Recent advances in radiocarbon dating and AI-assisted handwriting analysis suggest that some Dead Sea Scrolls, most notably a Daniel manuscript (4Q114), may be closer in date to the book’s mid-second-century BCE composition than previously thought, reinforcing the mainstream scholarly view that Daniel emerged during the crisis under Antiochus IV Epiphanes. The article situates this finding within a long history of flexible interpretation, showing how Daniel’s apocalyptic imagery has been repeatedly re-read to address new historical crises, from Hellenistic and Roman times to modern politics where the text is still invoked to frame contemporary conflicts and leaders in apocalyptic terms.[1]
See also “Avoiding the Apocalypse in the Book of Daniel,” in Misusing Scripture: What are Evangelicals Doing with the Bible? (Routledge, 2023).
By Ian Young
Professor of Biblical Studies and Ancient Languages
Australian Catholic University
By Gareth Wearne
Associate Professor of Biblical Studies and the History and Archaeology of Ancient Israel
Australian Catholic University
By Evan Caddy
PhD Candidate
Australian Catholic University
February 2026
Recently, a team of researchers from the Netherlands and Belgium made headlines when they claimed to have devised a method of using artificial intelligence to date the Dead Sea Scrolls.[2] The scholarly community is still digesting the results of the new study, but it is an exciting development that could have significant implications for the way we understand the Dead Sea Scrolls and the people whose stories they represent.
Lying behind the results is a new set of radiocarbon (or 14C) dates, which were used to train the artificial intelligence model to recognize and classify changes in handwriting styles over time. One of the things that makes the 14C results remarkable is that they indicate many of the Dead Sea Scrolls may be older than previously thought.
Debating the Age of Ancient Texts
Scholars have debated the age of the Dead Sea Scrolls since the discovery of the first manuscripts in 1947.[3] Very few of the scrolls contain internal evidence—such as references to historical people or events—that could be used to establish when they were written, so the question of dating initially focused on validating the discovery and determining that the scrolls were in fact 2000 or more years old, as they appeared to be. One of the first authorities to pronounce the scrolls authentic was the American archaeologist and ancient Hebrew handwriting expert, William Foxwell Albright.[4] During the 1950s and 1960s, Albright’s student Frank Moore Cross—a prominent member of the first team assembled to study the scrolls—went on to formulate a comprehensive model of the development of the Dead Sea Scrolls scripts between 300 BCE and 200 CE.[5] Cross’s typology is the bedrock of the conventional dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls. However, there are gaps in the data Cross used to develop his model, and many scholars doubt that it is as precise or reliable as is sometimes claimed.[6]
The new study is not the first time radiocarbon dating has been used to date the Dead Sea Scrolls. Samples of the scrolls were analyzed in two batches in the 1990s. However, those earlier results have been criticized because of the way they were interpreted to corroborate the conventional model.[7] The validity of the results was also challenged because of contamination due to castor oil, which was used by the first teams of scholars working on the scrolls to enhance their readability.[8] Subsequent studies determined that contaminated samples were most likely reported with ages that are too young, but it was not known by how much. The use of new techniques to prepare and clean the latest samples and improved precision in 14C dating methods mean the new radiocarbon results are the most dependable dates we have.
Determining the Book of Daniel’s Age
One manuscript stands out among the new 14C dates—a copy of part of the book of Daniel, conventionally identified as 4Q114 or 4QDanc. The 14C results for that manuscript indicate that it was most likely composed between the years 355–285 BCE or 230–160 BCE. Significantly, the latter of these ranges seems to line up with the widely held theory that the Book of Daniel was completed sometime in the 160s BCE.
At the same time, the implications of the radiocarbon date need to be stated carefully. As the original study emphasizes, the calibrated range of 230–160 BCE represents a span within which there is an equal probability throughout, rather than evidence favoring any specific year or decade within that range. The fact that this range accounts for 45.9% of the total calibrated probability reflects how the probability is distributed across multiple ranges, not an increased likelihood that the manuscript should be dated specifically to the 160s BCE. The significance of this result therefore lies in the compatibility of the radiocarbon date with a mid-second-century context, rather than in providing independent chronological precision.
