P904-Fr009 · plate 904 · DJD 36, plate I, fragment 2
Published reference checked
S10 gives a bottom-right sampling location. It does not itself supply a public sampling diagram.
DOCUMENT BIOGRAPHY · ARAMAIC
Enoch’s Aramaic Witness
Trace 4Q201’s Aramaic Enoch text, writing on both faces, a measured parchment sample and the questions still open about its author, recovery and translation.
4Q201 · 4Q Enᵃ · Israel Antiquities Authority · catalogue route
Structured pilot reviewed 9 November 2026 · unresolved claims remain open.
Fragment, photograph and edition trail ↗Translated or still unchecked? ↗Sample and calibrated date ranges ↗The two manuscript designations ↗Author, scribe and modern contributors ↗Dates and discovery ↗Three evidence slots per claim ↗Translation coverage ↗What would close the gaps? ↗
Follow the fragment’s identity trail
Follow the numbers through the laboratory report, custodian photographs and a later fragment study. A matching outline is documented as a project comparison, not substituted for a sampling record.
Candidate image concordance located · IAA confirmation requested 9 November 2026
B-366868 · plate 904, fragment 9 · recto
Custodian metadata checked
The May 2012 full-spectrum colour image is linked from the plate photograph B-298333. The photograph date does not date the manuscript.
4Q201 fragment 2 · Langlois pp. 389–390
Project visual match · provisional
The outline and surviving text areas correspond to B-366868. Langlois reproduces PAM 42.228 and 43.198; confirmation of the actual sampled cut is still needed.
M26 → museum plate 904 → PAM 43.198
Historical inventory link checked
This is a plate-level link. A museum mounting plate, photographic negative number and edition fragment number belong to different numbering systems.
Exact finder / field or acquisition entry not yet assigned
Open · item-level evidence requested
The reported 1952 excavation lead for a large fragment cannot be transferred to this piece by reusing the number 2. A photograph proves presence at the time of photography, not an excavation date.
Translated, damaged or still unchecked?
Translation coverage is recorded for a named language and unit. These selected checks do not measure the percentage of the manuscript translated. An unread edition page, a damaged word and a missing ancient line are different gaps.
| Unit / language | What is located | What remains open |
|---|---|---|
| Exhibition I ii 12–14English | Selected published translation checked Greenfield · Library of Congress | Its precise image and modern verse concordance remain open. |
| Exhibition I iii 13–16English | Selected published translation checked Greenfield · Library of Congress | Restoration brackets remain part of the reading evidence; this excerpt is not fragment 2. |
| 4Q201 fragment 2 · numbered positions 1–7French | Selected translation located and checked Langlois 2008, pp. 389–399; rendering p. 399 | Fragmentary expressions are rendered at positions 1–3; later positions are ellipses. The discussion treats the presence of lines 6–7 as uncertain. Proposed placement in the Book of Giants is provisional. |
| DJD 36, 4Q201 fragments 2–8English coverage to verify | Edition reference located · pages not inspected Stuckenbruck 2000, pp. 3–7, plate I | A published edition is identified. This review has not obtained or audited its English translation line by line; it cannot call the fragment untranslated. |
One parchment sample.
Two possible date ranges.
The 2025 report lets us follow a measured piece from its sample identifier to the calibrated result. The result concerns the writing support. Different texts are catalogued for the manuscript’s two faces; the sampled fragment’s exact verso association still needs confirmation.
- Sample
- P904-Fr009
- Published designations
- 4Q201/4Q338 · 4QEnᵃ ar / 4QGenealogical List
- Sampling reference
- DJD 36, plate I, fragment 2 · plate 904
- Sampling location
- Bottom right; 7–8 mg in two pieces (S10)
- Laboratory codes
- GrM-13389; GrM-13390; GrM-14173; GrM-14174
- Combined radiocarbon age
- 2077 ± 18 BP · radiocarbon years before 1950, not a BCE calendar year
- Calibration
- OxCal v4.4.4 · IntCal20 / Reimer et al. (2020)
Two alternative calendar intervals for the same sample
200 BCE100 BCE1 CE
- 165–40 BCE · 93.6% of the calibrated distribution
- 10–1 BCE · 1.9% of the calibrated distribution
Bands show calendar ranges, not a probability-density curve. Their widths do not represent probability weights. The plot reports a 95.4% total probability level. Its separately rounded component labels are 93.6% and 1.9%; these are preserved as printed. The gap between the two ranges is not filled in.
What this measurement can establish
One identified parchment sample, reported under two manuscript designations. Four laboratory codes are measurement runs, not four independent manuscripts or four independent confirmations. Radiocarbon dates carbon in the writing support, not the application of ink, the composition of the work or the lifetime of Enoch.
