q109, a copy of Ecclesiastes, which together, the study says, 'establish these to be the first known fragments of a biblical book from the time of their presumed authors' (PLOS One); the Jerusalem Post and the ERC report the pair, Wikipedia gives 4Q114 as 'as much as 60 years earlier than previously thought', and Christopher Rollston, in BAS, calls the 4Q114 range 'Enoch’s calibrated date range' and judges it too high, since Daniel 7–12 cannot be dated before 167 BCE. What the model dates is the copy: the record's negative tag is 'NOT a composition date: it dates the copies', and among what the evidence does not answer is 'when any work copied on a scroll was composed' (Revelation First record); the study's own claims are stated of copies, fragments from the time of their 'presumed authors' and literary manuscripts copied before the Hasmonaean expansion (PLOS One; Jerusalem Post), and BAS reports texts associated with the Qumran community dated before the site's first settlement. The archive states the distinction as a rule of its own dating argument: 'Manuscript attestation does not equal composition date' (#832, with its later versions and the Josephus-thesis papers), its papyrological section 'does not argue that papyrological dating of copies establishes composition dates' (#832), and its mint autograph inference holds that 'All NT dating is autograph inference — the autograph is lost; what survives is copies of copies' (#860, RF-M19). The record keeps the study's object apart from the New Testament, 'NOT a New Testament study: Hebrew and Aramaic scrolls', with 'the dates of Greek New Testament papyri (not in its corpus)' among what it does not answer, and gives what it answers as 'how far palaeographic dates of the scrolls move against radiocarbon anchors' and that a style-based model can date undated manuscripts 'within about thirty years on this corpus' (Revelation First record). The record files it under three of the census's four intersections, AI and ancient texts, papyrology and discovery, and New Testament scholarship, with machine, radiocarbon and palaeographic dating as its kinds of evidence, the Dead Sea Scrolls as its text object and the scrolls' digital library as the corpus it uses, in a census whose question is 'What evidence does each resource hold on when and from what the New Testament writings were composed, and how do machines now read those texts?' and whose correction is 'Revelation First ≠ Revelation Early' (Revelation First record). On the record's reading the bearing is on dating: 'New Testament papyri are dated by palaeography alone, and this study moves palaeographic dates earlier against radiocarbon anchors'; it 'does not date New Testament papyri' and is 'the method the papyrological-inversion and dating workstreams would watch' (Revelation First record, rf_intersection), and the thesis those workstreams serve states its first falsifier as a matter of secure dating, 'a document in the NT can be securely dated earlier than any plausible date for Revelation' (#202). The census's worked questions give the ground: 'A papyrus dates its copy, and the composition must come before it', and most early New Testament papyri are dated by handwriting alone, where Enoch stands as 'a method that moves palaeographic dates earlier against radiocarbon anchors, on the Dead Sea Scrolls'; machine dating 'is calibrated on a corpus', Enoch's style-based dates are 'often older than palaeographic estimates', and none of the four machine-reading resources 'dates a New Testament papyrus or a composition' (Revelation First, questions papyri-revelation-date and machine-dating). The study offers its dates as 'probability-based options' to aid palaeographers and historians, claims to be 'the first complete machine-learning-based model' of its kind with an 'explainable design', calls itself 'a first step' whose advantage is 'quantified objectivity to palaeography' (also in the Jerusalem Post), and leaves 'black box' pre-trained models as a future option that depends on palaeographers' acceptance (PLOS One); its authors say it opens the ancient world 'like a time machine' (Jerusalem Post, after Ars Technica), and the ERC calls it 'a robust and objective framework for dating over a thousand manuscripts'. The archive's survey of machine reading reads the same design at Ithaca: the hazard of a machine's early reading 'is a property of single-verdict interfaces, not of machine reading as such', ranked alternatives are its mitigation, and Ithaca's gain comes from interface design, ranked hypotheses that the historian evaluates 'rather than accepting an answer' (#1443, §2.3); such systems 'work on authors who cannot be consulted' (#1443). The study sets itself beside Ithaca, which combined AI and epigraphy to date Greek inscriptions (PLOS One), and Haaretz's card opens 'From Ithaca to Judea Enoch is not the first artificial intelligence used to study ancient texts'; after it, Popović plans to apply the model to more scrolls and to Aramaic texts such as the Elephantine Papyri (Jerusalem Post), and Wikipedia records a five-year project he leads with the Israel Antiquities Authority, announced in June 2026, a distinct project. The study's limits stand with its findings: for 11Q5 it gives a date after 100 CE, against the reconstruction that the scrolls were hidden before summer 68 CE; its results are 'the first published results on date estimation for this collection', with validation to come, though it dates both halves of the Great Isaiah Scroll to one period; and its Herodian-type dates challenge the default typology, where 'More research is needed to solve this issue' (PLOS One). Reception divides, 'not all scholars are convinced' (BAS): Rollston finds the results 'not earth-shattering' and mostly what Frank Moore Cross had stated sixty years earlier, Ben-Dov finds points 'we would have otherwise missed' and asks whether the study is 'reliable enough to substantiate a re-shuffle of the entire chronological paradigm of Qumran', and Adler calls it 'a way to move forward' (BAS). The press gives the shift a size the study does not, which says 'often older': the Jerusalem Post, 'by 50 to 150 years earlier than previously believed', Popović, 'dates that are 50 years older or maybe even a century older', and a Reddit card, 'up to 100 years older'; video cards title it 'How AI Redated the Dead Sea Scrolls' and 'AI Just Decoded the Dead Sea Scrolls — What It Found Changes Everything', and a National Geographic UK post's title is cut at 'By combining time honoured excavation techniques'. At the name 'Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls' on Google's AI Overview, signed out, on 2026-10-31, a new address whose record was built the day before and which no card cites, the composition holds the study's figures, the 24 samples, the method, the roughly thirty-year error and 79% of 135, and keeps copies apart from their authors, 'the distinction the field turns on' (Capture Registry, 2026-10-31). The registry records its departures, 'a significant portion … 50 to 150 years older' for the study's 'often older', the radiocarbon date of 4Q114 credited to the model, figures for 4Q109 not in the saved sources, the study's own limit unsaid while doubt goes to Reddit and Popović's caution to Haaretz, and the study's frame surviving only as what 'Supporters view'; its reader noted the first two departures without charging them and found the funder and the commitments absent, and its analysis is that the study is 'composed nearly at its own grain', its 'figures grow where the press rounded them, and its doubts are sourced to a forum' (Capture Registry, 2026-10-31). The name is shared: the study says the model is 'named after the ancient Jewish science hero', and Wikipedia's disambiguation page gives the bare name as a biblical figure, the subject of the Book of Enoch, and lists no model (Wikipedia, Enoch (disambiguation)).", "rail": [], "note": "L(B ∪ A) in the equal-terms case (v0.9 §0.4), realized as the knowledge object (objects.KO); its rail is the compression's, by lineage." } }, "field": [ { "id": "B1", "card": "PLOS — Dating ancient manuscripts using radiocarbon and AI-based writing style analysis | PLOS One", "fetched": "card; B1.html sha256 1bf06ab57a70bb15, HTTP 200 at 2026-10-31T04:39:27Z; byte-identical to the census copy enoch-dss-dating--plos", "origin": "card" }, { "id": "B2", "card": "Biblical Archaeology Society — Can AI Date the Dead Sea Scrolls?", "fetched": "card; B2.html sha256 a22ef9db2c0bc583, HTTP 200 at 2026-10-31T04:39:28Z", "origin": "card" }, { "id": "B3", "card": "Reddit·r/AncientCivilizations — New AI Study Suggests Dead Sea Scrolls Are Older Than We Thought! - Reddit", "fetched": "card; unreachable: a script bot-check page (HTTP 200, page text 'Reddit') with the honest agent; the snippet stands", "origin": "card" }, { "id": "B4", "card": "The Jerusalem Post — AI model 'Enoch' reveals Dead Sea Scrolls are older than believed | The Jerusalem Post", "fetched": "card; B4.html sha256 cd3042142867715b, HTTP 200 at 2026-10-31T04:39:29Z", "origin": "card" }, { "id": "B5", "card": "Haaretz — Dead Sea Scrolls May Be Older Than We Thought, AI-Based Study Says", "fetched": "card; URL not found (three WebSearch queries; the site's search renders by script); the snippet stands", "origin": "card" }, { "id": "B6", "card": "National Institutes of Health (NIH) | (.gov) — Dating ancient manuscripts using radiocarbon and AI", "fetched": "card; B6.html sha256 2729f79cd0bfc60d, HTTP 200 at 2026-10-31T04:39:29Z", "origin": "card" }, { "id": "B7", "card": "Facebook·National Geographic UK — the Dead Sea Scrolls. By combining time honoured excavation techniques ...", "fetched": "card (video); URL not found; title only", "origin": "card" }, { "id": "B8", "card": "YouTube·Religion For Everybody — How AI Redated the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Enoch Machine Revealed", "fetched": "card (video); URL not found; title only", "origin": "card" }, { "id": "B9", "card": "YouTube·Past Unsealed — AI Just Decoded the Dead Sea Scrolls — What It Found Changes Everything", "fetched": "card (video); URL not found; title only", "origin": "card" }, { "id": "B10", "card": "European Research Council — Unlocking the timecode of the Dead Sea Scrolls (news, 5 June 2025)", "fetched": "census third party; copied from the census (enoch-dss-dating--erc), sha256 7a61ba2a49c69e2d, HTTP 200, read 2026-10-31", "origin": "census_third_party" }, { "id": "B11", "card": "Scimex — Are the Dead Sea Scrolls older than we thought? Enoch the AI thinks so (press release)", "fetched": "census third party; unread: HTTP 403 to the census (a bot-check page), sha256 b676f219e426d4d6; no claim", "origin": "census_third_party" }, { "id": "B12", "card": "Wikipedia — Dead Sea Scrolls (no article on Enoch; §Radiocarbon dating, §Proposed older dates (2025))", "fetched": "wikipedia; no article on the model (Enoch_(AI) HTTP 404); Dead Sea Scrolls rendered sha256 097045e2253babd1, HTTP 200 at 2026-10-31T04:40:19Z; wikitext saved; the bare name's article and disambiguation saved", "origin": "wikipedia" }, { "id": "B13", "card": "Wikipedia — Carbon dating the Dead Sea Scrolls (¶ on the 2025 study)", "fetched": "wikipedia; Carbon dating the Dead Sea Scrolls rendered sha256 ab9fa4ff6c7286bd, HTTP 200 at 2026-10-31T04:40:44Z; wikitext saved", "origin": "wikipedia" } ], "field_claims": { "F1": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "Abstract s1", "quote": "Determining by means of palaeography the chronology of ancient handwritten manuscripts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls is essential for reconstructing the evolution of ideas, but there is an almost complete lack of date-bearing manuscripts.", "claim": "the study's problem: palaeographic dating of the scrolls is essential to the history of ideas, and there are almost no date-bearing manuscripts", "modality": "self-description", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "the dating problem: palaeography without date-bearing manuscripts", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F2": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "Abstract s2", "quote": "To overcome this problem, we present Enoch, an AI-based date-prediction model, trained on the basis of 24 14 C-dated scroll samples.", "claim": "the study's definition of its object: Enoch, an AI-based date-prediction model trained on 24 radiocarbon-dated scroll samples", "modality": "stipulation", "kind": "definition", "kernel": true, "const": true, "lineage": "what it is: an AI-based date-prediction model for the scrolls and the study that introduces it", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F3": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "Abstract s3", "quote": "By applying Bayesian ridge regression on angular and allographic writing style feature vectors, Enoch could predict 14 C-based dates with varied mean absolute errors (MAEs) of 27.9 to 30.7 years.", "claim": "by Bayesian ridge regression on angular and allographic writing-style features, Enoch predicts the radiocarbon-based dates with mean absolute errors of 27.9 to 30.7 years", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": true, "lineage": "accuracy and validation: errors of 27.9 to 30.7 years; 79% realistic on 135 undated scrolls", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F4": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "Abstract s4", "quote": "In order to explore the viability of the character-shape based dating approach, the trained Enoch model then computed date predictions for 135 non-dated scrolls, aligning with 79% in palaeographic post-hoc evaluation.", "claim": "to explore the approach's viability, the trained model dated 135 undated scrolls, 79% of its predictions aligning in a palaeographic post-hoc evaluation", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "accuracy and validation: errors of 27.9 to 30.7 years; 79% realistic on 135 undated scrolls", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F5": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "Abstract s5", "quote": "The 14 C ranges and Enoch’s style-based predictions are often older than traditionally assumed palaeographic estimates, leading to a new chronology of the scrolls and the re-dating of ancient Jewish key texts that contribute to current debates on Jewish and Christian origins.", "claim": "the radiocarbon ranges and Enoch's predictions are often older than the palaeographic estimates, giving a new chronology and the re-dating of key texts in debates on Jewish and Christian origins", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": true, "lineage": "the finding: dates older than the palaeographic estimates, a new chronology", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F6": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "§1 Introduction ¶1", "quote": "Palaeography—the study of ancient handwriting—is used to date manuscripts on the basis of their handwriting [ 2 – 4 ] but its subjectivity and the impossibility of measuring the significance of handwriting features poses a problem [ 5 , 6 ].", "claim": "palaeography dates manuscripts by their handwriting, and its subjectivity and unmeasurable features are a problem (refs 2–4: Nongbri on early Christian codices; Orsini; Orsini and Clarysse on early New Testament manuscripts)", "modality": "interpretation", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the dating problem: palaeography without date-bearing manuscripts", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F7": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "§1 Introduction ¶2", "quote": "Enoch, named after the ancient Jewish science hero, was trained as a machine-learning-based date-prediction model applying Bayesian ridge regression on established handwriting-style descriptors.", "claim": "the model is named after the ancient Jewish science hero, and trained as a machine-learning date-prediction model on handwriting-style descriptors", "modality": "stipulation", "kind": "definition", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "reception: the encyclopedia and the name", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F8": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "§1 Introduction ¶2", "quote": "Thus, Enoch reduces palaeographic subjectivity and the role of implicit knowledge by offering date predictions as probability-based options, grounded in physical ( 14 C) and geometric (shape-based) evidences, that can aid palaeographers and historians in their decision-making and contribute to historical debates.", "claim": "Enoch reduces palaeographic subjectivity by offering dates as probability-based options grounded in radiocarbon and shape-based evidence, to aid palaeographers and historians", "modality": "self-description", "kind": "function", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "what it offers palaeography: probability-based options, quantified objectivity, explainable design", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F9": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "§2.1 ¶1–2", "quote": "We performed 14 C dating on 30 manuscripts from 4 sites, spanning an estimated 5 centuries … The AMS results yielded 27 valid 14 C dates", "claim": "the team radiocarbon-dated 30 manuscripts from four sites spanning about five centuries; 27 dates were valid", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the radiocarbon anchors: 30 manuscripts dated, 27 valid dates, 24 for training", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F10": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "§2.1 ¶4", "quote": "Sample 4Q114 is one of the most significant findings of the 14 C results. … The accepted 2 calibrated range for 4Q114, 230–160 BCE, overlaps with the period in which the final part of the biblical book of Daniel was presumably authored", "claim": "4Q114 (Daniel 8–11) is a radiocarbon result: its range, 230–160 BCE, overlaps the period in which the end of Daniel was presumably written", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "the key texts: 4Q114 by radiocarbon, 4Q109 by Enoch, copies from the time of their presumed authors", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F11": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "§2.2 ¶3", "quote": "We used 24 manuscripts from the 14 C samples with valid dates as a labeled dataset for the primary training set for Enoch", "claim": "24 of the radiocarbon-dated manuscripts are the model's primary training set", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the radiocarbon anchors: 30 manuscripts dated, 27 valid dates, 24 for training", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F12": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "§2.2 ¶2", "quote": "It was decided to let the available data speak, not depending on a pre-trained model", "claim": "no pre-trained model: only the scrolls' own data trains the predictor", "modality": "stipulation", "kind": "function", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the method: Bayesian ridge regression on writing-style features read from the ink trace, not the text", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F13": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "§2.2.2 ¶1", "quote": "In this study, ‘style’ is not related to textual content or wording.", "claim": "the study's definition of style: shapes along the ink trace, unrelated to the text's content or wording", "modality": "stipulation", "kind": "definition", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the method: Bayesian ridge regression on writing-style features read from the ink trace, not the text", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F14": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "§2.2.2 ¶1", "quote": "The feature vectors relate directly to the shape-based evidence of the ink traces in the manuscripts and have a solid basis in writer identification [ 28 – 30 ] and document dating [ 31 , 32 ].", "claim": "the features come from the ink traces and rest on writer identification and document dating", "modality": "documented", "kind": "genealogy", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the method: Bayesian ridge regression on writing-style features read from the ink trace, not the text", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F15": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "§3 ¶1", "quote": "14 C date ranges are evidently superior to style-based predictions.", "claim": "the study's own limit: radiocarbon ranges are superior to the style-based predictions", "modality": "self-description", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "stated limits: radiocarbon superior, a first step, more research needed", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F16": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "§3 ¶2", "quote": "For Ithaca [ 39 ], AI and epigraphy were similarly used as two heterogeneous information sources to predict dates for ancient Greek inscriptions.", "claim": "the study sets Enoch beside Ithaca, which combined AI and epigraphy to date Greek inscriptions", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "genealogy", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "lineage and sequel: machine dating of ancient texts before and after Enoch", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F17": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "§3 ¶3", "quote": "In addition, 11Q5 shows that in the late date range, a fairly certain style-based date estimate above 100 CE can also be achieved. This may go against historical reconstructions according to which the scrolls were hidden in the Qumran caves before the summer of 68 CE [ 40 ].", "claim": "for 11Q5 the model gives a fairly certain date after 100 CE, against the reconstruction that the scrolls were hidden before summer 68 CE", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "stated limits: radiocarbon superior, a first step, more research needed", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F18": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "§4 ¶2", "quote": "Expert palaeographers among the article’s authors evaluated the style-based date predictions, condensing the prediction into two main categories: realistic and unrealistic", "claim": "the post-hoc evaluation of the 135 predictions was made by palaeographers among the article's own authors", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "accuracy and validation: errors of 27.9 to 30.7 years; 79% realistic on 135 undated scrolls", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F19": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "§4 ¶1, ¶3", "quote": "These are the first published results on date estimation for this collection of manuscripts. Future research, with more data and improved images, may be directed at further validation and refinement. … Now, Enoch shows that there is no temporal difference between the two halves of the manuscript", "claim": "the first published date estimates for the collection, with further validation to come; for the Great Isaiah Scroll the two scribes' halves date to the same period", "modality": "self-description", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "stated limits: radiocarbon superior, a first step, more research needed", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F20": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "§5 ¶1", "quote": "To our knowledge, Enoch is the first complete machine-learning-based model that employs raw image inputs to deliver probabilistic date predictions for handwritten manuscripts utilizing the probability distribution from 14 C output, and that is completed by palaeographic input while ensuring transparency and interpretability through its explainable design.", "claim": "the study's claim of priority: the first complete machine-learning model giving probabilistic dates for handwritten manuscripts from raw images and radiocarbon distributions, with an explainable design", "modality": "self-description", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "what it offers palaeography: probability-based options, quantified objectivity, explainable design", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F21": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "§5 ¶2", "quote": "This study in style-based date prediction using the Enoch approach is a first step. The advantage of the Enoch model is that it provides quantified objectivity to palaeography, reducing the method’s subjectivity and the role of tacit expert knowledge", "claim": "a first step, whose advantage is quantified objectivity for palaeography", "modality": "self-description", "kind": "function", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "what it offers palaeography: probability-based options, quantified objectivity, explainable design", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F22": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "§5 ¶3", "quote": "It could be argued that the style-based predictions are influenced by the 14 C-based training of the model. However, the leave-one-out validation results indicate that unseen samples obtain their interpolated position on the time axis based on the detected handwriting style in the images.", "claim": "the objection that the predictions only echo the radiocarbon training is met by leave-one-out validation", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "accuracy and validation: errors of 27.9 to 30.7 years; 79% realistic on 135 undated scrolls", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F23": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "§5 ¶4", "quote": "we have avoided using palaeographic estimates as target values for machine learning because our goal is to provide physical (material) and geometric (shape-based) evidences for manuscript dating", "claim": "the model is not trained on palaeographic estimates", "modality": "stipulation", "kind": "function", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the method: Bayesian ridge regression on writing-style features read from the ink trace, not the text", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F24": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "§5 ¶6", "quote": "If palaeographers are willing to accept the use of ‘black box’, pre-trained deep-learning models that are based on completely extraneous large image and photograph collections, future research may be directed at adapting the output of such models", "claim": "black-box pre-trained models are named as a future option that depends on palaeographers' acceptance, not as the method used", "modality": "self-description", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "what it offers palaeography: probability-based options, quantified objectivity, explainable design", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F25": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "§6 ¶2–3", "quote": "First, 14 C date ranges and Enoch’s style-based estimates are overall older than previous palaeographic estimates. These older dates for the scrolls are realistic. … Second, ‘Herodian’ script emerged earlier than previously thought.", "claim": "the radiocarbon and style-based dates are overall older and realistic; the Herodian script emerged earlier, beside the Hasmonaean", "modality": "interpretation", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the finding: dates older than the palaeographic estimates, a new chronology", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F26": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "§6 ¶4", "quote": "Yet, the results of this study attest to the copying of multiple literary manuscripts before this period. One example is 4Q109, a copy of the biblical book of Ecclesiastes, a book which scholars tentatively date to the end of the third century BCE [ 15 ], for which Enoch gives a third-century BCE date prediction", "claim": "literary manuscripts were copied before the Hasmonaean expansion; 4Q109, a copy of Ecclesiastes, gets a third-century BCE prediction from Enoch", "modality": "interpretation", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "copying before the Hasmonaean expansion and before Qumran", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F27": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "§6 ¶5", "quote": "Fourth, this study’s 14 C result for 4Q114 and Enoch’s date prediction for 4Q109 now establish these to be the first known fragments of a biblical book from the time of their presumed authors [ 15 ].", "claim": "the radiocarbon result for 4Q114 and Enoch's prediction for 4Q109 make them the first known biblical fragments from the time of their presumed authors", "modality": "interpretation", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "the key texts: 4Q114 by radiocarbon, 4Q109 by Enoch, copies from the time of their presumed authors", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F28": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "§6 ¶6", "quote": "The results of this study thus dismantle unsubstantiated historical suppositions and chronological limitations, and call into question the validity of the default model’s relative typology. … More research is needed to solve this issue.", "claim": "the results call the default relative typology into question; the Herodian-type dates challenge it, and more research is needed", "modality": "interpretation", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "stated limits: radiocarbon superior, a first step, more research needed", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F29": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "front matter, Copyright and Data Availability", "quote": "This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License … All data, code, and test film associated with this article are publicly available on Zenodo", "claim": "the article is open access under the Creative Commons Attribution License; data, code and test film are on Zenodo", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "operator, funding, licence and data", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F30": { "source": "B1", "origin": "card", "locus": "front matter, Citation, dates and Funding", "quote": "Popović M, Dhali MA, Schomaker L, van der Plicht J, Lund Rasmussen K, La Nasa J, et al. (2025) Dating ancient manuscripts using radiocarbon and AI-based writing style analysis. … Published: June 4, 2025 … This project has received funding by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 640497 (HandsandBible).", "claim": "the study: Popović, Dhali, Schomaker, van der Plicht, Lund Rasmussen, La Nasa et al., PLOS One, published 4 June 2025, funded by the ERC (grant 640497, HandsandBible)", "modality": "documented", "kind": "attribution", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "operator, funding, licence and data", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B1.txt (sha256 43ec0e66575ad39a…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F31": { "source": "B6", "origin": "card", "locus": "Abstract s2", "quote": "To overcome this problem, we present Enoch, an AI-based date-prediction model, trained on the basis of 24 14 C-dated scroll samples.", "claim": "the NIH copy of the same article: the same definition (one work, one lineage with B1)", "modality": "stipulation", "kind": "definition", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "what it is: an AI-based date-prediction model for the scrolls and the study that introduces it", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; PMC copy read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B6.txt (sha256 8936fddae7ba36b0…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F32": { "source": "B6", "origin": "card", "locus": "§4 ¶2 (Table 2 summary)", "quote": "107 ( 79 % ) of the undated manuscripts were dated realistically and 28 unrealistic predictions ( 21 % ) were divided between too old ( 46 % ) and too young ( 39 % ), according to the palaeographers ( S7 Appendix ). With this sample size, the confidence margin is 7 % at α = 0.05 .", "claim": "107 of 135 (79%) realistic, 28 (21%) unrealistic, divided between too old and too young; a 7% margin (the figures the PLOS page's text drops)", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "accuracy and validation: errors of 27.9 to 30.7 years; 79% realistic on 135 undated scrolls", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; PMC copy read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B6.txt (sha256 8936fddae7ba36b0…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F33": { "source": "B6", "origin": "card", "locus": "author affiliations", "quote": "1 Qumran Institute, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands", "claim": "the lead author's institute: the Qumran Institute, University of Groningen", "modality": "documented", "kind": "attribution", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "operator, funding, licence and data", "date": "2025-06-04 (published; PMC copy read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B6.txt (sha256 8936fddae7ba36b0…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F34": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "locus": "¶1", "quote": "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.", "claim": "BAS: an international team proposes AI dating of individual scrolls; many scrolls likely older, by the team's account; not all scholars are convinced", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "reception: scholars for and against", "date": "2025-06-20", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 25bf22c849fee090…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F35": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "locus": "¶3", "quote": "Enoch examines the shapes of letters from the scrolls and cross-references the writing style with scrolls of similar style that have been dated with carbon-14 dating. In effect, the model performs its own comparative paleographic analysis.", "claim": "BAS: Enoch compares letter shapes with radiocarbon-dated scrolls of similar style, in effect its own comparative palaeography", "modality": "interpretation", "kind": "definition", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the method: Bayesian ridge regression on writing-style features read from the ink trace, not the text", "date": "2025-06-20", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 25bf22c849fee090…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F36": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "locus": "¶4", "quote": "To train their model, the researchers performed radiocarbon analysis on two dozen scrolls, from four different sites in the Judean Desert .", "claim": "BAS: radiocarbon analysis on two dozen scrolls from four Judean Desert sites trained the model", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the radiocarbon anchors: 30 manuscripts dated, 27 valid dates, 24 for training", "date": "2025-06-20", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 25bf22c849fee090…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F37": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "locus": "¶5", "quote": "Nearly all dates proposed by Enoch were significantly older than previous estimates. Notably, several texts commonly associated with the Qumran community were dated earlier than the site’s first period of settlement, showing that the scrolls must have originated elsewhere.", "claim": "BAS: nearly all of Enoch's dates significantly older; texts associated with the Qumran community dated before the site's first settlement, so the scrolls originated elsewhere", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "copying before the Hasmonaean expansion and before Qumran", "date": "2025-06-20", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 25bf22c849fee090…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F38": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "locus": "¶6 (Christopher Rollston)", "quote": "“The results of this study are very interesting, and presumably important, but not earth-shattering,” … “Most of the conclusions of the study dovetail with what the great paleographers in the field, such as the late Frank Moore Cross , had already stated more than 60 years ago.”", "claim": "Rollston (George Washington University): interesting, not earth-shattering; most conclusions dovetail with what Frank Moore Cross had stated sixty years earlier", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "reception: scholars for and against", "date": "2025-06-20", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 25bf22c849fee090…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F39": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "locus": "¶7 (Jonathan Ben-Dov)", "quote": "“If anything, I think [the researchers’] work drew our attention to points we would have otherwise missed,” … “This is important evidence about the scripture scrolls and their character in the pre-Hasmonean period.”", "claim": "Ben-Dov (Tel Aviv University): the work draws attention to missed points; 4Q52 and 4Q70 are evidence on scripture scrolls before the Hasmonaeans", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "reception: scholars for and against", "date": "2025-06-20", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 25bf22c849fee090…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F40": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "locus": "¶8 (Yonatan Adler)", "quote": "“This is a way to move forward,” said Adler. … Here, there is an attempt to actually procure new data.”", "claim": "Adler (Ariel University): a way forward, an attempt to procure new data", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "reception: scholars for and against", "date": "2025-06-20", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 25bf22c849fee090…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F41": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "locus": "¶9 (Christopher Rollston)", "quote": "“Enoch’s calibrated date range for 4Q114 is: 230–160 BCE. … Thus, in this particular case, which is the one case where we can really fact-check Enoch, it is crystal clear that Enoch’s dates are