Assumptions and Limitations of ‘The Secret of Qumran’ Research

 

R.P. Quangfu April 5 2014 105Some years ago I published this article on the Old KingsCalendar website but as that is not so smartphone friendly I am republishing the article on this new site. Before proceeding directly to the assumptions and limitations, I have provided some information to help readers appreciate what ‘The King’s Calendar: The Secret of Qumran’ actually is. It is the result of 10 years research into the chronological problems contained in the Bible in relation to the history of Israel

Definition: King’s Calendar Chronological Research
What is the King’s Calendar?

The Premise of the King’s Calendar: The Secret of Qumran’ is that between the 5th and 3rd centuries BC (but continuing down to at least 104 BC), sectarian redactors transcribed the legitimate ‘solar year’ chronological records of Israel and Judah into an artificial form with listed years as each comprised of 12 months of 4 weeks of 7 days, or 336 days per year, thus creating a 13th artificial year where 12 solar years existed. When the Synchronous Chronological Data provided in the Books of Kings and Chronicles for the Divided Kingdom Period are measured in years of 336 days, the synchronisms actually align. [Refer to Appendix Five to see how it synchronises the Divided Kingdom Period]

General formula for Biblical Data conversion:

The formula for constructing the artificial calendar was:

‘X’ years times 364 equals ‘Y’ days
‘Y’ days divided by 336 equals ‘Z’ artificial years.

Values are:

‘X’ = any given number of ‘real/solar’ years
364 = perceived days in the sectarian calendar
‘Y’ = number of days calculated
336 = number of days in an artificial year
‘Z’ = artificial years = 1.083’X’ and represents the original number of the converted years plus 8%.

To reverse the process by hand:

‘Z’ years times 336 equals ‘Y’ divided by 364 equals the Number of ‘X’ years converted.

The Principle of Linear Causality

The King’s Calendar substitutes a value of 336 days for every year listed in Scripture. As far as the Divided Kingdom is concerned, when you use this 336 day year value, the synchronisms actually work. Because it is a mathematical system, the King’s Calendar must abide by certain mathematical rules, the most important of which is that if you change any date for any day, month, or year every other day, month, or year is affected and must also change. It’s like a ‘domino effect.’ Chronological references cannot be ‘forced’ to fit, and nor can they simply be ignored or ‘compressed’ as is the usual case with historians and archaeologists.

If any King’s Calendar chronological determination disagrees with anything in the history books, it must argue the case as to why the history books are wrong, or why the evidence for an assertion is untrustworthy. If the King’s Calendar successfully defends its position, then the history books cannot be treated as definitive, and if the King’s Calendar is ‘proven’ wrong, then every other chronological reference it provides is also wrong.

Because of this, the King’s Calendar Chronological Reconstruction of Israel’s history is unique in that its’ methodology can be scientifically (mathematically) tested and demonstrated to be either true or false. Its chronological predictions are able to be ‘proved’ or ‘disproved.’

Assumptions

There are Nine (9) assumptions listed in this section, which while discussed individually, are first of all provided as a succinct descriptive statementĀ concerning the ‘King’s Calendar’ hypothesis.

The Hypothesis:

It is assumed that ‘original’ Biblical (Historical) Chronological data was transcribed into an artificial calendar that consisted of years comprised of 336 days each, which had their origins in a 364 day solar calendar, as was believed in by the Dead Sea Sect. The redactorial encryption of this artificial calendar occurred between the 5th and 3rd centuries BC., and was accomplished ‘presumably’ by the ‘Proto-Essenes’ or ‘Hasidim’ of Babylon who saw an artificial period of Seventy (70) years of Sabbath Rest visited upon the land (2 Chronicles 36:2) in consequence of 490 years (Leviticus 25:4) of past Monarchal History of Israel in which it did not occur. The creative process of the artificial calendar reduced each Solar year by one and one quarter days, which must be corrected in order to accurately portray the true solar history of Israel.

The Breakdown

1. It is assumed that ‘original’ Biblical (Historical) Chronological data was transcribed into an artificial calendar:

Logic dictates, that as the sum total of Biblical chronological data (especially for the divided kingdom) exceeds known history, that that data is either grossly erroneous or encrypted, and that academics who postulate theories dependent upon supportive chronological references within those narratives, but which in consequence require copious quantities of other data to be compressed or deleted, do disservice to true logical scientific research.

2. And that that calendar consisted of years comprised of 336 days each:

The statistical probabilities involved in the successful synchronization of biblical data via a 336 day year speaks for itself. This artificial system is ‘extremely’ susceptible (mathematically) to verification or falsification. It is highly improbable therefore that the synchronous results of this artificial calendar are coincidental.

3. Which had their origins in a 364 day solar calendar, as was believed in by the Dead Sea Sect:

It may not! However, the mathematical link between a 336 day year and 364 day year are too obvious to be coincidental. Both are based upon seven day weeks and four week months. There is no other calendar to this writer’s knowledge from which a 336 day year might have been derived.

