What the current working evidence may support
The date dimension must be named before a year or range is displayed. Different dimensions may be valid at the same time.
Enoch Research Question
Which date are we actually asking for?
The phrase “when was Enoch written?” can refer to composition, translation, physical copying, reception, acquisition, publication, digitization, or a modern reinterpretation.
This page maps the question, the working positions, the evidence attached to each position, and the evidence still needed. It does not select a belief for the visitor.
ENO-Q-001 · Method
Which date are we actually asking for?
The phrase “when was Enoch written?” can refer to composition, translation, physical copying, reception, acquisition, publication, digitization, or a modern reinterpretation.
Where the answer must stop
No single year can responsibly stand for the whole literary, manuscript, and reception history of 1 Enoch.
Non-scoring position map
Compare the claims each position makes
The cards are ordered for explanation, not ranked by truth or popularity. Use the rail controls, native scrollbar, arrow keys, Home, or End.
Position 1 of 3
One date for the whole book
A single date can summarize the origin of the complete text.
What supports it
A single date may be convenient for a short label.
What limits it
It erases the composite corpus, translation stages, physical witnesses, and later reception.
Open linked evidence IDs
Claims: ENO-CLM-026, ENO-CLM-027
Separate date dimensions
Composition, translation, physical witness, copying, reception, acquisition, publication, and digitization require separate fields.
What supports it
The working data model already maintains eight distinct date dimensions.
What limits it
The exact date within any one dimension may still remain approximate or disputed.
Open linked evidence IDs
Claims: ENO-CLM-026, ENO-CLM-027
Use only physical dates
Only dates attached to surviving artifacts should appear on a chronology.
What supports it
Physical dates are materially bounded and less likely to impersonate composition dates.
What limits it
This would hide important translation, reception, and editorial history unless those are shown elsewhere.
Open linked evidence IDs
Witnesses: ENO-WIT-001, ENO-WIT-005, ENO-WIT-008
Evidence path
Inspect the bounded records behind the positions
These are links to working records, not an automatic verdict. A repeated source family remains one source family.
4 linked records
- 4Q201c. 200–150 BCE
- Panopolitanus5th–6th century CE
- Bruce 7416th century CE
- Milik 19761976 CE
2 linked claims
- Translation is not an originalHistorical reconstruction
- Critical edition is not artifactScholarly interpretation
0 linked units
- No corpus-unit record is linked.
0 linked records
- No reception record is linked.
What could change the map?
Evidence and review still needed
Open requirement
Named review of date terminology and state labels.
Open requirement
Catalogue or edition exits for every displayed physical date.
Open requirement
Clear uncertainty and method notes for composition proposals.
Question graph
Prerequisites and downstream questions
Questions this map depends on
Questions that depend on this map
Private provenance bindings
Where future named review must attach
Source dossier IDs
CCX-EMR-SRC-01, CCX-EMR-SRC-07
Review packet IDs
CCX-EMR-01, CCX-EMR-07
Public status
Dossier-derived working question. No position is a canonical research entity or named specialist disposition.