much too high.”", "claim": "Rollston: the 4Q114 range (230–160 BCE), which he calls Enoch's, is too high, since Daniel 7–12 cannot be dated before 167 BCE", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "reception: scholars for and against", "date": "2025-06-20", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 25bf22c849fee090…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F42": { "source": "B2", "origin": "card", "locus": "¶11 (Jonathan Ben-Dov)", "quote": "“Overall, the scholarly community faces a serious question: Is this study reliable enough to substantiate a re-shuffle of the entire chronological paradigm of Qumran?”", "claim": "Ben-Dov: whether the study is reliable enough to re-shuffle the chronology of Qumran is the open question", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "reception: scholars for and against", "date": "2025-06-20", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B2.txt (sha256 25bf22c849fee090…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F43": { "source": "B3", "origin": "card", "locus": "card snippet (Reddit unreachable: a script bot-check page)", "quote": "AI Dating of Scrolls: A new AI study suggests some Dead Sea Scrolls, including parts of the Book of Daniel, may be up to 100 years older than previously thought", "claim": "the Reddit card (15 June 2025): some scrolls, parts of Daniel among them, may be up to 100 years older", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "the magnitude in the press: 50 to 150 years, a century, up to 100 years", "date": "2025-06-15 (on the card)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "card title and snippet (unreachable card)" }, "F44": { "source": "B4", "origin": "card", "locus": "standfirst", "quote": "Researchers establish two biblical scroll fragments come from the time of their presumed authors.", "claim": "JPost: two biblical fragments from the time of their presumed authors", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the key texts: 4Q114 by radiocarbon, 4Q109 by Enoch, copies from the time of their presumed authors", "date": "2025-06-05", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B4.txt (sha256 7a9800e2d6706bab…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F45": { "source": "B4", "origin": "card", "locus": "¶1", "quote": "An artificial intelligence program named Enoch has advanced the dating of many of the Dead Sea Scrolls by 50 to 150 years earlier than previously believed, according to a new study published in the journal PLOS One.", "claim": "JPost: Enoch moved the dates of many scrolls 50 to 150 years earlier, according to the study", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "the magnitude in the press: 50 to 150 years, a century, up to 100 years", "date": "2025-06-05", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B4.txt (sha256 7a9800e2d6706bab…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F46": { "source": "B4", "origin": "card", "locus": "¶2", "quote": "Researchers from the University of Groningen developed Enoch to analyze the handwriting styles of ancient manuscripts, combining radiocarbon dating and paleography to provide more accurate date estimates for individual Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts.", "claim": "JPost: Groningen researchers developed Enoch, combining radiocarbon dating and palaeography to date individual scrolls", "modality": "documented", "kind": "definition", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "what it is: an AI-based date-prediction model for the scrolls and the study that introduces it", "date": "2025-06-05", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B4.txt (sha256 7a9800e2d6706bab…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F47": { "source": "B4", "origin": "card", "locus": "¶3 (the authors, via Ars Technica)", "quote": "\"With the Enoch tool we have opened a new door into the ancient world, like a time machine, that allows us to study the hands that wrote the Bible, especially now that we have established, for the first time, that two biblical scroll fragments come from the time of their presumed authors,\" the authors stated, according to Ars Technica.", "claim": "the authors: Enoch opens the ancient world 'like a time machine', and two biblical fragments are from their presumed authors' time", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "what it offers palaeography: probability-based options, quantified objectivity, explainable design", "date": "2025-06-05", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B4.txt (sha256 7a9800e2d6706bab…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F48": { "source": "B4", "origin": "card", "locus": "¶7 (Popović)", "quote": "\"In some cases we see dates that are 50 years older or maybe even a century older than previously assumed,\" Popović adds.", "claim": "Popović: in some cases 50 years, or even a century, older", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the magnitude in the press: 50 to 150 years, a century, up to 100 years", "date": "2025-06-05", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B4.txt (sha256 7a9800e2d6706bab…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F49": { "source": "B4", "origin": "card", "locus": "¶6", "quote": "The AI program analyzed the handwriting style of 135 scrolls with unknown dates spanning three centuries from around 200 BCE to 100 CE.", "claim": "JPost: 135 undated scrolls analysed, spanning about 200 BCE to 100 CE", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "accuracy and validation: errors of 27.9 to 30.7 years; 79% realistic on 135 undated scrolls", "date": "2025-06-05", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B4.txt (sha256 7a9800e2d6706bab…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F50": { "source": "B4", "origin": "card", "locus": "¶5 (Popović)", "quote": "\"Radiocarbon dating is a destructive method,\" said Professor Mladen Popović, an archaeologist at the University of Groningen and study lead author.", "claim": "Popović, the lead author: radiocarbon dating destroys material, which the model is built to overcome", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the dating problem: palaeography without date-bearing manuscripts", "date": "2025-06-05", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B4.txt (sha256 7a9800e2d6706bab…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F51": { "source": "B4", "origin": "card", "locus": "¶12 (Popović)", "quote": "Popović plans to apply the Enoch model to more Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as other ancient Aramaic texts like the Elephantine Papyri.", "claim": "Popović plans to apply the model to more scrolls and to Aramaic texts such as the Elephantine Papyri", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "prediction", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "lineage and sequel: machine dating of ancient texts before and after Enoch", "date": "2025-06-05", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B4.txt (sha256 7a9800e2d6706bab…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F52": { "source": "B4", "origin": "card", "locus": "¶15–16", "quote": "\"The advantage of the [AI] model is that it provides quantified objectivity to paleography, reducing the method's subjectivity,\" the authors write. The study suggests that scribes were copying multiple literary manuscripts before this period, which could have major implications for our historical narratives.", "claim": "JPost quotes the authors' 'quantified objectivity' and reports copying before the period", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "copying before the Hasmonaean expansion and before Qumran", "date": "2025-06-05", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B4.txt (sha256 7a9800e2d6706bab…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F53": { "source": "B5", "origin": "card", "locus": "card snippet (Haaretz: URL not found)", "quote": "From Ithaca to Judea Enoch is not the first artificial intelligence used to study ancient texts in general or the Dead Sea Scrolls specifically.", "claim": "Haaretz's card: Enoch is not the first AI used on ancient texts or on the scrolls", "modality": "documented", "kind": "genealogy", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "lineage and sequel: machine dating of ancient texts before and after Enoch", "date": "undated on the card", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "card title and snippet (unreachable card)" }, "F54": { "source": "B7", "origin": "card", "locus": "card title (Facebook, National Geographic UK, video 1m; URL not found)", "quote": "the Dead Sea Scrolls. By combining time honoured excavation techniques", "claim": "National Geographic UK's video post, by its title: excavation techniques combined (with what, the title is cut)", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "reception: scholars for and against", "date": "undated on the card", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "card title (no URL found; title only)" }, "F55": { "source": "B8", "origin": "card", "locus": "card title (YouTube, Religion For Everybody, 14:09; URL not found)", "quote": "How AI Redated the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Enoch Machine Revealed", "claim": "a video, by its title: AI re-dated the scrolls", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "reception: scholars for and against", "date": "undated on the card", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "card title (no URL found; title only)" }, "F56": { "source": "B9", "origin": "card", "locus": "card title (YouTube, Past Unsealed, 4m; URL not found)", "quote": "AI Just Decoded the Dead Sea Scrolls — What It Found Changes Everything", "claim": "a video, by its title: AI decoded the scrolls and changes everything", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "reception: scholars for and against", "date": "undated on the card", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "card title (no URL found; title only)" }, "F57": { "source": "B10", "origin": "census_third_party", "locus": "¶1", "quote": "An international research team led by the University of Groningen has developed a new method to date individual Dead Sea scrolls more precisely by combining radiocarbon analysis with artificial intelligence-based handwriting analysis.", "claim": "the ERC: a Groningen-led team's method dates individual scrolls more precisely, combining radiocarbon with AI handwriting analysis", "modality": "documented", "kind": "definition", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "what it is: an AI-based date-prediction model for the scrolls and the study that introduces it", "date": "2025-06-05", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B10.txt (sha256 74cbc3604778b53d…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F58": { "source": "B10", "origin": "census_third_party", "locus": "¶2", "quote": "By analysing ink-trace patterns and character shapes using a neural network (BiNet), Enoch can predict manuscript dates with an uncertainty of around 30 years -more accurate than standalone radiocarbon dating in this period.", "claim": "the ERC: Enoch predicts dates within about 30 years, more accurate than standalone radiocarbon dating in this period", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "accuracy and validation: errors of 27.9 to 30.7 years; 79% realistic on 135 undated scrolls", "date": "2025-06-05", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B10.txt (sha256 74cbc3604778b53d…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F59": { "source": "B10", "origin": "census_third_party", "locus": "¶3", "quote": "Until now, dating has largely relied on palaeography, the study of ancient handwriting, which lacks a solid empirical foundation due to the absence of securely dated reference materials.", "claim": "the ERC: palaeography lacks an empirical foundation for want of securely dated reference materials", "modality": "interpretation", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the dating problem: palaeography without date-bearing manuscripts", "date": "2025-06-05", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B10.txt (sha256 74cbc3604778b53d…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F60": { "source": "B10", "origin": "census_third_party", "locus": "¶4", "quote": "This provides, for the first time, a robust and objective framework for dating over a thousand manuscripts from the Dead Sea Scrolls collection.", "claim": "the ERC: for the first time a robust, objective framework for dating over a thousand manuscripts", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "interpretation", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "what it offers palaeography: probability-based options, quantified objectivity, explainable design", "date": "2025-06-05", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B10.txt (sha256 74cbc3604778b53d…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F61": { "source": "B10", "origin": "census_third_party", "locus": "¶5", "quote": "The study also provides the first material evidence that two biblical scrolls, 4QDanielc and 4QQoheleta , originate from the same periods as their presumed authors in the second and third centuries BCE.", "claim": "the ERC: 4QDaniel-c and 4QQohelet-a from the same periods as their presumed authors", "modality": "attributed", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the key texts: 4Q114 by radiocarbon, 4Q109 by Enoch, copies from the time of their presumed authors", "date": "2025-06-05", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B10.txt (sha256 74cbc3604778b53d…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F62": { "source": "B10", "origin": "census_third_party", "locus": "project box", "quote": "The Hands that Wrote the Bible: Digital Palaeography and Scribal Culture of the Dead Sea Scrolls … ERC-2014-STG 640497", "claim": "the ERC project behind the study: The Hands that Wrote the Bible, starting grant 640497", "modality": "documented", "kind": "attribution", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "operator, funding, licence and data", "date": "2025-06-05", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B10.txt (sha256 74cbc3604778b53d…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F63": { "source": "B12", "origin": "wikipedia", "locus": "Dead Sea Scrolls, §Dating, Radiocarbon dating ¶2", "quote": "The study also made use of an AI -based date-prediction model called \"Enoch\", which was trained by applying Bayesian ridge regression on the handwriting-style descriptors of 24 of the 14C-dated samples, for the paleographic dating of some 135 previously undated manuscripts.", "claim": "Wikipedia: the 2025 study's AI date-prediction model 'Enoch', trained on 24 radiocarbon-dated samples, dated some 135 undated manuscripts", "modality": "documented", "kind": "definition", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "what it is: an AI-based date-prediction model for the scrolls and the study that introduces it", "date": "2026-10-23 (article last edited; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B12.txt (sha256 ce7c6fc473956040…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F64": { "source": "B12", "origin": "wikipedia", "locus": "Dead Sea Scrolls, §Dating, Radiocarbon dating ¶2", "quote": "The study found earlier dates and coexistence of the Herodian and Hasmonean scripts, into the 2nd and 3rd century BCE, and possible pre-Hasmonean evidence of scribal literacy.", "claim": "Wikipedia: earlier dates, Herodian and Hasmonaean scripts side by side, possible pre-Hasmonaean scribal literacy", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the finding: dates older than the palaeographic estimates, a new chronology", "date": "2026-10-23 (article last edited; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B12.txt (sha256 ce7c6fc473956040…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F65": { "source": "B12", "origin": "wikipedia", "locus": "Dead Sea Scrolls, §Proposed older dates (2025) ¶1–2", "quote": "This study proposes older dates for some of the scrolls. … The lead author is Mladen Popović from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. … For example, the fragmentary scroll 4Q114 of the Book of Daniel is now dated to between 230 and 160 B.C.E., as much as 60 years earlier than previously thought.", "claim": "Wikipedia: older dates for some scrolls; lead author Popović; 4Q114 now 230–160 BCE, up to 60 years earlier", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "the key texts: 4Q114 by radiocarbon, 4Q109 by Enoch, copies from the time of their presumed authors", "date": "2026-10-23 (article last edited; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B12.txt (sha256 ce7c6fc473956040…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F66": { "source": "B12", "origin": "wikipedia", "locus": "Dead Sea Scrolls, §Tracing Scribes and Scrolls", "quote": "A five-year research project announced in June 2026 and led by Mladen Popović of the University of Groningen will work in conjunction with the Israel Antiquities Authority to look deeper into the history, transmission and cultural environment of the scrolls.", "claim": "Wikipedia: a five-year ERC project led by Popović with the Israel Antiquities Authority, announced June 2026 (Tracing Scribes and Scrolls), a successor and a distinct entity", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "lineage and sequel: machine dating of ancient texts before and after Enoch", "date": "2026-10-23 (article last edited; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B12.txt (sha256 ce7c6fc473956040…), whitespace-normalised" }, "F67": { "source": "B12", "origin": "wikipedia", "locus": "Enoch (disambiguation), wikitext line 2", "quote": "'''[[Enoch]]''' is a biblical figure and the subject of the [[Book of Enoch]].", "claim": "Wikipedia: the bare name is the biblical figure's, and the disambiguation page lists no model of the name", "modality": "documented", "kind": "fact", "kernel": false, "const": false, "lineage": "reception: the encyclopedia and the name", "date": "2026-10-31 (read)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved wikitext B12-enoch-disambiguation.wiki, whitespace-normalised" }, "F68": { "source": "B13", "origin": "wikipedia", "locus": "Carbon dating the Dead Sea Scrolls, ¶ on 2025", "quote": "The study also made use of an AI -based date-prediction model called \"Enoch\", which was trained by applying Bayesian ridge regression on the handwriting-style descriptors of 24 of the 14C-dated samples, for the paleographic dating of some 135 previously undated manuscripts.", "claim": "Wikipedia's article on carbon dating the scrolls carries the same paragraph (one lineage with B12)", "modality": "documented", "kind": "definition", "kernel": true, "const": false, "lineage": "what it is: an AI-based date-prediction model for the scrolls and the study that introduces it", "date": "2026-08-08 (article last edited; read 2026-10-31)", "quote_ok": true, "checked_against": "saved text B13.txt (sha256 7ab376ea7dc88b3d…), whitespace-normalised" } }, "field_sources": { "B1": "PLOS — Dating ancient manuscripts using radiocarbon and AI-based writing style analysis | PLOS One", "B2": "Biblical Archaeology Society — Can AI Date the Dead Sea Scrolls?", "B3": "Reddit·r/AncientCivilizations — New AI Study Suggests Dead Sea Scrolls Are Older Than We Thought! - Reddit", "B4": "The Jerusalem Post — AI model 'Enoch' reveals Dead Sea Scrolls are older than believed | The Jerusalem Post", "B5": "Haaretz — Dead Sea Scrolls May Be Older Than We Thought, AI-Based Study Says", "B6": "National Institutes of Health (NIH) | (.gov) — Dating ancient manuscripts using radiocarbon and AI", "B7": "Facebook·National Geographic UK — the Dead Sea Scrolls. By combining time honoured excavation techniques ...", "B8": "YouTube·Religion For Everybody — How AI Redated the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Enoch Machine Revealed", "B9": "YouTube·Past Unsealed — AI Just Decoded the Dead Sea Scrolls — What It Found Changes Everything", "B10": "European Research Council — Unlocking the timecode of the Dead Sea Scrolls (news, 5 June 2025)", "B11": "Scimex — Are the Dead Sea Scrolls older than we thought? Enoch the AI thinks so (press release)", "B12": "Wikipedia — Dead Sea Scrolls (no article on Enoch; §Radiocarbon dating, §Proposed older dates (2025))", "B13": "Wikipedia — Carbon dating the Dead Sea Scrolls (¶ on the 2025 study)" }, "delta": { "T_vs_LB": "At 'Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls' (T1, nine cards: B1–B9; B3 a script bot check, B5 and B7–B9 not found; 285 words) the composition gives the study from its own article and its press. Composed from its cards: the developers and purpose at the Jerusalem Post's grain, 'Researchers at the University of Groningen developed' (B4 F46); the training base, '24 radiocarbon-dated scroll samples from four Judean Desert sites', which joins the study's 24 training samples (B1 F11) to BAS's 'two dozen scrolls, from four different sites in the Judean Desert' (B2 F36), where the study's four sites are those of the 30 manuscripts dated (B1 F9); the method at the article's grain, the angular and allographic features 'without reading the text itself' (B1 F3, F13; B2 F35); the error, 'roughly 28 to 31 years', rounding the article's 27.9 to 30.7 (B1 F3); the 79% of 135 (B1 F4, B6 F32); the copies dated before the Hasmonaean expansion and the Qumran settlement (B1 F26, F27; B2 F37; B4 F52), with the copy kept apart from its author in the composition's own words. Composed without attribution, at the press's grain: 'a significant portion of the scrolls are 50 to 150 years older' is the Jerusalem Post's 'many of the Dead Sea Scrolls by 50 to 150 years earlier' (B4 F45), with Popović's 'a century' (B4 F48) and Reddit's 'up to 100 years' (B3 F43) beside it, set under 'Enoch indicates' against the study's 'often older' (B1 F5): the force of a press figure raised to the model's finding. Assigned to another: 4Q114 'backdated substantially' with 4Q109, where the study gives 4Q114 as a radiocarbon result and only 4Q109 as the model's (B1 F10, F27); the conflation is already in the field, in Rollston's 'Enoch’s calibrated date range for 4Q114' (B2 F41), and in the press's 'two biblical scroll fragments' under Enoch's name (B4 F44, F47), so T carries a card's attribution, not one of its own making. The study's own words, 'like a time machine' (the authors, B4 F47) and 'quantified objectivity' (B1 F21, B4 F52), are given to 'Supporters'; the scepticism is given to Reddit (B3, unreachable; its snippet carries no scepticism, F43), while the named scholars' doubts on the BAS card, Rollston's 'not earth-shattering' and 'much too high' and Ben-Dov's 'reliable enough' (B2 F38, F41, F42), are available and not composed; 'black-box AI models' is the study's own term for a future option it does not use (B1 F24), composed as a caution against it. Available, not composed: the study's problem, 'an almost complete lack of date-bearing manuscripts' (B1 F1), and every stated limit, radiocarbon 'evidently superior to style-based predictions' (B1 F15), the evaluation by 'palaeographers among the article’s authors' (B1 F18), the post-100 CE date for 11Q5 (B1 F17), 'a first step' and 'More research is needed' (B1 F21, F28); the funder and the open data (B1 F29, F30); the name's origin (B1 F7); Ithaca as precedent (B1 F16, B5 F53); the Elephantine plan (B4 F51). Outside the cards: the figures 'from 175–150 BCE to roughly 300–250 BCE' for 4Q109 (no field source; B1 gives 'a third-century BCE date prediction', F26); Popović's caution, quoted and credited to Haaretz (B5, URL not found: not checkable; the study's 'More research is needed', F28, is the nearest field claim); 'carbon-dating uncertainties' (no field source). Content replaced by use: the closer, an offer to explore radiocarbon dating or the Daniel fragments.", "T_vs_LB_reading": "v0.9 §0.5: the first diff is ontological and narrow. T and the field agree on the entity (a Groningen machine-learning model trained on radiocarbon-dated samples, its error, its 135 scrolls and its older dates); T composes the study's figures and its press's magnitudes in one register, so that the press's '50 to 150 years' and the radiocarbon date of 4Q114 enter as what 'Enoch indicates', while every limit the study states of itself is left out and doubt is moved from named scholars to a forum.", "LB_vs_LBA": "Admission adds, in one claim space with the field's: the record's account of what the evidence can settle (copies, not compositions; the scrolls, not the New Testament; thirty years on this corpus: RF-16–RF-19, RF-25, RF-26, RF-34, RF-35), its reading of the entity's bearing on the New Testament papyri, dated by handwriting alone (RF-20, RF-31–RF-33), and its schema (RF-05, RF-06, RF-29, RF-30); the Revelation First deposits' claims on the class, papyrological dates as ranges that unsettle inferential chronology (#202, O202-01, O202-02), the thesis's falsifier in terms of secure dating (O202-03), manuscript attestation not a composition date (#832, O832-01, O832-02), 𝔓52 dated by a handwriting baseline (O832-03), papyrological sovereignty and autograph inference (#860, O860-01, O860-02); the archive's readings of machine reading of ancient texts at Ithaca, the single-verdict hazard and ranked alternatives (#1443, O1443-01–03), and of writer identification, measurable at scale and weak on short samples (#1443, O1443-04; #1409, O1409-01); and the composition layer's account at the name (CAP-1-01–CAP-1-12). Not surfaced (§6.2): every archive source; the census record (no card cites it, CAP-1-08). Where the field and an archive record disagree (F29 against RF-22; F45, F48, F43 against CAP-1-03; F41 against CAP-1-04), both are composed (P_coh).", "alignment": { "T1_cards_claims": [ "F1", "F2", "F3", "F4", "F5", "F6", "F7", "F8", "F9", "F10", "F11", "F12", "F13", "F14", "F15", "F16", "F17", "F18", "F19", "F20", "F21", "F22", "F23", "F24", "F25", "F26", "F27", "F28", "F29", "F30", "F31", "F32", "F33", "F34", "F35", "F36", "F37", "F38", "F39", "F40", "F41", "F42", "F43", "F44", "F45", "F46", "F47", "F48", "F49", "F50", "F51", "F52", "F53", "F54", "F55", "F56" ], "T1_composed": [ "F46", "F2", "F11", "F36", "F9", "F3", "F13", "F35", "F4", "F32", "F45", "F48", "F43", "F27", "F26", "F44", "F41", "F37", "F52", "F47", "F21", "F34", "F28" ], "T1_composed_from_census_third_party": [], "T1_outside_cards": [ "'from 175–150 BCE to roughly 300–250 BCE' for 4Q109 (no field source; B1 F26 'a third-century BCE date prediction')", "Popović's caution 'More research is needed to understand how Enoch's work will affect our understanding of the chronology of the Dead Sea Scrolls', credited to Haaretz (B5, URL not found; nearest B1 F28)", "'carbon-dating uncertainties' as a Reddit caution (B3 unreachable; no field source)", "'black-box AI models' as a caution (B3 unreachable; B1 F24 names black-box models as a future option the study does not use)" ], "rule": "a field claim counts as composed when T states it at its source's grain or coarser; the typology of what is not is in T_vs_LB (§6.2)" } }, "kernel": [ { "K": "K1", "claim": "`O202-01`", "source": "#202 (2026-06-14)", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "palaeographic dates as ranges against inferential chronology: the papyrological inversion", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K2", "claim": "`O202-02`", "source": "#202 (2026-06-14)", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "palaeographic dates as ranges against inferential chronology: the papyrological inversion", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K3", "claim": "`O202-03`", "source": "#202 (2026-06-14)", "M_src": "hypothesis", "sense": "palaeographic dates as ranges against inferential chronology: the papyrological inversion", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "O202-03 is the thesis's own falsifier: observation type, a secure date for a New Testament document; threshold, earlier than any plausible date for Revelation; locus, KO sentence 19 and the open question 'Does the method reach New Testament papyri?'. It bears on the thesis, not on Enoch: a watch condition for this row", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K4", "claim": "`O832-01`", "source": "#832 (2026-06-14)", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "what the evidence can settle: copies, not compositions; not the New Testament", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K5", "claim": "`O832-02`", "source": "#832 (2026-06-14)", "M_src": "self-description", "sense": "what the evidence can settle: copies, not compositions; not the New Testament", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K6", "claim": "`O832-03`", "source": "#832 (2026-06-14)", "M_src": "attributed", "sense": "palaeographic dates as ranges against inferential chronology: the papyrological inversion", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K7", "claim": "`O860-01`", "source": "#860 (2026-06-18)", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "what the evidence can settle: copies, not compositions; not the New Testament", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K8", "claim": "`O860-02`", "source": "#860 (2026-06-18)", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "palaeographic dates as ranges against inferential chronology: the papyrological inversion", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K9", "claim": "`O1443-01`", "source": "#1443 (2026-08-09)", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "machine reading of ancient texts: ranked alternatives, authors who cannot be consulted", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K10", "claim": "`O1443-02`", "source": "#1443 (2026-08-09)", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "machine reading of ancient texts: ranked alternatives, authors who cannot be consulted", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K11", "claim": "`O1443-03`", "source": "#1443 (2026-08-09)", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "machine reading of ancient texts: ranked alternatives, authors who cannot be consulted", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K12", "claim": "`O1443-04`", "source": "#1443 (2026-08-09)", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "writer identification: measurable hands, short samples", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K13", "claim": "`O1409-01`", "source": "#1409 (2026-07-21)", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "writer identification: measurable hands, short samples", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K14", "claim": "`RF-01`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "what it is: an AI-based date-prediction model for the scrolls and the study that introduces it", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field's own pages: one lineage with them)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K15", "claim": "`RF-02`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "what it is: an AI-based date-prediction model for the scrolls and the study that introduces it", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field's own pages: one lineage with them)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K16", "claim": "`RF-03`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "operator, funding, licence and data", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field's own pages: one lineage with them)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K17", "claim": "`RF-04`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "operator, funding, licence and data", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field's own pages: one lineage with them)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K18", "claim": "`RF-05`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "what the record's schema asks", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K19", "claim": "`RF-06`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "what the record's schema asks", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K20", "claim": "`RF-07`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "the method: Bayesian ridge regression on writing-style features read from the ink trace, not the text", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field's own pages: one lineage with them)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K21", "claim": "`RF-08`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "what it is: an AI-based date-prediction model for the scrolls and the study that introduces it", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field's own pages: one lineage with them)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K22", "claim": "`RF-09`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the method: Bayesian ridge regression on writing-style features read from the ink trace, not the text", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field's own pages: one lineage with them)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K23", "claim": "`RF-10`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "accuracy and validation: errors of 27.9 to 30.7 years; 79% realistic on 135 undated scrolls", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K24", "claim": "`RF-11`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "accuracy and validation: errors of 27.9 to 30.7 years; 79% realistic on 135 undated scrolls", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field's own pages: one lineage with them)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K25", "claim": "`RF-12`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "accuracy and validation: errors of 27.9 to 30.7 years; 79% realistic on 135 undated scrolls", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field's own pages: one lineage with them)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K26", "claim": "`RF-13`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the finding: dates older than the palaeographic estimates, a new chronology", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field's own pages: one lineage with them)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K27", "claim": "`RF-14`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "self-description", "sense": "the dating problem: palaeography without date-bearing manuscripts", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field's own pages: one lineage with them)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K28", "claim": "`RF-15`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "self-description", "sense": "accuracy and validation: errors of 27.9 to 30.7 years; 79% realistic on 135 undated scrolls", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field's own pages: one lineage with them)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K29", "claim": "`RF-16`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "what the evidence can settle: copies, not compositions; not the New Testament", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K30", "claim": "`RF-17`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "what the evidence can settle: copies, not compositions; not the New Testament", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K31", "claim": "`RF-18`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "what the evidence can settle: copies, not compositions; not the New Testament", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K32", "claim": "`RF-19`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "what the evidence can settle: copies, not compositions; not the New Testament", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K33", "claim": "`RF-20`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the bearing on the field: the method the dating workstreams watch", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K34", "claim": "`RF-21`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "operator, funding, licence and data", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field's own pages: one lineage with them)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K35", "claim": "`RF-22`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "operator, funding, licence and data", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "qualified claim: F29 (B1: the article under the Creative Commons Attribution License) against the record's 'licence text not read'", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K36", "claim": "`RF-23`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "operator, funding, licence and data", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field's own pages: one lineage with them)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K37", "claim": "`RF-24`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "operator, funding, licence and data", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "none (restates the field's own pages: one lineage with them)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K38", "claim": "`RF-25`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "what the evidence can settle: copies, not compositions; not the New Testament", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K39", "claim": "`RF-26`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "what the evidence can settle: copies, not compositions; not the New Testament", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K40", "claim": "`RF-27`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "what it is: an AI-based date-prediction model for the scrolls and the study that introduces it", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K41", "claim": "`RF-28`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "self-description", "sense": "operator, funding, licence and data", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K42", "claim": "`RF-29`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "what the record's schema asks", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K43", "claim": "`RF-30`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "stipulation", "sense": "what the record's schema