To date, the 364 day calendar of the Essenes has confounded academics, for it is completely illogical to accept that they actually lived by such a calendar.

4. The redactorial encryption of this artificial calendar occurred between the 5th and 3rd centuries BC:

That no-one has ever been able to successfully synchronise the chronological data is, from the perspective of deductive reasoning, unreasonable if the artificial construct were in ‘common usage’ by the various writers and therefore, common knowledge. As redactorial insertion, it is unreasonable to conclude that it occurred prior to the collation of the materials. Since the Septuagint is almost completely in agreement with the Masoretic and therefore presumably with the standard text of the third century BC, it is unreasonable to conclude that the insertion occurred after the Septuagint was written.

The Assumption of a 5th to 3rd Century redactorial insertion, is both logical and probable.

5. And was accomplished ‘presumably’ by the ‘Proto-Essenes’ or ‘Hasidim’ of Babylon:

The testimony of the Dead Sea Sect in the Damascus Document makes it clear that the Palestinian Community were ignorant until the Teacher of Righteousness came and revealed to them the mysteries (particularly in relation to times and calendars) and secrets of G-d. The artificial construct appears therefore to pre-date the Palestinian Origins of the Essenes. Furthermore, that the chronological data was not generally known to be artificial, indicates justified probability that it was a closely guarded secret, and hence, eventually, knowledge of it disappeared.

6. Who saw an artificial period of Seventy (70) years of Sabbath Rest visited upon the land (2 Chron 36:21):

The Biblical basis for a seventy year exile originates in Jeremiah 25:11, but is demonstrably a redactorial insertion. Furthermore, in solar years, seventy years extends to 516 BC, well past the end of the exile.

7. In consequence of 490 years (Leviticus 25:4) of past Monarchal History in which it did not occur:

The ‘King’s Calendar’ assumption is that the Seventy years of Sabbath Rest in 2 Chronicles 36:21, reflects a past Monarchal history of 490 artificial years during which the land was not rested in accordance with Leviticus 25:4. As the revealed biblical chronological data for the kings of Ancient Israel (not including Saul) amounts to a little less than 490 years, the assumption seems justified. It is however not quite demonstrated, since the total number of revealed years of the monarchy is equal to 473 years, with no provision for the reign of Saul.

8. The creative process of the artificial calendar reduced each Solar year by one and one quarter days:

In converting the chronological records of the nation into years of 364 days, the redactors short-changed ‘true’ history by one and one quarter days for each year converted, and therefore failed to accurately reflect via an artificial means, their true history.

9. Which must be corrected in order to accurately portray the true solar history of Israel.

This assumption holds ‘true’ if the foregoing assumptions are correct. Nevertheless, that reconstructed history will not be as accurate as it appears to be portrayed, by reason of the multiple conversion processes involved.

Limitations

There will undoubtedly be a number of general limitations which will escape being listed herein, but there is one in particular which bears revealing, and concerns the multiple layers of mathematical processes involved in the construction and reconstruction of the artificial calendar. It shall be the first to which attention will be drawn.

The Mathematics of Calendars.

Out of the artificial conversion processes in relation to the ancient Israelite records and those used here in reconstructing them, there arise complex issues that will undoubtedly never be resolved.

The first issue is that at different time periods, differing ‘New Year’ dates were in use. At some point in the records, New Year shifted from the month of Tishri to the month of Nisan, and there is no way of knowing if this was ever accounted for in the original redactorial conversion process.

The second issue is that those records were originally recorded from a ‘Lunar’ calendrical perspective. Therefore, different years were of differing lengths, so that twelve (Gregorian) calendar months later than a particular date did not necessarily mean a return to the same ‘Lunar or Babylonian’ date or named month. (For Example between 1900 and 1930 of the Common Era, dates for Rosh Hashanah varied between September 2nd and October 26th, a total variation of 54 days.)

Thirdly, the historically recorded years were treated as ‘Solar Years.’ But these ‘Solar Years’ were not equivalent to ‘true’ solar years of 365.25 days. Therefore the conversion process short-changed history.

Fourthly, in following the procedures as outlined in this work, the reference to ‘Solar year’ fails to take into account the variation which occurs over the centuries by virtue of the ‘literal’ (minutes and seconds) length of a ‘solar year.’

Succinctly, the process has been one of converting Lunar records into miscalculated Solar records, which are then converted into an artificial record which is then reconverted, by arbitrarily correcting the inherent errors from within an approximately correct solar calendar.

Whilst the ultimate result within any given ‘Gregorian’ calendrical year appears accurate, the reality is that results at best, are approximations only, and that ‘factually,’ historical events and regnal years may have occurred perhaps a month or two earlier or later. The further we travel back from 586 BC, the more this will hold true.