The fact that scholars are so excited that a Daniel manuscript seems to date from near the time of composition of the Book of Daniel in the 160s BCE may need explanation for some readers. A first perusal of the book would appear to indicate that Daniel received these prophecies of the far future in his historical setting of the sixth century BCE. Why second century, then? Modern approaches to the Book of Daniel can, in fact, broadly be divided between mainstream scholarly approaches, which tend to argue for a mid-second century BCE date, and more traditional approaches, which tend to argue for an earlier sixth century BCE date.[9]
Daniel divides neatly in two parts. Chapters 1–6 tell of the adventures of Daniel and his friends in the Babylonian and Median royal courts. Chapters 7–12 are four apocalyptic visions. The redated Daniel manuscript, 4QDanc (4Q114) preserves small sections of the final vision found as chapters 10–12 of Daniel. Ever since commentary on Daniel began with the commentary of Hippolytus of Rome around 200 CE, readers aware of ancient history have agreed that this final vision, of the wars between the King of the North and the King of the South, refers to the conflicts between the successor kingdoms of Alexander the Great, the Seleucid dynasty in Syria and the Ptolemaic dynasty in Egypt, in the third and second centuries BCE. The bulk of the vision in Daniel 10–12 focuses on one King of the North, agreed by commentators to be the Seleucid king, Antiochus IV Epiphanes. According to sources like the books of 1 and 2 Maccabees, around 165 BCE Antiochus attempted to suppress Jewish practices like keeping the Sabbath, circumcising children, and reading the Torah/Law. The Temple was profaned, and new rituals were introduced like offering pigs. This crisis is the focus of the four apocalyptic visions of Daniel. The crisis was resolved when the Hasmonean family, led by Judas Maccabaeus, fought against Antiochus and liberated the Temple after approximately three years of it being occupied.
Most scholars of Daniel note how the account of the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes in Daniel chapters 11–12 transitions seamlessly into apocalyptic symbolism. Antiochus’ reign ends with the great final battle in the holy land, with Antiochus coming “to his end, with no one to help him” (Daniel 11:45), and “at that time” (Daniel 12:1) the angel Michael shall appear, there will be a final period of suffering, followed by the resurrection of the dead (Daniel 12:2–3). Based on analogies with other apocalyptic texts not in our Bibles, such as those found in the Book of 1 Enoch, scholars consider that the point where the text shifts from detailed description of known historical events, to apocalyptic symbols indicating God’s victory over the crisis, reflects the present of the author, i.e., in the middle of the crisis under Antiochus in the 160s BCE.[10] The Book of Daniel as we know it is formed by a combination of the four visions focused on the crisis under Antiochus with an older story collection, and thus Daniel is commonly dated to a few years before 160 BCE.
Some readers of Daniel are uncomfortable with this dating, however.[11] Surely the book itself claims that it was written by Daniel in the sixth century BCE? How could a false prophecy that wrongly predicted the end of history in the time of Antiochus IV be in the Bible? The resurrection of the dead did not happen in the mid-second century BCE! Scholars respond first of all by pointing out that “authorship” in the ancient Jewish world, unlike in the modern, was used more as a genre marker than as an author attribution. Writing various works under the name of Moses, Solomon, Ezra, Enoch, or others, in a range of historical contexts, marked them as belonging to the same intellectual stream as other works with the same attribution. In the same way, attributing apocalyptic visions to Daniel was a way of situating them in the context of the other Daniel literature collected in the book and elsewhere.
Reading the Apocalypse, from Ancient to Modern Times
Ancient people also seem to have had a more flexible understanding of the meaning of apocalyptic symbols than many modern people do. They considered that Daniel’s visions had made true predictions about the defeat of Antiochus and the triumph of God’s cause using apocalyptic symbols, rather than ticking off whether every detail of the visions literally happened. For example, early Christian commentators in the following centuries, such as Hippolytus of Rome c. 200 CE or Ishodad of Merv c. 850 CE, interpreted Daniel’s statements about God’s victory over Antiochus as referring to the Jewish military victories that liberated the Temple.
It also seems evident that Daniel was highly esteemed soon after the time when its prophecies supposedly failed. The early date of 4QDanc (4Q114) is a glimpse of the book as it hits the ground running in terms of popularity and influence. This is one of eight Daniel manuscripts found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, more copies than most books of the Hebrew Bible. Various non-biblical scrolls found at Qumran, such as the War Scroll, show the influence of Daniel in shaping how they discuss the future. The earliest Greek translation of Daniel is usually dated to the latter part of the second century BCE, its early translation showing the regard in which the book was held. So important was Daniel thought to be, in fact, that a second translation was made into Greek in the following century.
We have seen how Daniel’s apocalyptic images were already understood flexibly by early readers. This flexibility has led to these images being reinterpreted throughout history, right up to the present day. One of the most important interpretative moves was to apply the visions to the rise of the Roman Empire. Once the Hellenistic kingdoms of Daniel’s original visions had faded away it made sense to understand that the great enemy empire of God’s people referred to in Daniel was the current imperial power, Rome. Although Daniel chapter 8 was still understood as a vision fulfilled in Antiochus’ day, the visions in chapter 7, 9, and 10–12, with their more explicit linking of the destruction of the final kingdom to the events of the end times, were re-interpreted to refer to Rome in what might be called the “western” tradition of interpretation. The Jewish historian Josephus in the late first century CE and various Christian commentators such as Hippolytus and St Jerome held this Roman interpretation, which became a common way of understanding Daniel throughout history.