Cleaning and conservation
S2 describes solvent extraction in Odense, followed in Groningen by a modified acid-only preparation: 0.5–1% HCl at about 4°C for ten minutes, without the alkaline step, then AMS measurement. Its first ten samples are listed separately; 4Q201/4Q338 is outside that list. The report therefore places it in the remaining twenty-sample, four-step solvent protocol. This batch assignment follows the published list, rather than an individual bench sheet.
The sample-specific analytical table reports proteinaceous and lipid materials before cleaning. Lipid presence alone does not identify modern castor oil or prove its source. The report evaluates cleaning effectiveness across the dataset; an item-level bench log and conservation history have not been obtained.
Keep the physical identification open
A candidate image concordance is now located: IAA B-366868 is plate 904, fragment 9, and its outline matches the fragment labelled 4Q201 2 in Langlois, p. 389. The historical inventory connects plate 904 / M26 to PAM 43.198. S10 independently names P904-Fr009 and DJD 36 plate I fragment 2. The numerical and visual alignment is strong, but the exact cut, edition crosswalk and recovery record still require custodian confirmation; plate 821 is a different mounted grouping.
Why two manuscript numbers?
An opisthograph has writing on both faces. The two labels describe different texts associated with the same writing support; they are not two independent carbon-date confirmations.
Recto · 4Q201
Aramaic Book of Watchers material within the Enoch tradition.
The literary attribution to Enoch does not name the person who copied this manuscript.
Verso · 4Q338
A separate, poorly identified text, tentatively called Genealogical List?.
The question mark matters. It does not establish a named lineage, tribe or author; no separate laboratory date for either face is established here.
Who is connected to this text?
Enoch
Attribution
The work’s Enochic identity does not establish that the surviving parchment is an autograph.
Individual identity not established here
Unknown
Authorship of the work, its literary speaker and the scribe of this copy are distinct questions.
Anonymous in the reviewed records
Unknown
Handwriting analysis may characterize a hand without providing a personal name.
J. T. Milik; J. C. Greenfield
Named responsibility
The exhibition credits Milik’s transcription, amended by Greenfield, and Greenfield’s selected English translation.
Places and proposed communities
Qumran Cave 4
Manuscript catalogue / find context · Reported context
This is not proof of a named tribe, individual writer or one community’s authorship of every scroll.
Proposed Qumran / Essene connections
Scholarly community hypothesis · Unresolved for this author
Community hypotheses need manuscript-specific arguments. No tribal identity is assigned.
The document’s life through time
Dates belong to a specific event and source. Unassigned years remain visible; a manufacture or material date is not silently used as the date of composition, the author’s life or the narrated events.
Literary setting · Unassigned
Basis: Textual attribution
A patriarchal narrative setting is not a laboratory age or the copy date.
Open · Unassigned
Basis: Textual and historical analysis needed
Do not apply one date to all sections or substitute the patriarch’s lifetime.
Historical assessment · Range
Basis: Exhibition dating; underlying method to trace
Retained with its source date. It is not presented as a newly established consensus.
Open · Unassigned
Basis: Item-level field / acquisition records needed
Machiela reports mixed 1952 recovery routes and a large fragment associated with official excavation plate PAM 40.985. A candidate image/edition concordance for the sampled piece is now recorded, but its specific field or accession entry remains unverified. Competing fragment numberings cannot establish that it is the same excavated piece.
Publication reference located · Year
Basis: Exhibition bibliography
The publication year dates an edition, not the ancient copy.
Selected public translation · Year
Basis: Exhibition publication
Full manuscript translation coverage is not established by the excerpt.
Primary report and supplements checked · Year
Basis: Primary research and supporting sample tables
The study’s publication date is separate from the ancient sample date. The AI model is trained with radiocarbon reference data; it is not an independent second laboratory measurement.
Published material measurement transcribed · Disjoint calibrated intervals · 95.4% reported level
Basis: AMS radiocarbon, 2077 ± 18 BP; OxCal 4.4.4 / IntCal20
Two alternative probability intervals for one parchment sample, not two manufacture events. Neither is an ink, composition or author date. Component percentages are rounded in the published plot.
Published photographic-history reference · Month reported; plotted at year scale
Basis: Langlois photograph table p. 61 and fragment 2 image p. 389
Documents a photograph, not excavation or antiquity. The table and fragment-study numbering must remain identifiable.
Published photographic-history reference · Month reported; plotted at year scale
Basis: Langlois photograph table p. 61; historical inventory plate concordance
The photographic inventory links this negative to museum plate 904. The modern photograph date is distinct from an ancient writing date or recovery date.