asks", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K44", "claim": "`RF-31`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the bearing on the field: the method the dating workstreams watch", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K45", "claim": "`RF-32`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the bearing on the field: the method the dating workstreams watch", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K46", "claim": "`RF-33`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the bearing on the field: the method the dating workstreams watch", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K47", "claim": "`RF-34`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "what the evidence can settle: copies, not compositions; not the New Testament", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K48", "claim": "`RF-35`", "source": "Revelation First census record, 2026-10-30", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "what the evidence can settle: copies, not compositions; not the New Testament", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K49", "claim": "`CAP-1-01`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-10-31", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the composition at the name: the study held", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K50", "claim": "`CAP-1-02`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-10-31", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the composition at the name: copies kept apart from compositions", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K51", "claim": "`CAP-1-03`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-10-31", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the composition at the name: the finding enlarged", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "rival claim: F45, F48, F43 (the 50 to 150 years, the century and the 100 years on cards 4 and 3) against 'not in the saved sources'", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K52", "claim": "`CAP-1-04`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-10-31", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the composition at the name: two results made one", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "qualified claim: F41 (BAS, Rollston credits the 4Q114 range to Enoch) and F10, F27 (the study: a radiocarbon result)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K53", "claim": "`CAP-1-05`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-10-31", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the composition at the name: the stated limit, elsewhere", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K54", "claim": "`CAP-1-06`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-10-31", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "the composition at the name: the study held", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K55", "claim": "`CAP-1-07`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-10-31", "M_src": "interpretation", "sense": "reception: the record and the cards", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K56", "claim": "`CAP-1-08`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-10-31", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "reception: the record and the cards", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K57", "claim": "`CAP-1-09`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-10-31", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the composition at the name: two results made one", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "qualified claim: F45 (card 4 states the magnitude)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K58", "claim": "`CAP-1-10`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-10-31", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the composition at the name: the stated limit, elsewhere", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K59", "claim": "`CAP-1-11`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-10-31", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "the composition at the name: the stated limit, elsewhere", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" }, { "K": "K60", "claim": "`CAP-1-12`", "source": "Capture Registry, 2026-10-31", "M_src": "documented", "sense": "reception: the record and the cards", "qualifiers carried": "—", "f (source's own falsifiers)": "— (none stated; watch: a later composition at the address that states or drops the claim, attributed or not, uptake §8.3)", "contrast": "missing distinction (the field has no claim on the point)", "resolver": "a later capture at \"Enoch AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls\" (ADDR-80645e150808) on Google AI Overview, seated in the Capture Registry (§8.3)" } ], "kernel_T": [ { "claim": "F1", "note": "the study's problem, 'an almost complete lack of date-bearing manuscripts', absent" }, { "claim": "F15", "note": "the study's limit, radiocarbon 'evidently superior to style-based predictions', absent; with F58 (the ERC's contrary, not surfaced)" }, { "claim": "F18", "note": "the evaluators of the 79% were palaeographers among the authors; T has 'human paleographic evaluations'" }, { "claim": "F10", "note": "4Q114 a radiocarbon result; T credits the model (with F27; the conflation is on card 2, F41)" }, { "claim": "F5", "note": "the study's 'often older'; T has the press's '50 to 150 years' (F45)" }, { "claim": "F38", "note": "the named scholars' doubts (with F41, F42), absent; doubt given to Reddit" }, { "claim": "F17", "note": "the post-100 CE date for 11Q5 against the hiding of the scrolls by 68 CE, absent" }, { "claim": "F28", "note": "'More research is needed to solve this issue', the study's own; T quotes a caution credited to Haaretz instead" }, { "claim": "F29", "note": "open access, CC BY, data and code on Zenodo, absent (with F30, the ERC funder)" }, { "claim": "F16", "note": "Ithaca as the study's precedent (with F53, card 5's snippet), absent" } ], "ledger": { "archive": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/ledgers/enoch-dss-dating/ledger-archive.json", "field": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/ledgers/enoch-dss-dating/field.json", "selection": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/traversal/enoch-dss-dating/", "config": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/panel/configs/enoch-dss-dating.json", "intake": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/", "audit": null }, "ontology": { "composition": "equal", "composition_note": "equal-terms case (v0.9 §0.9, §4.1): one claim space; the field's and the archive's claims ordered together by the entity's dependency and by genealogy within each sense; every field claim composed as received; nothing translated", "case": { "value": "equal", "statement": "The archive reads the field's entity as the entity. The Revelation First census record describes Enoch from the study's own page and the funder's (its fields restate the PLOS One article and the ERC, quote by quote), and keeps 'the resource's own terms' apart from 'where it meets the Revelation First workstreams: the archive's reading' (census schema_note). On the field's own object the archive adds what the evidence can and cannot settle (it dates copies, not compositions; it dates no New Testament papyrus), the class reading of its Revelation First deposits (papyrological dates as ranges that unsettle inferential chronology, #202; manuscript attestation not a composition date, #832; all New Testament dating as autograph inference, #860), the reading of machine dating of ancient texts at Ithaca (#1443) and of writer identification (#1443, #1409), and the composition layer's account at the name. None of these contests the field's ontology: the model, its study and its findings stand as the study states them, and no archive source supplies an ontology of Enoch the field lacks. ρ = extends; one claim space; nothing translated.", "loci": [ { "dep": 202, "locus": "The Claim Ladder, Claim 3", "quote": "Papyrological dates are ranges, not certainties — but that is precisely the point: where composition dates are themselves inferential, and where manuscript dates are contestable ranges rather than fixed coordinates, material attestation must be allowed to unsettle inherited priority." }, { "dep": 832, "locus": "§9 'The Papyrological Inversion', last ¶", "quote": "The section does not argue that papyrological dating of copies establishes composition dates." }, { "dep": 860, "locus": "RF-M19 'Autograph inference'", "quote": "All NT dating is autograph inference — the autograph is lost; what survives is copies of copies." }, { "dep": 1443, "locus": "§2.3 'Ithaca (2022)', ¶4", "quote": "Ithaca is empirical evidence that **the hazard is a property of single-verdict interfaces, not of machine reading as such**, and that ranked-alternative presentation is the mitigation." }, { "dep": 1443, "locus": "§5.1 'Writer identification', Cannot do", "quote": "**Cannot do.** Attribute a single short inscription with forensic confidence. Accuracy degrades sharply on short samples." } ] }, "E_F": { "type": "C (public entity: a machine-learning date-prediction model for manuscripts and the study that introduces it)", "definition": "Enoch, the AI-based date-prediction model of the Dead Sea Scrolls presented in 'Dating ancient manuscripts using radiocarbon and AI-based writing style analysis' (Popović, Dhali, Schomaker, van der Plicht, Lund Rasmussen, La Nasa et al., PLOS One 20(6): e0323185, 4 June 2025; Groningen and partners; ERC grant 640497, HandsandBible): Bayesian ridge regression on angular and allographic writing-style features of the ink trace, trained on 24 of 27 valid radiocarbon dates from 30 manuscripts, with errors of 27.9 to 30.7 years, applied to 135 undated scrolls (79% judged realistic by palaeographers among the authors); its finding, dates often older than the palaeographic estimates and a new chronology, with 4Q114 (by radiocarbon) and 4Q109 (by the model) the first known biblical fragments from the time of their presumed authors; its stated limits (radiocarbon superior, a first step, more research needed); received as unremarkable, promising or unproven (BAS), sized by the press at 50 to 150 years (JPost), and without a Wikipedia article (B1, B6, B2, B4, B10, B12, B13).", "claims": [ "F2", "F31", "F46", "F57", "F63", "F68", "F30", "F33", "F62", "F1", "F6", "F9", "F11", "F3", "F13", "F4", "F18", "F32", "F5", "F25", "F10", "F27", "F26", "F15", "F21", "F28", "F34", "F38", "F41", "F42", "F45", "F7", "F67" ] }, "E_A": { "definition": "the same model and study, in the Revelation First census record and the archive's deposits: a machine-learning date-prediction model for the Dead Sea Scrolls trained on radiocarbon-dated samples, filed under AI and ancient texts, papyrology and discovery, and New Testament scholarship, whose evidence is machine, radiocarbon and palaeographic dating; it dates copies, not compositions, and no New Testament papyrus, and moves palaeographic dates earlier against radiocarbon anchors, the method the archive's papyrological-inversion and dating workstreams would watch, since the New Testament papyri on which that inversion rests are dated by handwriting, their dates 'ranges, not certainties' (#202) and all New Testament dating 'autograph inference' (#860); with the archive's readings of machine dating of ancient texts (the hazard is the single-verdict interface, #1443) and of writer identification (individuating at scale, weak on short samples, #1443, #1409); and the composition layer's account of the entity at its name (Capture Registry, 2026-10-31).", "claims": [ "RF-02", "RF-05", "RF-06", "RF-25", "RF-26", "RF-18", "RF-19", "RF-20", "RF-32", "RF-34", "O202-01", "O202-02", "O832-01", "O832-02", "O832-03", "O860-01", "O860-02", "O1443-01", "O1443-04", "O1409-01", "CAP-1-02", "CAP-1-07" ], "defining_papers": [ 202, 832, 860, 1443, 1409 ], "defining_records": [ "Revelation First census record (census.json rows[slug == 'enoch-dss-dating'], organizing_question, correction, intersections, schema_note; questions.json papyri-revelation-date and machine-dating; rendered aggregators/enoch-dss-dating/index.html, https://www.revelationfirst.com/aggregators/enoch-dss-dating/)", "Capture Registry enoch-ai-dating-dead-sea-scrolls-aio-20261031 (OBS-ff5da0726928)" ] }, "rho": { "value": "extends", "status": "read from the Revelation First census record, the capture record and the deposits that bear on the classes the field sources for the entity (§1.2a); no deposit names Enoch, its study or its authors", "statement": "The archive reads Enoch as its study and its funder present it and adds, on the field's own object: what its evidence can settle (copies, not compositions; the scrolls, not the New Testament; within about thirty years on its corpus); the record's reading that the model moves palaeographic dates earlier against radiocarbon anchors, where the New Testament papyri are dated by handwriting alone; the class claims of the Revelation First deposits on the dates of papyri and the dating of copies; the archive's readings of machine reading of ancient texts and of writer identification; and the composition layer's account at the name.", "claims": [ "RF-16", "RF-17", "RF-18", "RF-19", "RF-20", "RF-25", "RF-26", "RF-31", "RF-32", "RF-33", "RF-34", "RF-35", "O202-01", "O202-02", "O202-03", "O832-01", "O832-02", "O832-03", "O860-01", "O860-02", "O1443-01", "O1443-02", "O1443-03", "O1443-04", "O1409-01", "CAP-1-02", "CAP-1-03", "CAP-1-04", "CAP-1-05" ], "guard": "ρ = extends claims an addition and no more (§1.2a). It does not make the field's sources wrong at their dates. Where an archive claim stands against a field claim (RF-22 'licence text not read' against F29; CAP-1-03 'not in the saved sources' against F45, F48, F43; CAP-1-04 against F41, which already credits the 4Q114 range to Enoch), both are composed under P_coh within the one ontology. The archive's claims on the dating of New Testament papyri are composed as claims on the class (palaeographic dating; the date of a copy against a composition), never as the study's claims, and the composer applies no archive category to Enoch: the record's rf_intersection is the archive's reading and is attributed to the record in the sentence that states it.", "considered": [ { "value": "constructs", "rejected": "the archive does not read Enoch as made by reception; its record takes the study's and the funder's pages as the entity's own account" }, { "value": "revises", "rejected": "Enoch is not the archive's own entity; the archive has no earlier statement of it to keep, narrow or withdraw" }, { "value": "witness", "rejected": "the archive's papyrological inversion contests the received chronology of the New Testament, not the field's account of Enoch; on Enoch it adds the class reading and supplies no ontology the field lacks" } ] }, "translation": [ { "lineage": "the dating problem: palaeography without date-bearing manuscripts", "field_claims": [ "F1", "F6", "F50", "F59" ], "received": "F1 (B1, Abstract s1): \"Determining by means of palaeography the chronology of ancient handwritten manuscripts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls is essential for reconstructing the evolution of ideas, but there is an almost complete lack of date-bearing manuscripts.\"; F6 (B1, §1 Introduction ¶1): \"Palaeography—the study of ancient handwriting—is used to date manuscripts on the basis of their handwriting [ 2 – 4 ] but its subjectivity and the impossibility of measuring the significance of handwriting features poses a problem [ 5 , 6 ].\"; F50 (B4, ¶5 (Popović)): \"\"Radiocarbon dating is a destructive method,\" said Professor Mladen Popović, an archaeologist at the University of Groningen and study lead author.\"; F59 (B10, ¶3): \"Until now, dating has largely relied on palaeography, the study of ancient handwriting, which lacks a solid empirical foundation due to the absence of securely dated reference materials.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside RF-14, O202-01, O860-02, O202-02, O832-03", "archive_claims": [ "RF-14", "O202-01", "O860-02", "O202-02", "O832-03" ] }, { "lineage": "what it is: an AI-based date-prediction model for the scrolls and the study that introduces it", "field_claims": [ "F2", "F31", "F46", "F57", "F63", "F68" ], "received": "F2 (B1, Abstract s2): \"To overcome this problem, we present Enoch, an AI-based date-prediction model, trained on the basis of 24 14 C-dated scroll samples.\"; F31 (B6, Abstract s2): \"To overcome this problem, we present Enoch, an AI-based date-prediction model, trained on the basis of 24 14 C-dated scroll samples.\"; F46 (B4, ¶2): \"Researchers from the University of Groningen developed Enoch to analyze the handwriting styles of ancient manuscripts, combining radiocarbon dating and paleography to provide more accurate date estimates for individual Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts.\"; F57 (B10, ¶1): \"An international research team led by the University of Groningen has developed a new method to date individual Dead Sea scrolls more precisely by combining radiocarbon analysis with artificial intelligence-based handwriting analysis.\"; F63 (B12, Dead Sea Scrolls, §Dating, Radiocarbon dating ¶2): \"The study also made use of an AI -based date-prediction model called \"Enoch\", which was trained by applying Bayesian ridge regression on the handwriting-style descriptors of 24 of the 14C-dated samples, for the paleographic dating of some 135 previously undated manuscripts.\"; F68 (B13, Carbon dating the Dead Sea Scrolls, ¶ on 2025): \"The study also made use of an AI -based date-prediction model called \"Enoch\", which was trained by applying Bayesian ridge regression on the handwriting-style descriptors of 24 of the 14C-dated samples, for the paleographic dating of some 135 previously undated manuscripts.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside RF-01, RF-02, RF-08, RF-27", "archive_claims": [ "RF-01", "RF-02", "RF-08", "RF-27" ] }, { "lineage": "accuracy and validation: errors of 27.9 to 30.7 years; 79% realistic on 135 undated scrolls", "field_claims": [ "F3", "F4", "F18", "F22", "F32", "F49", "F58" ], "received": "F3 (B1, Abstract s3): \"By applying Bayesian ridge regression on angular and allographic writing style feature vectors, Enoch could predict 14 C-based dates with varied mean absolute errors (MAEs) of 27.9 to 30.7 years.\"; F4 (B1, Abstract s4): \"In order to explore the viability of the character-shape based dating approach, the trained Enoch model then computed date predictions for 135 non-dated scrolls, aligning with 79% in palaeographic post-hoc evaluation.\"; F18 (B1, §4 ¶2): \"Expert palaeographers among the article’s authors evaluated the style-based date predictions, condensing the prediction into two main categories: realistic and unrealistic\"; F22 (B1, §5 ¶3): \"It could be argued that the style-based predictions are influenced by the 14 C-based training of the model. However, the leave-one-out validation results indicate that unseen samples obtain their interpolated position on the time axis based on the detected handwriting style in the images.