The flexible way that Daniel was understood by early interpreters is revealed when the Jewish apocalypse of 4 Ezra (c. 100 CE) says about one of its visions that: “The eagle that you saw coming up from the sea is the fourth kingdom that appeared in a vision to your brother Daniel. But it was not explained to him as I now explain to you” (4 Ezra 12:11–12). In other words, the author of 4 Ezra is conscious that the meaning of Daniel’s vision as it was explained to him is not the same as the new meaning now being revealed, where the eagle stands for Rome. Even when the Roman Empire fell, the Roman interpretation has been upheld by many traditional Christian readers up to the present day, although what exactly “Rome” now meant in each era has been a matter of discussion,[12] with the Roman Catholic Church being one popular suggestion.
The Roman interpretation of Daniel’s final kingdom was not the only one, however. Eastern Christian interpreters such as St Ephrem,[13] or Ishodad of Merv, continued to understand the final kingdom in all of Daniel’s visions to be the Seleucid Greeks, with Antiochus IV as the last king. The translation of the Bible into Syriac used by the eastern churches, the Peshitta, even has headings identifying the major characters in this way. Other commentators throughout history have gone a yet different direction. Thus, for example, the Jewish commentator Yephet ibn Ali, who was active in the Middle East in the tenth century CE, suggested that the final kingdom in Daniel referred to the rise of Islam. There are even a few medieval bilingual Coptic-Arabic copies of Daniel that add an extra chapter to make this exact point.
Moving the understanding of the last kingdom mentioned in Daniel away from the Seleucid Greek one has also had the effect of opening up the identity of the last king to new interpretations. A particularly popular interpretation, especially in the western Christian tradition, is to understand Daniel to be talking about an Antichrist figure, a final evil king whose reign ushers in the Last Days before the Final Judgement. By combining statements about the final king in the Book of Daniel with statements made elsewhere in the Bible, especially in the New Testament apocalypse, the Book of Revelation, a profile has been and continues to be constructed of what this last king will look like.[14] Preoccupation with the Antichrist has often been associated with literalistic interpretations that see the Book of Daniel as providing a map of what will happen (shortly) in the Last Days. This is the view generally held by Conservative Evangelical Christians, whose support of many right-wing politicians—most recently Donald Trump—has often been paired with the language and imagery of this interpretative tradition,[15] including claims that their political opponents are the Antichrist. Even so, this has not prevented some literalistic readers of Daniel from arguing that Trump himself is the Antichrist. He joins a long list of candidates spanning centuries, a list that testifies to the enduring power of Daniel’s visions to speak to new historical situations of crisis.
[1] An earlier version of this article was published as Ian Young, Gareth Wearne and Evan Caddy, “How Redating the Dead Sea Scrolls Puts New Spin on the Apocalyptic Visions of Daniel,” ABC Religion and Ethics, 15 July, 2025.
[2] Mladen Popović, Maruf A. Dhali, Lambert Schomaker, Johannes van der Plicht, Kaare Lund Rasmussen, Jacopo La Nasa, Ilaria Degano, Maria Perla Colombini, and Eibert Tigchelaar, “Dating Ancient Manuscripts Using Radiocarbon and AI-based Writing Style Analysis,” PLoS One 20(6) (2025): e0323185.
[3] For an account of the discovery and authentication see Weston W. Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A Short History (Leiden: Brill, 2006).
[4] Fields, The Dead Sea Scrolls, 32–33.
[5] See Eibert Tigchelaar, “Seventy Years of Palaeographic Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in Henryk Drawnel, ed., Sacred Texts and Disparate Interpretations: Qumran Manuscripts Seventy Years Later Proceedings of the International Conference Held at the John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, 24–26 October 2017, STDJ 133 (2020), 258–78.
[6] Popović et al., “Dating Ancient Manuscripts,” Appendix S1.
[7] See, for example, Rick Van De Water, “Reconsidering Palaeographic and Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Revue de Qumrân 19 (2000): 423–39; Joseph Atwill and Steve Braunheim, “Redating the Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Dead Sea Discoveries 11 (2004): 143–57.