Edition reference corroborated; pages not inspected · Year
Basis: IAA publication list and Langlois p. 51
Establishes that these fragments were subsequently published. The older inventory’s unpublished labels cannot establish their status today; exact English coverage remains unchecked.
Selected edition pages and rendering inspected · Year
Basis: Author-hosted study pp. 389–399
A French rendering exists for this fragmentary unit. Textual placement remains debated and this is not proof that every line survives or that a whole-witness translation audit is complete.
What supports each claim?
A 1993 exhibition assigned this copy a 200–150 BCE range.
Historical caption retained; later material result separately documented
1 documented supporting source group · three evidence slots, not a confidence score
The exhibition explicitly prints this copy range.
The 2025 material ranges overlap part of the older copy estimate and also permit later dates. They measure a different thing and do not establish one exact writing year.
Locate the palaeographic argument and a manuscript-specific independent comparison.
The 2025 report dates parchment sample P904-Fr009 under the label 4Q201/4Q338, with two separate calibrated ranges.
One published laboratory dataset traced; physical concordance still open
1 documented supporting source group · three evidence slots, not a confidence score
S2 supplies the combined radiocarbon age and laboratory codes; S3 supplies the probability ranges; S10 supplies the sample locator. All belong to one study.
The custodian now supplies a plate 904, fragment 9 image candidate (B-366868). Metadata supports a locator comparison, not an independent radiocarbon result or verification of the cut.
Machiela independently explains the two faces and the numbering problem. This is manuscript scholarship, not a repeat laboratory test or a confirmed match to the sampled piece.
A named English translation exists for the selected exhibition passages.
Selected coverage documented; whole-witness coverage unverified
1 documented supporting source group · three evidence slots, not a confidence score
Greenfield’s excerpt and translation credit are public.
The exhibition caption belongs to the same source package; it is not a second independent translation.
Match the print edition and manuscript photographs to the exact surviving units.
The published sample locator has a specific public photograph candidate and a French fragment study to compare.
Locator and visual concordance documented; sampled-cut confirmation pending
1 documented supporting source group · three evidence slots, not a confidence score
The laboratory sampling table identifies P904-Fr009 and DJD 36 plate I fragment 2. It supplies the reported sampling address.
IAA B-366868 identifies plate 904, fragment 9. Its metadata does not certify that this is the exact piece from which the laboratory cut was taken.
Langlois’s fragment 2 photographs give a matching outline and a French reading. The visual comparison is our inference across the two image records; the historical inventory is a supporting plate cross-reference.
Which words have a translation?
Selected translation located · full coverage unchecked
Passage: Enᵃ I ii 12–14 and I iii 13–16
Reference: Greenfield translation, with Milik transcription amended by Greenfield
French rendering checked · damaged and uncertain lines retained
Passage: 4Q201 fragment 2 · Langlois’s numbered positions 1–7
Reference: Langlois, Le premier manuscrit du Livre d’Hénoch (2008), pp. 389–399; French text p. 399. This is not a new Babylon translation or a verified English coverage assessment.
The next question has a precise address
Can the IAA confirm the B-366868 / fragment 2 concordance and identify the exact sampling cut?
Compare the located image, edition photograph and S10 locator; retain the match as provisional until an item-level sampling or conservation record confirms it. Focused IAA follow-up sent 9 November 2026.
Which record documents the exact fragment recovery and subsequent custody?
Use the reported PAM 40.985 excavation lead and a numbering concordance to determine which fragment it concerns. Request the specific field/accession record once the unit is matched; do not transfer that recovery history to P904-Fr009 by assumption.
What is the exact English coverage of fragment 2, and how do the two exhibition excerpts map to photographs?
French fragment 2 coverage is now documented. Obtain or consult DJD 36 pp. 3–7 and its plate I, retain damaged/uncertain positions, and map the separate exhibition units to images. No whole-witness completion claim is made.
Source register and review limits
These entries identify what was consulted and what it can support. A historical caption retains its assessment date. A public link, received file, named author or project inquiry does not independently validate every related claim.
- Library of Congress · 4Q201 exhibition caption ↗
Historical institutional exhibition · The Enoch Scroll · 1993 exhibition
Reported copy range and edition reference; retained as a dated assessment, not declared current consensus.
- Library of Congress · Enoch translation excerpt ↗
Selected translation · Enᵃ I ii 12–14 and I iii 13–16; attribution at foot
Milik transcription amended by Greenfield; Greenfield translation. Selected excerpt, not whole surviving manuscript.