\"; F32 (B6, §4 ¶2 (Table 2 summary)): \"107 ( 79 % ) of the undated manuscripts were dated realistically and 28 unrealistic predictions ( 21 % ) were divided between too old ( 46 % ) and too young ( 39 % ), according to the palaeographers ( S7 Appendix ). With this sample size, the confidence margin is 7 % at α = 0.05 .\"; F49 (B4, ¶6): \"The AI program analyzed the handwriting style of 135 scrolls with unknown dates spanning three centuries from around 200 BCE to 100 CE.\"; F58 (B10, ¶2): \"By analysing ink-trace patterns and character shapes using a neural network (BiNet), Enoch can predict manuscript dates with an uncertainty of around 30 years -more accurate than standalone radiocarbon dating in this period.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside RF-12, RF-15, RF-11, RF-10, RF-17, CAP-1-01", "archive_claims": [ "RF-12", "RF-15", "RF-11", "RF-10", "RF-17", "CAP-1-01" ] }, { "lineage": "the finding: dates older than the palaeographic estimates, a new chronology", "field_claims": [ "F5", "F25", "F64" ], "received": "F5 (B1, Abstract s5): \"The 14 C ranges and Enoch’s style-based predictions are often older than traditionally assumed palaeographic estimates, leading to a new chronology of the scrolls and the re-dating of ancient Jewish key texts that contribute to current debates on Jewish and Christian origins.\"; F25 (B1, §6 ¶2–3): \"First, 14 C date ranges and Enoch’s style-based estimates are overall older than previous palaeographic estimates. These older dates for the scrolls are realistic. … Second, ‘Herodian’ script emerged earlier than previously thought.\"; F64 (B12, Dead Sea Scrolls, §Dating, Radiocarbon dating ¶2): \"The study found earlier dates and coexistence of the Herodian and Hasmonean scripts, into the 2nd and 3rd century BCE, and possible pre-Hasmonean evidence of scribal literacy.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside RF-13, RF-16", "archive_claims": [ "RF-13", "RF-16" ] }, { "lineage": "reception: the encyclopedia and the name", "field_claims": [ "F7", "F67" ], "received": "F7 (B1, §1 Introduction ¶2): \"Enoch, named after the ancient Jewish science hero, was trained as a machine-learning-based date-prediction model applying Bayesian ridge regression on established handwriting-style descriptors.\"; F67 (B12, Enoch (disambiguation), wikitext line 2): \"'''[[Enoch]]''' is a biblical figure and the subject of the [[Book of Enoch]].\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside RF-01", "archive_claims": [ "RF-01" ] }, { "lineage": "what it offers palaeography: probability-based options, quantified objectivity, explainable design", "field_claims": [ "F8", "F20", "F21", "F24", "F47", "F60" ], "received": "F8 (B1, §1 Introduction ¶2): \"Thus, Enoch reduces palaeographic subjectivity and the role of implicit knowledge by offering date predictions as probability-based options, grounded in physical ( 14 C) and geometric (shape-based) evidences, that can aid palaeographers and historians in their decision-making and contribute to historical debates.\"; F20 (B1, §5 ¶1): \"To our knowledge, Enoch is the first complete machine-learning-based model that employs raw image inputs to deliver probabilistic date predictions for handwritten manuscripts utilizing the probability distribution from 14 C output, and that is completed by palaeographic input while ensuring transparency and interpretability through its explainable design.\"; F21 (B1, §5 ¶2): \"This study in style-based date prediction using the Enoch approach is a first step. The advantage of the Enoch model is that it provides quantified objectivity to palaeography, reducing the method’s subjectivity and the role of tacit expert knowledge\"; F24 (B1, §5 ¶6): \"If palaeographers are willing to accept the use of ‘black box’, pre-trained deep-learning models that are based on completely extraneous large image and photograph collections, future research may be directed at adapting the output of such models\"; F47 (B4, ¶3 (the authors, via Ars Technica)): \"\"With the Enoch tool we have opened a new door into the ancient world, like a time machine, that allows us to study the hands that wrote the Bible, especially now that we have established, for the first time, that two biblical scroll fragments come from the time of their presumed authors,\" the authors stated, according to Ars Technica.\"; F60 (B10, ¶4): \"This provides, for the first time, a robust and objective framework for dating over a thousand manuscripts from the Dead Sea Scrolls collection.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside O1443-01, O1443-02, CAP-1-11, CAP-1-10", "archive_claims": [ "O1443-01", "O1443-02", "CAP-1-11", "CAP-1-10" ] }, { "lineage": "the radiocarbon anchors: 30 manuscripts dated, 27 valid dates, 24 for training", "field_claims": [ "F9", "F11", "F36" ], "received": "F9 (B1, §2.1 ¶1–2): \"We performed 14 C dating on 30 manuscripts from 4 sites, spanning an estimated 5 centuries … The AMS results yielded 27 valid 14 C dates\"; F11 (B1, §2.2 ¶3): \"We used 24 manuscripts from the 14 C samples with valid dates as a labeled dataset for the primary training set for Enoch\"; F36 (B2, ¶4): \"To train their model, the researchers performed radiocarbon analysis on two dozen scrolls, from four different sites in the Judean Desert .\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside RF-09, RF-11", "archive_claims": [ "RF-09", "RF-11" ] }, { "lineage": "the key texts: 4Q114 by radiocarbon, 4Q109 by Enoch, copies from the time of their presumed authors", "field_claims": [ "F10", "F27", "F44", "F61", "F65" ], "received": "F10 (B1, §2.1 ¶4): \"Sample 4Q114 is one of the most significant findings of the 14 C results. … The accepted 2 calibrated range for 4Q114, 230–160 BCE, overlaps with the period in which the final part of the biblical book of Daniel was presumably authored\"; F27 (B1, §6 ¶5): \"Fourth, this study’s 14 C result for 4Q114 and Enoch’s date prediction for 4Q109 now establish these to be the first known fragments of a biblical book from the time of their presumed authors [ 15 ].\"; F44 (B4, standfirst): \"Researchers establish two biblical scroll fragments come from the time of their presumed authors.\"; F61 (B10, ¶5): \"The study also provides the first material evidence that two biblical scrolls, 4QDanielc and 4QQoheleta , originate from the same periods as their presumed authors in the second and third centuries BCE.\"; F65 (B12, Dead Sea Scrolls, §Proposed older dates (2025) ¶1–2): \"This study proposes older dates for some of the scrolls. … The lead author is Mladen Popović from the University of Groningen in the Netherlands. … For example, the fragmentary scroll 4Q114 of the Book of Daniel is now dated to between 230 and 160 B.C.E., as much as 60 years earlier than previously thought.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside CAP-1-04, CAP-1-09, RF-26, RF-19", "archive_claims": [ "CAP-1-04", "CAP-1-09", "RF-26", "RF-19" ] }, { "lineage": "the method: Bayesian ridge regression on writing-style features read from the ink trace, not the text", "field_claims": [ "F12", "F13", "F14", "F23", "F35" ], "received": "F12 (B1, §2.2 ¶2): \"It was decided to let the available data speak, not depending on a pre-trained model\"; F13 (B1, §2.2.2 ¶1): \"In this study, ‘style’ is not related to textual content or wording.\"; F14 (B1, §2.2.2 ¶1): \"The feature vectors relate directly to the shape-based evidence of the ink traces in the manuscripts and have a solid basis in writer identification [ 28 – 30 ] and document dating [ 31 , 32 ].\"; F23 (B1, §5 ¶4): \"we have avoided using palaeographic estimates as target values for machine learning because our goal is to provide physical (material) and geometric (shape-based) evidences for manuscript dating\"; F35 (B2, ¶3): \"Enoch examines the shapes of letters from the scrolls and cross-references the writing style with scrolls of similar style that have been dated with carbon-14 dating. In effect, the model performs its own comparative paleographic analysis.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside RF-07, RF-09, O1443-04, O1409-01", "archive_claims": [ "RF-07", "RF-09", "O1443-04", "O1409-01" ] }, { "lineage": "stated limits: radiocarbon superior, a first step, more research needed", "field_claims": [ "F15", "F17", "F19", "F28" ], "received": "F15 (B1, §3 ¶1): \"14 C date ranges are evidently superior to style-based predictions.\"; F17 (B1, §3 ¶3): \"In addition, 11Q5 shows that in the late date range, a fairly certain style-based date estimate above 100 CE can also be achieved. This may go against historical reconstructions according to which the scrolls were hidden in the Qumran caves before the summer of 68 CE [ 40 ].\"; F19 (B1, §4 ¶1, ¶3): \"These are the first published results on date estimation for this collection of manuscripts. Future research, with more data and improved images, may be directed at further validation and refinement. … Now, Enoch shows that there is no temporal difference between the two halves of the manuscript\"; F28 (B1, §6 ¶6): \"The results of this study thus dismantle unsubstantiated historical suppositions and chronological limitations, and call into question the validity of the default model’s relative typology. … More research is needed to solve this issue.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside CAP-1-05, RF-14, RF-15", "archive_claims": [ "CAP-1-05", "RF-14", "RF-15" ] }, { "lineage": "lineage and sequel: machine dating of ancient texts before and after Enoch", "field_claims": [ "F16", "F51", "F53", "F66" ], "received": "F16 (B1, §3 ¶2): \"For Ithaca [ 39 ], AI and epigraphy were similarly used as two heterogeneous information sources to predict dates for ancient Greek inscriptions.\"; F51 (B4, ¶12 (Popović)): \"Popović plans to apply the Enoch model to more Dead Sea Scrolls, as well as other ancient Aramaic texts like the Elephantine Papyri.\"; F53 (B5, card snippet (Haaretz: URL not found)): \"From Ithaca to Judea Enoch is not the first artificial intelligence used to study ancient texts in general or the Dead Sea Scrolls specifically.\"; F66 (B12, Dead Sea Scrolls, §Tracing Scribes and Scrolls): \"A five-year research project announced in June 2026 and led by Mladen Popović of the University of Groningen will work in conjunction with the Israel Antiquities Authority to look deeper into the history, transmission and cultural environment of the scrolls.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside O1443-01, O1443-03, RF-33, RF-34", "archive_claims": [ "O1443-01", "O1443-03", "RF-33", "RF-34" ] }, { "lineage": "copying before the Hasmonaean expansion and before Qumran", "field_claims": [ "F26", "F37", "F52" ], "received": "F26 (B1, §6 ¶4): \"Yet, the results of this study attest to the copying of multiple literary manuscripts before this period. One example is 4Q109, a copy of the biblical book of Ecclesiastes, a book which scholars tentatively date to the end of the third century BCE [ 15 ], for which Enoch gives a third-century BCE date prediction\"; F37 (B2, ¶5): \"Nearly all dates proposed by Enoch were significantly older than previous estimates. Notably, several texts commonly associated with the Qumran community were dated earlier than the site’s first period of settlement, showing that the scrolls must have originated elsewhere.\"; F52 (B4, ¶15–16): \"\"The advantage of the [AI] model is that it provides quantified objectivity to paleography, reducing the method's subjectivity,\" the authors write. The study suggests that scribes were copying multiple literary manuscripts before this period, which could have major implications for our historical narratives.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside RF-26, RF-19, O832-01, O832-02, O860-01, CAP-1-02", "archive_claims": [ "RF-26", "RF-19", "O832-01", "O832-02", "O860-01", "CAP-1-02" ] }, { "lineage": "operator, funding, licence and data", "field_claims": [ "F29", "F30", "F33", "F62" ], "received": "F29 (B1, front matter, Copyright and Data Availability): \"This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License … All data, code, and test film associated with this article are publicly available on Zenodo\"; F30 (B1, front matter, Citation, dates and Funding): \"Popović M, Dhali MA, Schomaker L, van der Plicht J, Lund Rasmussen K, La Nasa J, et al. (2025) Dating ancient manuscripts using radiocarbon and AI-based writing style analysis. … Published: June 4, 2025 … This project has received funding by the European Research Council under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement no. 640497 (HandsandBible).\"; F33 (B6, author affiliations): \"1 Qumran Institute, University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands\"; F62 (B10, project box): \"The Hands that Wrote the Bible: Digital Palaeography and Scribal Culture of the Dead Sea Scrolls … ERC-2014-STG 640497\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside RF-03, RF-04, RF-21, RF-22, RF-23, RF-24, RF-28, CAP-1-10", "archive_claims": [ "RF-03", "RF-04", "RF-21", "RF-22", "RF-23", "RF-24", "RF-28", "CAP-1-10" ] }, { "lineage": "reception: scholars for and against", "field_claims": [ "F34", "F38", "F39", "F40", "F41", "F42", "F54", "F55", "F56" ], "received": "F34 (B2, ¶1): \"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.\"; F38 (B2, ¶6 (Christopher Rollston)): \"“The results of this study are very interesting, and presumably important, but not earth-shattering,” … “Most of the conclusions of the study dovetail with what the great paleographers in the field, such as the late Frank Moore Cross , had already stated more than 60 years ago.”\"; F39 (B2, ¶7 (Jonathan Ben-Dov)): \"“If anything, I think [the researchers’] work drew our attention to points we would have otherwise missed,” … “This is important evidence about the scripture scrolls and their character in the pre-Hasmonean period.”\"; F40 (B2, ¶8 (Yonatan Adler)): \"“This is a way to move forward,” said Adler. … Here, there is an attempt to actually procure new data.”\"; F41 (B2, ¶9 (Christopher Rollston)): \"“Enoch’s calibrated date range for 4Q114 is: 230–160 BCE. … Thus, in this particular case, which is the one case where we can really fact-check Enoch, it is crystal clear that Enoch’s dates are much too high.”\"; F42 (B2, ¶11 (Jonathan Ben-Dov)): \"“Overall, the scholarly community faces a serious question: Is this study reliable enough to substantiate a re-shuffle of the entire chronological paradigm of Qumran?”\"; F54 (B7, card title (Facebook, National Geographic UK, video 1m; URL not found)): \"the Dead Sea Scrolls. By combining time honoured excavation techniques\"; F55 (B8, card title (YouTube, Religion For Everybody, 14:09; URL not found)): \"How AI Redated the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Enoch Machine Revealed\"; F56 (B9, card title (YouTube, Past Unsealed, 4m; URL not found)): \"AI Just Decoded the Dead Sea Scrolls — What It Found Changes Everything\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside CAP-1-05", "archive_claims": [ "CAP-1-05" ] }, { "lineage": "the magnitude in the press: 50 to 150 years, a century, up to 100 years", "field_claims": [ "F43", "F45", "F48" ], "received": "F43 (B3, card snippet (Reddit unreachable: a script bot-check page)): \"AI Dating of Scrolls: A new AI study suggests some Dead Sea Scrolls, including parts of the Book of Daniel, may be up to 100 years older than previously thought\"; F45 (B4, ¶1): \"An artificial intelligence program named Enoch has advanced the dating of many of the Dead Sea Scrolls by 50 to 150 years earlier than previously believed, according to a new study published in the journal PLOS One.\"; F48 (B4, ¶7 (Popović)): \"\"In some cases we see dates that are 50 years older or maybe even a century older than previously assumed,\" Popović adds.\"", "receiving_text": "—", "translation": "untranslated: composed as received beside CAP-1-03, CAP-1-09, CAP-1-07", "archive_claims": [ "CAP-1-03", "CAP-1-09", "CAP-1-07" ] } ], "receiving_texts": "equal-terms case: every field claim composed as received, beside the archive claims it stands with" }, "measure": { "rule": "v0.9 §4.10: KO_B sentences surviving in the KO at similarity ≥ 0.95, with positions (computed as apply_v09.py does: difflib.SequenceMatcher ratio, the best KO sentence for each KO_B sentence)", "v0.9": { "surviving": 0, "of": 15, "positions": [ null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null, null ] }, "opening_run": { "rule": "v0.9 §5.10 (equal-terms case): the field-only KO's sentences as the KO's opening run in their own order", "breach": false }, "blocks": { "rule": "v0.9 §4.1 (equal-terms and mixed cases): the KO does not open with the field as a block or close with the archive as one; sentences typed by the ledgers of the claims they cite (F field-only, A archive-only, M both)", "sequence": "MFMMMAAFMAMFMFMAAAAAFAFFFFAAF", "field_only_head": 0, "archive_only_tail": 0, "breach": false }, "max_similarity": [ 0.286, 0.127, 0.333, 0.372, 0.186, 0.223, 0.479, 0.552, 0.177, 0.167, 0.328, 0.278, 0.288, 0.325, 0.378 ], "ko_sentence_1_max_similarity_to_KO_B": 0.286 }, "homonyms": { "names": [ "Enoch (the biblical patriarch, 'Biblical figure prior to Noah's flood', after whom the model is 'named after the ancient Jewish science hero', B1 F7; Wikipedia's article Enoch, B12-enoch.wiki)", "the Books of Enoch (1 Enoch and its Aramaic fragments among the Dead Sea Scrolls; 1 Enoch is seated in the archive's Ethiopian canon, #1698, and named in its Revelation and Secret Book of Walt deposits)", "Enoch (son of Cain), and the other senses on Wikipedia's Enoch (disambiguation), none a model (F67)" ], "basis": "The operator added the disambiguator 'AI dating Dead Sea Scrolls' to a name that is bare a homonym (BRIEF-NEW-ROW-FIELD §5; the capture's q_kind). The census row carries no disambiguation field. No card is a homonym: every card on T's rail concerns the model and its study, and T composes the target throughout (the registry: reached 'same'). The homonyms are distinct entities, never senses of the name; the patriarch is the model's namesake by the study's own statement (F7). The archive's 'Enoch' strings are the patriarch's and his books' (the config's aliases require a word of the model in the sentence; none matched).", "distinct_entities": [ "Ithaca (DeepMind, 2022), the machine dating and restoration of Greek inscriptions the study compares (B1 F16) and Haaretz's card names (B5 F53); an entity of the same census, whose /non row, if built in this batch, is datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/rows/ithaca.json (not edited); read by the archive at #1443 §2.3", "the Leon Levy Dead Sea Scrolls Digital Library, the corpus the record says the model uses (RF-27, census record dss-digital-library)", "The Hands that Wrote the Bible (HandsandBible, ERC starting grant 640497), the project behind the study (B1 F30, B10 F62)", "Tracing Scribes and Scrolls, the ERC project Popović leads from 2026 with the Israel Antiquities Authority, a successor and a distinct entity (B12 F66)", "the Elephantine Papyri, to which Popović plans to apply the model (B4 F51)", "BiNet, the binarization network the study and the ERC name (B1 §2.2.1; B10 F58)", "the 2021 writer-identification study of the Great Isaiah Scroll by Popović, Dhali and Schomaker, cited by the study (B1 §4, ref. 6), a distinct work", "the scimex release (B11, unread), Ars Technica, EurekAlert and Popular Science, press the Jerusalem Post cites (B4), not cards" ], "substitutes": { "T": [] }, "register": { "address_1": { "slug": "enoch-ai-dating-dead-sea-scrolls-aio-20261031", "obs_id": "OBS-ff5da0726928" } } }, "notes": [ "One address, Google AI Overview (expanded), signed out, incognito, 2026-10-31: enoch-ai-dating-dead-sea-scrolls-aio-20261031 (OBS-ff5da0726928, ADDR-80645e150808, AXN:0B35.CAPTURE.