[8] Kaare L. Rasmussen, Johannes van der Plicht, Frederick H. Cryer, Gregory Doudna, Frank M. Cross, and John Strugnell. “The Effects of Possible Contamination on the Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls I: Castor Oil,” Radiocarbon 43 (2001): 127–32; Kaare Lund Rasmussen, Johannes van der Plicht, Gregory Doudna, Frederik Nielsen, Peter Højrup, Erling Halfdan Stenby, and Carl Th Pedersen, “The Effects of Possible Contamination on the Radiocarbon Dating of the Dead Sea Scrolls II: Empirical Methods to Remove Castor Oil and Suggestions for Redating,” Radiocarbon 51 (2009): 1005–22.
[9] The traditional view is especially upheld by self-identified Conservative Evangelicals. Many scholars who identify as Evangelical, however, hold to the mainstream scholarly view. For scholars upholding the traditional view see, e.g., Andrew E. Steinmann, Daniel, Concordia Commentary (Saint Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 2008); Joe M. Sprinkle, Daniel, Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary (Bellingham: Lexham, 2020); J. Paul Tanner, Daniel, Evangelical Exegetical Commentary (Bellingham: Lexham Academic, 2020). For examples of Evangelical scholars who hold to or are sympathetic to the mainstream view see, e.g., Ernest Lucas, Daniel, Apollos Old Testament Commentary 20 (Leicester: Apollos, 2002); John Goldingay, Daniel, rev. edn; Word Biblical Commentary 30 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2019); Aubrey E. Buster and John H. Walton, The Book of Daniel: Chapters 1–6, New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2025). For further orientation on this debate, see Ian Young and Thomas J. Elms, “Avoiding the Apocalypse in the Book of Daniel,” in Misusing Scripture: What Are Evangelicals Doing with the Bible?, ed. Mark Elliott, Kenneth Atkinson, and Robert Rezetko; Routledge New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies (London: Routledge, 2023), 200–25; Ian Young, “What Makes a ‘Conservative Evangelical’ Commentary on Daniel? A Consideration of Two Recent Publications,” Australian Biblical Review 71 (2023): 103–16.
[10] For more detail on scholarly arguments for this date of Daniel, see Young and Elms, “Avoiding the Apocalypse.”
[11] Critiques of the mainstream scholarly views on Daniel by those following the traditional view and responses to them are discussed in Young and Elms, “Avoiding the Apocalypse,” and Young, “What Makes.” Indeed, some following this traditional view have claimed support from the new carbon dating for their views, see here and here. They argue, for example, that a date range of 230–160 BCE averages out as 195 BCE, and thus makes it likely that Daniel 10–12 is much earlier than scholars think. However, as explained above, and see further here, this is not how carbon date ranges work: there is an equal probability throughout the date range. Similarly, the claim that it is unlikely that, even accepting a date in the 160s BCE, Daniel could have been so quickly accepted into the biblical canon, puts a new face on an old argument about 4Q114, and is equally unconvincing. If Daniel was written in the 160s BCE there were obviously manuscripts of the book in existence at that time and in the following years. There is no evidence one way or another that this copy of Daniel was viewed as “canonical.”
[12] One popular Evangelical author, commenting on the seventh beast of Daniel 7:7–8, writes “The Roman Empire never completely disappeared, as did other ancient kingdoms … the nations of Western Europe and those adjacent to the Mediterranean are still part of what once was the Roman Empire. … The old Roman kingdom continued, but without dominion.” Later, referring to the same beast as the Antichrist, he writes, “Once he has brought together three nations [horns; see Daniel 7:8] out of the European confederacy and has control over them, he will overpower the remaining European nations.” David Jeremiah and C. C. Carlson, The Handwriting on the Wall: Secrets from the Prophecies of Daniel (W Publishing, 2019): 134, 151. See also Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Resolute: Determining to Go God’s Direction (Colorado Springs: David C. Cook, 2000): 109. These kinds of interpretations also appear in more technical work written by some (though not all) Evangelical scholars; see, for example, Stephen R. Miller, Daniel, NAC 18 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1994): 202–203.
[13] Or another early author, if the Commentary on Daniel has been wrongly attributed to Ephrem, a point of debate among scholars.
[14] For a popular-level example, see Jeremiah, The Handwriting on the Wall, 143–52. J. Paul Tanner, an Evangelical scholar who holds to a premillennial interpretation of Daniel, outlines several positions on the Antichrist in Daniel among traditional interpreters: Tanner, Daniel, 693–722.
[15] See, for example, televangelist Paula White-Cain calling on angelic help against “demonic confederacies” in the 2020 US presidential election. It should be noted that White-Cain would not be considered an Evangelical under some definitions, but her words here are a particularly striking example of a phenomenon visible elsewhere, for example, here and here. As Conservative Evangelicalism in the USA has moved away from traditional theological markers and become increasingly defined by (and indeed divided over) political and ethnic factors, it is unsurprising to see figures such as White-Cain in the same camp as more traditional Evangelical leaders such as Franklin Graham.