- Israel Antiquities Authority · 4Q201 record ↗
Custodian catalogue route · Manuscript 4Q201
Stable witness route from the existing register. Full image-to-edition collation has not been completed.
- Popović et al. · manuscript dating study (2025) ↗
Primary research article · Section 3, Fig. 1 and supporting sample tables
Primary study published 4 June 2025. Its supporting sample, calibration and selection records are transcribed below. The handwriting model uses radiocarbon training data and is not an independent replication of a training-sample date.
- USC · Discovering the Dead Sea Scrolls ↗
University research overview · Discussion of discovery and authorship
Collection context; does not identify the individual author, scribe or precise find history of 4Q201.
- 2025 dating study · S2 laboratory report ↗
Primary study supplement · Table S1, PDF p. 6; §§S2.2 and S2.7, PDF pp. 2–4, 9–10, 13, 15–17
Sample P904-Fr009, four laboratory codes, combined radiocarbon result, cleaning protocol and chemical-analysis limitations. Same research dataset as S3, S4 and S10.
- 2025 dating study · S3 calibrated probability plot ↗
Primary study supplement · PDF p. 3 · plot headed 4Q201/4Q338
R_Date(2077,18); two separate components at the reported 95.4% probability level. OxCal 4.4.4, atmospheric calibration from Reimer et al. (2020). Not an ink or authorship date.
- 2025 dating study · S10 sample selection record ↗
Primary study supplement · Table S20, PDF p. 3 · plate 904
P904-Fr009; 4Q201/4Q338; DJD 36, plate I, fragment 2; bottom right; 7–8 mg in two pieces. A sampling reference, not an excavation log.
- 2025 dating study · S4 handwriting comparison ↗
Primary study supplement · PDF p. 5 · 4Q201 discussion
Compares earlier palaeographic estimates with the material date. The thick, worn writing nib complicates script assessment. This comparison belongs to the same study, not a second laboratory.
- IAA · image B-298328, plate 821/Rec ↗
Custodian image metadata · B-298328 · recto · plate 821/Rec
Lists 4Q201 and 4Q338 (Genealogical List?). This plate is not plate 904 of the sample record. “Unknown Date” concerns the modern photograph, not the ancient text.
- Daniel Machiela · 4Q201/4Q338 manuscript profile ↗
Author’s manuscript study · A Handbook of the Aramaic Scrolls from the Qumran Caves, chapter 2, §1, printed p. 24; DOI 10.1163/9789004513815_003
Describes recto/verso texts, competing fragment numbering and a 1952 recovery lead for one large fragment. The profile does not identify the sampled fragment’s finder. Open chapter: CC BY-NC-ND 4.0.
- IAA · plate 904 photograph B-298333 ↗
Custodian plate metadata · Plate 904 · January 2012 · Shai Halevi · recto
Public plate record links its individually numbered fragment images. These are modern photograph dates.
- IAA · plate 904, fragment 9 · B-366868 ↗
Custodian fragment image and metadata · Plate 904, fragment 9 · May 2012 · full-spectrum colour · recto
Metadata identifies 4Q201 and the plate/fragment number. Visual outline comparison with Langlois p. 389 supplies a strong candidate concordance; an identified sampling cut and item-level recovery record remain unconfirmed.
- Photographic inventory · Fascicle 10 ↗
Historical research inventory, republished by a university project · 4Q201 document list; PAM 43.197–43.198; museum plates 821 and 904
Connects M26 / museum plate 904 to PAM 43.198; M25 / plate 821 to PAM 43.197. Preliminary historical inventory, not a current statement of untranslated material or present custody.
- Michaël Langlois · 4Q201 fragment study (2008) ↗
Author-hosted primary manuscript study · Le premier manuscrit du Livre d’Hénoch: pp. 51, 61, 389–399; French rendering p. 399
Selected pages checked, including photographs, reading uncertainties and French translation of fragment 2. Describes fragments 2–8 as published in DJD 36 (2000). Its proposed Book of Giants association is a scholarly hypothesis, not a settled identification. Source PDF remains at the author’s site.
Learning in the Light
In Babylon, the Father’s light opens perspective, learning and a chosen next step. Your worth remains intact. Every person is sovereign, with dignity, freedom and room to grow.
Read the learning principle ↗Astronomical Enoch, with the letter map
Follow 4Q208 and 4Q209, the Moon’s schematic cycle, the fuller Enoch names and all twenty-two Babylon letter correspondences.
Astronomical Enoch, with the letter map ↗Read it. Hear it. Follow the connection.
Bring this study into a Babylon collection, with its reading arrangement and edition kept visible.