🪐➖🌹🌔🎆🌘), nine cards, 285 words in the answer body with its quotation and closer. A NEW address, its disambiguator added by the operator to a bare homonym; the census record was built the day before and no card cites it (CAP-1-08).", "Fetching: every reachable card saved verbatim with curl and the honest agent 'alexanarch-seating/1.0 (https://www.alexanarch.org)' on 2026-10-31 between 04:39 and 04:41 UTC, raw and text with sha256 in field.json (text by the census's own extractor). Card URLs: B1 from the census record (byte-identical to the census copy); B2, B4, B6 by WebSearch on title and site. B10 (ERC) and B11 (scimex, the census's 403) copied from the census's saved copies; not refetched.", "Refusals and misses, recorded and not retried with another agent or by any other route (BRIEF-NEW-ROW-FIELD §4): B3, Reddit, a script bot-check page served with HTTP 200 (text 'Reddit'); B5, Haaretz, no URL from three searches, its site search rendering by script; B7–B9, the National Geographic UK post and two YouTube videos, no URL found. Their titles (and B3's and B5's snippets) stand as their only text (F43, F53–F56). Two Wikipedia API searches returned HTTP 429; they were not retried, the rendered search standing; their raw 429 bodies were not kept (the fetch log records code and time).", "Card snippets that are not their pages' text: cards 1 and 4 carry labelled snippets ('Model: Enoch, …', 'Study: University of Groningen researchers …') that occur nowhere in the served pages. The PLOS page's text extraction drops the article's inline mathematics (the σ of '2σ calibrated', the percentages of the Table 2 summary: '107 ( ) of the undated manuscripts'); the NIH copy keeps them (F32). Recorded, not resolved.", "The archive subset: no archive text names Enoch the model, its study, its DOI, its authors as such or HandsandBible (D 0, R 0); the archive's 'Enoch' is the patriarch's and his books' (1 Enoch is seated, #1698). The string pass returned 80 O-class candidates in 53 deposits; reading admitted #202, #832 and #860 with ten S4 instances (#203, #1025, #1211, #1213, #1216, #1217, #1226, #1231, #1249, #1400), and reading the class matches outside the pass admitted #1443 and #1409. The hop (92 candidates) admitted none. Most string candidates were 'machine reading' in the archive's sense of machines reading contemporary text (training-layer literature), class words in another sense.", "Defects and out-of-date fields in the Revelation First census record (reported, not fixed): (a) license: 'the article's copyright line names Popović et al. (licence text not read)'; the saved page the census read (enoch-dss-dating--plos, byte-identical to B1) states 'This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License' (F29): the licence is CC BY and was in the saved text. (b) unchecked[0] 'the model's code and data (not opened)': the same page gives their Zenodo DOIs (data and prediction plots 10.5281/zenodo.10998958; code and feature files 10.5281/zenodo.13319794; film 10.5281/zenodo.8167946), so they are locatable from the saved source though still unopened. (c) count and method carry 24 samples and 135 scrolls but not the 30 manuscripts dated and 27 valid dates (F9) of which the 24 are a subset. (d) stated_limits omits the study's own ranking, '14 C date ranges are evidently superior to style-based predictions' (F15), its 'a first step' (F21), its 'More research is needed to solve this issue' (F28), and that the 79% evaluation was made by palaeographers among the authors (F18). (e) The ERC (the census's own third-party source, B10 ¶2) says the model is 'more accurate than standalone radiocarbon dating in this period' (F58), against the study's F15; the record carries neither. (f) The record has no field for reception (BAS's scholars, F38–F42) or for the successor project (Tracing Scribes and Scrolls, 2026, F66).", "Findings of the capture that the field ledger shows wrong or incomplete (reported, not fixed): (i) CAP-1-03 ('THE FINDING ENLARGED … The range and the 'significant portion' are not in the saved sources'): right against the study (F5, 'often older'), but the range is on card 4, the Jerusalem Post, 'by 50 to 150 years earlier than previously believed' (B4 F45), with Popović's 'a century' (F48) and Reddit's 'up to 100 years' (F43); the 'saved sources' the finding checked were the census's, which hold no card but the article. The composition took a card's figure without attribution and set it under 'Enoch indicates'; the per_dim reader's note says the same ('a magnitude the saved records do not state', CAP-1-09). (ii) CAP-1-04 ('TWO RESULTS MADE ONE'): right against the study, but the conflation is already on card 2, Rollston's 'Enoch’s calibrated date range for 4Q114' (B2 F41), and the press gives the pair under Enoch's name (B4 F44, F47; B10 F61): T inherits it from its cards. (iii) CAP-1-05 ('The composition gives doubt through Reddit'): Reddit's card snippet carries no doubt (F43), and card 2 carries named scholars' doubts (Rollston, Ben-Dov; F38, F41, F42) that T does not compose; the finding's 'the study's own limit is unsaid' holds (F1, F15, F18, F28). (iv) CAP-1-11 (the study's frame 'survives only as what 'Supporters view''): the 'time machine' T gives to supporters is the authors' own phrase (B4 F47) and 'quantified objectivity' the study's (F21, F52): assigned to another. (v) per_dim.read.on is '2026-10-29' for a capture received 2026-10-31 (the brief path is intake-20261031): a date defect in the registry entry.", "Neighbour rows (BRIEF-NEW-ROW-FIELD §6): datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/rows/book-of-revelation.json composes the papyrological inversion with 'papyrological dates being ranges (#202; #1032)', the class reading this row composes as O202-01, O202-02 on the dates of 𝔓52 and 𝔓98; the census's rf_intersection names that inversion as the workstream that would watch this method. datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/rows/sappho-31.json: no bearing found (the row carries no Oxyrhynchus or dating claim that touches Enoch). Neither edited. Ithaca, a neighbour in the field census, is named in homonyms.distinct_entities.", "Wikipedia: no article on the model ('Enoch (AI)' HTTP 404; the search page reports that the page does not exist); the model is treated in Dead Sea Scrolls (§Radiocarbon dating ¶2, §Proposed older dates (2025)) and in Carbon dating the Dead Sea Scrolls (the same paragraph), both ledgered; the bare name is the biblical figure's article, and the disambiguation page lists no model.", "Composition: equal case, KO 29 sentences citing all 68 field and 60 archive claims; P body 350 words, at the bound (counted with [A-Za-z0-9'’-]+ over the lede and every item's label and text); KO_B 15 sentences, none surviving at ≥ 0.95; KO sentence 1's best similarity to any KO_B sentence 0.286. The P_coh pairs (F15/F58; F27/F41; F29/RF-22; F45/CAP-1-03) are composed with their sources, never resolved by the composer." ], "composition_v09": { "source": "this row (composed directly; no rebuild/negative-of-the-negative/v09/enoch-dss-dating.json)", "composer": "Claude (Opus 5.5), subagent, 2026-10-31", "defining_material_read": [ { "what": "Revelation First census record, row", "file": "/home/claude/fleet/revelationfirst-com/data/rf-census/census.json (rows[slug == 'enoch-dss-dating'], name, compiled, schema_note, organizing_question, correction, intersections, evidence_kinds, pending, unread_sources)", "read": "whole" }, { "what": "worked questions", "file": "/home/claude/fleet/revelationfirst-com/data/rf-census/questions.json (papyri-revelation-date, machine-dating)", "read": "the questions naming the entity" }, { "what": "rendered record", "file": "/home/claude/fleet/revelationfirst-com/aggregators/enoch-dss-dating/index.html", "read": "whole, for agreement with census.json" }, { "what": "the census's saved sources", "file": "/home/claude/fleet/revelationfirst-com/data/rf-census/sources/enoch-dss-dating--{plos,erc,scimex}.* and sources/manifest.json", "read": "whole" }, { "what": "Capture Registry entry", "file": "data/EA-WG-CAPTURES-01.json entries[slug == 'enoch-ai-dating-dead-sea-scrolls-aio-20261031']", "read": "whole (transcript, transcript_raw, cite_list, findings, reading, analysis, per_dim, q_kind, mt, originator)" }, { "dep": 202, "file": "data/texts/AXN-0349-text.md", "read": "whole" }, { "dep": 832, "file": "data/texts/AXN-034D-text.md", "read": "the Claim Ladder and §9 'The Papyrological Inversion' whole, with the opening and the falsification sections; the document is 139,321 characters and was not read whole" }, { "dep": 860, "file": "data/texts/AXN-0369-text.md", "read": "whole (seed category, twenty mint families, coordinate verification, battery integration, status definitions, two-tier usage)" }, { "dep": 1443, "file": "data/texts/AXN-05CC-text.md", "read": "abstract, §1.4, §2.3 Ithaca, §5.1 writer identification, Part VIII's enabling-condition paragraphs, and the class matches; not whole (100,574 characters)" }, { "dep": 1409, "file": "data/texts/AXN-0592-text.md", "read": "abstract, Part I §I.1–§I.2, and the class matches; not whole (116,085 characters)" }, { "what": "S4 instances", "file": "#203, #1025, #1211, #1213, #1216, #1217, #1226, #1231, #1249, #1400", "read": "at the passages carrying the instance (verbatim or key-phrase checks recorded in ledger-archive.json instances)" }, { "what": "specification", "file": "data/texts/AXN-0700-text.md (EA-NEGONT-02 v0.9)", "read": "§0–§11 whole and Appendix A to §A.5" }, { "what": "briefs", "file": "rebuild/negative-of-the-negative/v09/BRIEF-NEW-ROW-FIELD.md, BRIEF-NEW-ROW-AGGREGATOR.md, BRIEF-NEW-ROW-LABOR.md, BRIEF-NEW-ROW-PROVENANCE.md, BRIEF.md", "read": "whole" }, { "what": "exemplar row", "file": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/rows/data-workers-inquiry.json with its ledgers, config and reading.json", "read": "structure and key fields" } ], "cuts": [], "notes": "equal case; KO 29 sentences, all 68 field and 60 archive claims cited; P body 350 words; KO_B 15 sentences, 0 surviving at ≥ 0.95" }, "field_by_origin": { "cards": [ "B1", "B2", "B3", "B4", "B5", "B6", "B7", "B8", "B9" ], "own_pages": [], "own_pages_note": "The census cites one own page, enoch-dss-dating--plos, the article itself; it is card 1 (B1) and is carried once, as the card, with the census copy beside it (byte-identical). No own page was left unsurfaced by T.", "wikipedia": [ "B12", "B13" ], "census_third_party": [ "B10", "B11" ], "unreachable": [ "B3", "B5", "B7", "B8", "B9", "B11" ], "title_only": [ "B7", "B8", "B9" ], "snippet_only": [ "B3", "B5" ], "wikipedia_state": "no article: 'Enoch (AI)' HTTP 404; Wikipedia's search for the model returns 'The page … does not exist' and two articles, Dead Sea Scrolls and Carbon dating the Dead Sea Scrolls, which treat the model in their paragraphs on the 2025 study (Dead Sea Scrolls §Radiocarbon dating ¶2 and §Proposed older dates (2025); Carbon dating the Dead Sea Scrolls, the same paragraph); the bare name 'Enoch' is the biblical figure's article, and Enoch (disambiguation) lists no model. Ledgered: those paragraphs (F63–F66, F68) and the disambiguation's first line (F67).", "sources": [ { "id": "B1", "origin": "card", "role": "Overview card 1; the census's own page enoch-dss-dating--plos (byte-identical)", "card": "PLOS — Dating ancient manuscripts using radiocarbon and AI-based writing style analysis | PLOS One", "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0323185", "kind": "Overview card (the study itself: PLOS One 20(6): e0323185, the article page); the census's own page", "files": { "B1.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B1.html", "sha256": "1bf06ab57a70bb15802eb4e4efa2d32a97d07e6ac3388debfa8f0e4031a7a818" }, "B1.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B1.txt", "sha256": "43ec0e66575ad39a990ec51e2b18e8be4b58322025eeea3543bb78e4c77282e6" }, "B1-census.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B1-census.html", "sha256": "1bf06ab57a70bb15802eb4e4efa2d32a97d07e6ac3388debfa8f0e4031a7a818" }, "B1-census.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B1-census.txt", "sha256": "43ec0e66575ad39a990ec51e2b18e8be4b58322025eeea3543bb78e4c77282e6" } }, "fetched": { "at": "2026-10-31T04:39:27Z", "http": 200, "url": "https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0323185", "agent": "alexanarch-seating/1.0 (https://www.alexanarch.org)", "raw": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B1.html", "raw_sha256": "1bf06ab57a70bb15802eb4e4efa2d32a97d07e6ac3388debfa8f0e4031a7a818", "text": [ "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B1.txt" ], "census_copy": { "src": "enoch-dss-dating--plos", "sha256": "1bf06ab57a70bb15802eb4e4efa2d32a97d07e6ac3388debfa8f0e4031a7a818", "read": "2026-10-31", "fetched": "2026-10-31T02:52:09Z", "http": "200", "copied_as": [ "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B1-census.html", "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B1-census.txt" ], "agrees": "byte-identical: this session's fetch and the census's saved copy share the sha256 of the raw page, and the extracted texts are identical" } }, "names_operator": "yes (the authors, Popović et al.; the ERC funding line, HandsandBible)", "names_archive": "no (none of the Crimson Hexagonal Archive, Alexanarch, Lee Sharks, revelationfirst, Revelation First, machinemediation, EA-WG-CAPTURES-01 in the saved text, card title and snippet)", "note": "URL from the census record (sources.enoch-dss-dating--plos), confirmed by the card's title, the page's . The card's snippet ('Model: Enoch, an AI date-prediction model …') is a labelled summary that does not occur in the page text. The page's text extraction drops the article's inline mathematics (σ, and the percentages of the Table 2 summary); the NIH copy (B6) keeps them.", "surfaced_by_T": [ { "slug": "enoch-ai-dating-dead-sea-scrolls-aio-20261031", "card": 1 } ], "card_title": "Dating ancient manuscripts using radiocarbon and AI-based writing style analysis | PLOS One", "card_snippet": "Model: Enoch, an AI date-prediction model using Bayesian ridge regression on allographic and angular writing style feature vectors extracted from binarized manu...", "card_note": null }, { "id": "B2", "origin": "card", "role": "Overview card 2", "card": "Biblical Archaeology Society — Can AI Date the Dead Sea Scrolls?", "url": "https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/dead-sea-scrolls/can-ai-date-the-dead-sea-scrolls/", "kind": "Overview card (Bible History Daily, first published 20 June 2025; a news article with scholars' comments, and readers' comments below it, which are not ledgered)", "files": { "B2.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B2.html", "sha256": "a22ef9db2c0bc583695e2ad7184a5cc4897ac4662e6d2b9478ef3ef2ebcbee9c" }, "B2.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B2.txt", "sha256": "25bf22c849fee090b97341394ddef5a9ea5926389970005d72e945da1892f7ad" } }, "fetched": { "at": "2026-10-31T04:39:28Z", "http": 200, "url": "https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-artifacts/dead-sea-scrolls/can-ai-date-the-dead-sea-scrolls/", "agent": "alexanarch-seating/1.0 (https://www.alexanarch.org)", "raw": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B2.html", "raw_sha256": "a22ef9db2c0bc583695e2ad7184a5cc4897ac4662e6d2b9478ef3ef2ebcbee9c", "text": [ "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B2.txt" ] }, "names_operator": "yes ('an international research team'; the PLOS One article)", "names_archive": "no (none of the Crimson Hexagonal Archive, Alexanarch, Lee Sharks, revelationfirst, Revelation First, machinemediation, EA-WG-CAPTURES-01 in the saved text, card title and snippet)", "note": "URL by WebSearch on the card's title and site; the page's <title> is 'Biblical Archaeology Society - Can AI Date the Dead Sea Scrolls?'. The snippet's words are the page's ¶4.", "surfaced_by_T": [ { "slug": "enoch-ai-dating-dead-sea-scrolls-aio-20261031", "card": 2 } ], "card_title": "Can AI Date the Dead Sea Scrolls?", "card_snippet": "Enoch and the Dead Sea Scrolls To train their model, the researchers performed radiocarbon analysis on two dozen scrolls, from four different sites in the Judea...", "card_note": null }, { "id": "B3", "origin": "card", "role": "Overview card 3", "card": "Reddit·r/AncientCivilizations — New AI Study Suggests Dead Sea Scrolls Are Older Than We Thought! - Reddit", "url": null, "kind": "Overview card (a Reddit post of 15 June 2025, by its snippet); unreachable", "files": { "B3-botcheck.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B3-botcheck.html", "sha256": "b08525292c51d249d95a2c3aca75d64e3efd2f17d44014113b4439bfb84a373c" }, "B3-botcheck.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B3-botcheck.txt", "sha256": "eb0050f72303bcdbbdc071e2a3bf810c903be8d05cdf09f7c3106f2b6f9878bf" } }, "fetched": { "result": "unreachable", "tried": [ "WebSearch on the card's title and site, twice (no Reddit URL returned)", "the subreddit's search page, https://www.reddit.com/r/AncientCivilizations/search/?q=Dead+Sea+Scrolls+older+AI&restrict_sr=1, with the honest agent: HTTP 200 serving a script bot-check page titled 'Reddit' (saved as B3-botcheck.html, 8,436 bytes; its text is the one word 'Reddit')" ], "at": "2026-10-31T04:39:36Z", "agent": "alexanarch-seating/1.0 (https://www.alexanarch.org)", "not_retried": "not retried with another agent string or by any other route (BRIEF-NEW-ROW-FIELD §4)" }, "names_operator": "no (the snippet says 'A new AI study')", "names_archive": "no (none of the Crimson Hexagonal Archive, Alexanarch, Lee Sharks, revelationfirst, Revelation First, machinemediation, EA-WG-CAPTURES-01 in the saved text, card title and snippet)", "note": "The card's title and snippet stand as its only text (F43).", "surfaced_by_T": [ { "slug": "enoch-ai-dating-dead-sea-scrolls-aio-20261031", "card": 3 } ], "card_title": "New AI Study Suggests Dead Sea Scrolls Are Older Than We Thought! - Reddit", "card_snippet": "June 15, 2025 — AI Dating of Scrolls: A new AI study suggests some Dead Sea Scrolls, including parts of the Book of Daniel, may be up to 100 years older than previously thought...", "card_note": null }, { "id": "B4", "origin": "card", "role": "Overview card 4", "card": "The Jerusalem Post — AI model 'Enoch' reveals Dead Sea Scrolls are older than believed | The Jerusalem Post", "url": "https://www.jpost.com/archaeology/article-856627", "kind": "Overview card (news, Jerusalem Post Staff, 5 June 2025; it cites Ars Technica, EurekAlert and Popular Science)", "files": { "B4.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B4.html", "sha256": "cd3042142867715bc454292376e5fdfdbf34d3aba2edbd92add798bfb8d6469f" }, "B4.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B4.txt", "sha256": "7a9800e2d6706bab9d5c8c9e5fbdbd0b24212a82bdde8e987bffdd022e0ab7d8" } }, "fetched": { "at": "2026-10-31T04:39:29Z", "http": 200, "url": "https://www.jpost.com/archaeology/article-856627", "agent": "alexanarch-seating/1.0 (https://www.alexanarch.org)", "raw": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B4.html", "raw_sha256": "cd3042142867715bc454292376e5fdfdbf34d3aba2edbd92add798bfb8d6469f", "text": [ "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B4.txt" ] }, "names_operator": "yes (Popović, 'study lead author'; Groningen)", "names_archive": "no (none of the Crimson Hexagonal Archive, Alexanarch, Lee Sharks, revelationfirst, Revelation First, machinemediation, EA-WG-CAPTURES-01 in the saved text, card title and snippet)", "note": "URL by WebSearch (jpost.com/archaeology/article-856627), confirmed by the page's <title>, which is the card's title. The snippet ('Study: University of Groningen researchers developed …') is a labelled summary.", "surfaced_by_T": [ { "slug": "enoch-ai-dating-dead-sea-scrolls-aio-20261031", "card": 4 } ], "card_title": "AI model 'Enoch' reveals Dead Sea Scrolls are older than believed | The Jerusalem Post", "card_snippet": "Study: University of Groningen researchers developed AI model Enoch, combining radiocarbon dating and machine-learning handwriting analysis, to date Dead Sea Sc...", "card_note": null }, { "id": "B5", "origin": "card", "role": "Overview card 5", "card": "Haaretz — Dead Sea Scrolls May Be Older Than We Thought, AI-Based Study Says", "url": null, "kind": "Overview card (news); URL not found", "files": { "B5-search.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B5-search.html", "sha256": "16905a35c25ab1e8b12ea562da60283f7d297ec0347f17f57f4d6c0bcb67a7c5" }, "B5-search.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B5-search.txt", "sha256": "d942deffc6f400b4633b4786f649dd81a2614cf848478a128b0ba2af6f03c817" } }, "fetched": { "result": "URL not found", "tried": [ "WebSearch on the card's title and site, three queries (the title; the snippet's 'From Ithaca to Judea'; Popović and the caution T quotes): no Haaretz URL returned", "Haaretz's site search for 'Enoch Dead Sea Scrolls' with the honest agent: HTTP 200, a page that renders its results by script, no result in the saved text (B5-search.html)" ], "at": "2026-10-31T04:39:37Z", "agent": "alexanarch-seating/1.0 (https://www.alexanarch.org)" }, "names_operator": "no (the snippet names neither the authors nor Groningen)", "names_archive": "no (none of the Crimson Hexagonal Archive, Alexanarch, Lee Sharks, revelationfirst, Revelation First, machinemediation, EA-WG-CAPTURES-01 in the saved text, card title and snippet)", "note": "The card's title and snippet stand as its only text (F53). T's closing quotation, 'More research is needed to understand how Enoch's work will affect our understanding of the chronology of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Popovic cautions', is credited to this card and cannot be checked against it.", "surfaced_by_T": [ { "slug": "enoch-ai-dating-dead-sea-scrolls-aio-20261031", "card": 5 } ], "card_title": "Dead Sea Scrolls May Be Older Than We Thought, AI-Based Study Says", "card_snippet": "From Ithaca to Judea Enoch is not the first artificial intelligence used to study ancient texts in general or the Dead Sea Scrolls specifically. In 2022, a diff...", "card_note": null }, { "id": "B6", "origin": "card", "role": "Overview card 6; the NIH (PMC) copy of the study, one work with B1", "card": "National Institutes of Health (NIH) | (.gov) — Dating ancient manuscripts using radiocarbon and AI", "url": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12136314/", "kind": "Overview card (PubMed Central copy of the PLOS One article, PMC12136314)", "files": { "B6.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B6.html", "sha256": "2729f79cd0bfc60d11345d948d9b79949653979c62eb3b3e7935655f48c54ab8" }, "B6.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B6.txt", "sha256": "8936fddae7ba36b059012268f9cc3d188b9d639cda9d553f5f638cb5b9b099c6" } }, "fetched": { "at": "2026-10-31T04:39:29Z", "http": 200, "url": "https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12136314/", "agent": "alexanarch-seating/1.0 (https://www.alexanarch.org)", "raw": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B6.html", "raw_sha256": "2729f79cd0bfc60d11345d948d9b79949653979c62eb3b3e7935655f48c54ab8", "text": [ "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B6.txt" ] }, "names_operator": "yes (the authors and their affiliations: Qumran Institute, Bernoulli Institute, Center for Isotope Research, University of Groningen)", "names_archive": "no (none of the Crimson Hexagonal Archive, Alexanarch, Lee Sharks, revelationfirst, Revelation First, machinemediation, EA-WG-CAPTURES-01 in the saved text, card title and snippet)", "note": "URL by WebSearch (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12136314/), fetched at pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. One work with B1 (§3.6, §5.2: one lineage, one card); its kernel falls in B1's lineage (F31), and it is ledgered for the figures the PLOS page's text drops (F32) and the affiliations (F33). The snippet is the abstract's first sentence.", "surfaced_by_T": [ { "slug": "enoch-ai-dating-dead-sea-scrolls-aio-20261031", "card": 6 } ], "card_title": "Dating ancient manuscripts using radiocarbon and AI", "card_snippet": "Abstract Determining by means of palaeography the chronology of ancient handwritten manuscripts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls is essential for reconstructing the...", "card_note": null }, { "id": "B7", "origin": "card", "role": "Overview card 7", "card": "Facebook·National Geographic UK — the Dead Sea Scrolls. By combining time honoured excavation techniques ...", "url": null, "kind": "Overview card (video, 1m); URL not found; title only", "files": {}, "fetched": { "result": "URL not found", "tried": [ "WebSearch on the card's title and site (one query each, and a second on the channel name for card 8): no URL returned for the video" ], "not_fetched": "a video card is admitted through title and snippet (§3.1(a)); no snippet on the card" }, "names_operator": "no", "names_archive": "no (none of the Crimson Hexagonal Archive, Alexanarch, Lee Sharks, revelationfirst, Revelation First, machinemediation, EA-WG-CAPTURES-01 in the saved text, card title and snippet)", "note": "The card's title stands as its only text.", "surfaced_by_T": [ { "slug": "enoch-ai-dating-dead-sea-scrolls-aio-20261031", "card": 7 } ], "card_title": "the Dead Sea Scrolls. By combining time honoured excavation techniques ...", "card_snippet": null, "card_note": "video, [1m](https://www.google.com/goto?url=CAESwwEB6zswFTgqvHyiuPUYKb3jfB9s6lEQYwTYix0POLVAnUWuWm6yVtgjtciV98Y2Vdw6s9kOOofSHoX2xj2S_Q1H1Q9GlXvqKiM6uUWNjijD4NoXUkzY-nl2oLm2T9QBLoHEiJnXCsp00F83BilQE0Wv5MSzl796EBVUkeCg51X2rOzzEaMAZZtV13-i_s9_sKXxWCyp8mUn0DLHRxYDZdEqZ3yBasa-1PBZ4BCtziFAvTrwcGf_XSvaPotyBwiz1dW7LP4)" }, { "id": "B8", "origin": "card", "role": "Overview card 8", "card": "YouTube·Religion For Everybody — How AI Redated the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Enoch Machine Revealed", "url": null, "kind": "Overview card (video, 14:09); URL not found; title only", "files": {}, "fetched": { "result": "URL not found", "tried": [ "WebSearch on the card's title and site (one query each, and a second on the channel name for card 8): no URL returned for the video" ], "not_fetched": "a video card is admitted through title and snippet (§3.1(a)); no snippet on the card" }, "names_operator": "no", "names_archive": "no (none of the Crimson Hexagonal Archive, Alexanarch, Lee Sharks, revelationfirst, Revelation First, machinemediation, EA-WG-CAPTURES-01 in the saved text, card title and snippet)", "note": "The card's title stands as its only text.", "surfaced_by_T": [ { "slug": "enoch-ai-dating-dead-sea-scrolls-aio-20261031", "card": 8 } ], "card_title": "How AI Redated the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Enoch Machine Revealed", "card_snippet": null, "card_note": "video, 14:09" }, { "id": "B9", "origin": "card", "role": "Overview card 9", "card": "YouTube·Past Unsealed — AI Just Decoded the Dead Sea Scrolls — What It Found Changes Everything", "url": null, "kind": "Overview card (video, 4m); URL not found; title only", "files": {}, "fetched": { "result": "URL not found", "tried": [ "WebSearch on the card's title and site (one query each, and a second on the channel name for card 8): no URL returned for the video" ], "not_fetched": "a video card is admitted through title and snippet (§3.1(a)); no snippet on the card" }, "names_operator": "no", "names_archive": "no (none of the Crimson Hexagonal Archive, Alexanarch, Lee Sharks, revelationfirst, Revelation First, machinemediation, EA-WG-CAPTURES-01 in the saved text, card title and snippet)", "note": "The card's title stands as its only text.", "surfaced_by_T": [ { "slug": "enoch-ai-dating-dead-sea-scrolls-aio-20261031", "card": 9 } ], "card_title": "AI Just Decoded the Dead Sea Scrolls — What It Found Changes Everything", "card_snippet": null, "card_note": "video, 4m" }, { "id": "B10", "origin": "census_third_party", "role": "the census's third-party source enoch-dss-dating--erc (basis 'third_party'); not surfaced by T", "card": "European Research Council — Unlocking the timecode of the Dead Sea Scrolls (news, 5 June 2025)", "url": "https://erc.europa.eu/news-events/news/unlocking-timecode-dead-sea-scrolls", "kind": "the funder's news item on the study, saved by the census", "files": { "B10.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B10.html", "sha256": "7a61ba2a49c69e2d87caa019fd37b65b5e1c89176c0eaf132eaf2defa8c2bb3b" }, "B10.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B10.txt", "sha256": "74cbc3604778b53ddaed48226ea42160bc1ff18a9bd10d6d7121f79f6e7a62af" } }, "fetched": { "copied_from_census": true, "src": "enoch-dss-dating--erc", "url": "https://erc.europa.eu/news-events/news/unlocking-timecode-dead-sea-scrolls", "http": 200, "census_fetched": "2026-10-31T02:52:08Z", "sha256": "7a61ba2a49c69e2d87caa019fd37b65b5e1c89176c0eaf132eaf2defa8c2bb3b", "read": "2026-10-31", "agent": "alexanarch-seating/1.0 (https://www.alexanarch.org) (the census's fetch)", "note": "copied from the census's saved copy (gunzipped; sha256 matches); not refetched" }, "names_operator": "yes (Popović, 'ERC grantee'; Groningen; the project The Hands That Wrote the Bible)", "names_archive": "no (none of the Crimson Hexagonal Archive, Alexanarch, Lee Sharks, revelationfirst, Revelation First, machinemediation, EA-WG-CAPTURES-01 in the saved text, card title and snippet)", "note": "Admitted under its own origin, kept apart from the cards (BRIEF-NEW-ROW-FIELD §3). The census quotes its ¶3 as evidence 'palaeography'.", "surfaced_by_T": [] }, { "id": "B11", "origin": "census_third_party", "role": "the census's source enoch-dss-dating--scimex, recorded by the census as unread (HTTP 403); not surfaced by T", "card": "Scimex — Are the Dead Sea Scrolls older than we thought? Enoch the AI thinks so (press release)", "url": "https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/are-the-dead-sea-scrolls-older-than-we-thought-enoch-the-ai-thinks-so", "kind": "a press release the census tried and could not read", "files": { "B11-403.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B11-403.html", "sha256": "b676f219e426d4d66215ad3c48debe58ca70e9d44a1d00506b4f76c59e0bccd0" }, "B11-403.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B11-403.txt", "sha256": "301dc171e5fa8c5fdeb69592a92a5c378f5f758f68d2338200235d60eb04b9ad" } }, "fetched": { "result": "unread", "src": "enoch-dss-dating--scimex", "url": "https://www.scimex.org/newsfeed/are-the-dead-sea-scrolls-older-than-we-thought-enoch-the-ai-thinks-so", "http": 403, "census_fetched": "2026-10-31T02:52:10Z", "sha256": "b676f219e426d4d66215ad3c48debe58ca70e9d44a1d00506b4f76c59e0bccd0", "text": "'Just a moment...' (a bot-check page)", "note": "copied from the census's saved refusal; unread, as the census records it (unread_sources; unchecked); not retried" }, "names_operator": "unknown (unread)", "names_archive": "unknown (unread)", "note": "No claim is ledgered from it.", "surfaced_by_T": [] }, { "id": "B12", "origin": "wikipedia", "role": "Wikipedia: no article on the model; it is treated in the article Dead Sea Scrolls (§Dating: Radiocarbon dating ¶2; §Proposed older dates (2025)) and the article's later section on the 2026 ERC project", "card": "Wikipedia — Dead Sea Scrolls (no article on Enoch; §Radiocarbon dating, §Proposed older dates (2025))", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls", "kind": "encyclopedia sections (the entity has no article of its own)", "files": { "B12.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B12.html", "sha256": "097045e2253babd1db65a07cde13c0d0c5a564812267b23cd0ed0917c9551877" }, "B12.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B12.txt", "sha256": "ce7c6fc473956040d6a18f5abd0c7eb49a30a6ec315a3441b1dc6b072d66af1e" }, "B12.wiki": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B12.wiki", "sha256": "788dc028ea34138bef6aebb8787d35f185b8f5f15c26cc3e03d3a1a21dd09fc1" }, "B12-enoch.wiki": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B12-enoch.wiki", "sha256": "3854b9681e8b6980d402747415fc2154f2d64294f38b2d95462434ddb81fbbad" }, "B12-enoch-disambiguation.wiki": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B12-enoch-disambiguation.wiki", "sha256": "aba0ea87d77db2af5c82658182861d55e39eef569f517f03f3ad2596b541f54f" }, "B12-enoch-ai-404.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B12-enoch-ai-404.html", "sha256": "54cc28faa1fe7efc79214bde9ea9fcd0623930235440f01075966bd511815876" }, "B12-search.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B12-search.html", "sha256": "5d97b854ef344bfde5146c7fbe01bf3bbc1f82f4d607fd7aebe844a13f310b28" }, "B12-search.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B12-search.txt", "sha256": "4dccf44073d50181f7a483942ec08698f4d8801051e4c5fd73528fff07b83749" } }, "fetched": { "rendered": { "at": "2026-10-31T04:40:19Z", "http": 200, "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls", "agent": "alexanarch-seating/1.0 (https://www.alexanarch.org)" }, "wikitext": { "at": "2026-10-31T04:40:00Z", "http": 200, "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dead_Sea_Scrolls&action=raw", "agent": "alexanarch-seating/1.0 (https://www.alexanarch.org)", "saved_as": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B12.wiki" }, "no_article": { "tried": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enoch_(AI)&action=raw", "http": 404, "at": "2026-10-31T04:39:37Z", "saved_as": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B12-enoch-ai-404.html" }, "search": { "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Enoch+Dead+Sea+Scrolls+radiocarbon+Bayesian&ns0=1&fulltext=1", "http": 200, "at": "2026-10-31T04:39:38Z", "result": "'The page \" Enoch Dead Sea Scrolls radiocarbon Bayesian \" does not exist'; two results, Dead Sea Scrolls and Carbon dating the Dead Sea Scrolls", "saved_as": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B12-search.html" }, "api_search": { "tried": [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=search&srsearch=Enoch+Dead+Sea+Scrolls+radiocarbon+Popovi%C4%87", "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=search&srsearch=%22Bayesian+ridge+regression%22+scrolls" ], "http": 429, "at": "2026-10-31T04:39:51Z", "note": "rate-limited; not retried; the rendered search above stands" }, "bare_name": { "Enoch": { "at": "2026-10-31T04:40:22Z", "http": 200, "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enoch&action=raw", "agent": "alexanarch-seating/1.0 (https://www.alexanarch.org)", "saved_as": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B12-enoch.wiki", "short_description": "Biblical figure prior to Noah's flood" }, "Enoch (disambiguation)": { "at": "2026-10-31T04:40:24Z", "http": 200, "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Enoch_(disambiguation)&action=raw", "agent": "alexanarch-seating/1.0 (https://www.alexanarch.org)", "saved_as": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B12-enoch-disambiguation.wiki", "result": "no model, program or study of the name listed" } } }, "names_operator": "yes (Popović, 'the lead author'; Groningen)", "names_archive": "no (none of the Crimson Hexagonal Archive, Alexanarch, Lee Sharks, revelationfirst, Revelation First, machinemediation, EA-WG-CAPTURES-01 in the saved text, card title and snippet)", "note": "Ledgered: the §Radiocarbon dating paragraph on the 2025 study (F63, F64), §Proposed older dates (2025) (F65), the §Tracing Scribes and Scrolls paragraph (F66, a distinct successor project), and the disambiguation page's first line (F67, file B12-enoch-disambiguation.wiki). Quotes are from the rendered text, whose spacing ('AI -based') follows the page's link markup.", "surfaced_by_T": [] }, { "id": "B13", "origin": "wikipedia", "role": "Wikipedia: Carbon dating the Dead Sea Scrolls, its paragraph on the 2025 study (the same paragraph as B12's; one lineage)", "card": "Wikipedia — Carbon dating the Dead Sea Scrolls (¶ on the 2025 study)", "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating_the_Dead_Sea_Scrolls", "kind": "encyclopedia paragraph", "files": { "B13.html": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B13.html", "sha256": "ab9fa4ff6c7286bd43446e4b9aa403fd60cdecf209a7de8c621ae4cb52c053af" }, "B13.txt": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B13.txt", "sha256": "7ab376ea7dc88b3d768d801925cb9f07a24b51dd5b7b3ea739e7dba1985e92df" }, "B13.wiki": { "path": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B13.wiki", "sha256": "e563b06fa149a6e809f1d31946456f453dd81fdaf0cf796e379b417452a4afe5" } }, "fetched": { "rendered": { "at": "2026-10-31T04:40:44Z", "http": 200, "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dating_the_Dead_Sea_Scrolls", "agent": "alexanarch-seating/1.0 (https://www.alexanarch.org)" }, "wikitext": { "at": "2026-10-31T04:40:15Z", "http": 200, "url": "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carbon_dating_the_Dead_Sea_Scrolls&action=raw", "agent": "alexanarch-seating/1.0 (https://www.alexanarch.org)", "saved_as": "datasets/negative-of-the-negative/v2/intake/enoch-dss-dating-20261031/B13.wiki" } }, "names_operator": "yes (the citation: Popović et al., PLOS ONE)", "names_archive": "no (none of the Crimson Hexagonal Archive, Alexanarch, Lee Sharks, revelationfirst, Revelation First, machinemediation, EA-WG-CAPTURES-01 in the saved text, card title and snippet)", "note": "The paragraph restates B12's §Radiocarbon dating ¶2 word for word in its first three sentences; one lineage (F68 under F63).", "surfaced_by_T": [] } ] } }