Furthermore, if, as discussed in Appendix Ten (Methodology), the redactors in their conversion process had at their disposal records relating to the total number of months and years of both accession and regnal year reigns of kings, the ‘Artificial New Year Dates’ as calculated by the ‘King’s Calendar’ will represent the ‘Actual Accession’ Month (approximately). If this is correct, we have an approximate record of when each king died.

Throughout this work however, this principle has not been insisted upon and accession dates have remained decidedly nebulous, being allowed to occur at any time within the last regnal year of any specified king.

Specific Limitations

1. The year in which the Temple of Solomon was destroyed.

The ‘King’s Calendar’ requires it to have been 586 BC, as opposed to current opinion that it was 587 BC. Nevertheless, sufficient apologetic is provided to justify 586 BC as the correct year. Unless it can be proved beyond ‘legal’ question that 587 BC is the correct year, there can be no justification for rejection of the ‘King’s Calendar’ apologetic and acceptance of 586 BC.

2. The Date for the Burning of the Temple

This is the most major limitation of the ‘King’s Calendar,’ for it must rely upon academic opinion. The ‘King’s Calendar’ can only be as accurate as academic calculations for the year 586 BC. The ‘King’s Calendar’ accepts that it is not necessarily ‘exactly’ accurate in its artificial commencement date in 586 BC, but that the biblical synchronisms in conjunction with the data of the Babylonian Chronicles for the period 606 BC to 586 BC, demonstrate that it can not be more than a few days out.

3. Artificial New Year Dates.

The assertion of the ‘King’s Calendar’ is that the historical data, which will have been preserved in the form of solar/agricultural years, was transcribed into years of 364 days, and then altered to construct an artificial calendar of 336 days.

Since a 364 day calendar year is roughly 1.25 days short of a true solar year, the mathematical calculations from which the artificial calendar was derived will have been incorrect, and therefore, it has been necessary to re-insert those missing days, in order to arrive at a true reconstruction of history.

That re-insertion of days was done in a random fashion, by inserting the missed number of days over 13 year blocks. Therefore, Artificial New Year Dates are estimates only. This generally is insignificant, except where they occur near to known dates for Nisan in the Jewish calendar, or Near year dates in our current calendars.

4. Personal Chronological Data of the Kings.

Where data has been provided in the biblical narratives in regard to ages of various kings, there is as much probability that the data was provided from within the artificial construct, as there is that it reflects the original solar year recorded data. The ‘King’s Calendar’ accepts such data as provided from within the artificial construct.

5. Chronological References to Months and Days.

The synchronisation between the biblical narratives and the Babylonian Chronicles for the last twenty years of Judah’s history indicates that such references are generally provided from within the artificial construct. Nevertheless, it is also conceded that some references, particularly in reference to named months such as Ziv, and Bul etc, may reflect the actual month as it appeared in the original solar references.

The Pre-Exilic practice was to number months, whilst the post exilic practice was to ‘Name’ months. It is as plausible to assume that Named months are as they were in the solar chronological record, as it is that named months were so named in accordance with the numerical equivalency within the artificial construct.

6. The 13.5 year Duplication of Reigns

While not in fact a limitation, this issue is raised here to ensure that readers have some formal notification of it, in case the issue is not visually appreciated as encountered in the chronological charts within this volume.

The artificial synchronisms demonstrate that there was a twelve year overlap in the reigns of Uzziah and his father, as well as one year in relation to Jotham and Ahaz, and six months allocated to Jehoahaz and Jehoiachin, (but absorbed by their successors). Therefore, when dealing with any biblical or extra biblical extended chronological reference, that is, to large periods of history, these 13.5 years must be deducted from those chronological references.

This would not apply to the 1 Kings 6:1 reference (from the 4th year of Solomon back to the Exodus), but would apply to periods inclusive of the above named kings.

7. The Complexities of Apologetics

The single and most difficult limitation of the ‘King’s Calendar,’ is that the many and various issues involved in the ‘King’s Calendar’ reconstruction, are like spider’s webs. This author is but one person, arguing one basic premise that covers an extensive period of history, involving numerous ‘specialist’ fields, which will be defended by numerous specialists.

It will be observed that ‘apparently’ logical arguments that might be presented to counter a specific claim of the ‘King’s Calendar’ will relate specifically to particular issues, concerning which the ‘King’s Calendar,’ in order to successfully defend itself, will be obliged to carry the argument into other arenas. This will be most evident in Chapters Two and Three, where so many issues affect other issues.

For a succinct example, it can be noted that Ezekiel 1:1, which in reality synchronises the Thirteenth (13th) year of Ezekiel with the Fifth (5th) year of Jehoiachin, can be seen to do so in ordinary solar years. Therefore, it could be argued that the ‘King’s Calendar’ presentation is invalid. However, the validation for the ‘King’s Calendar’ interpretation, is actually to be found in the apologetics provided for the year 586 BC as the year in which Jerusalem fell, as it relates to the reign of Nebuchadrezzar, and the thirty-seven (37) years of Jehoiachin’s imprisonment, as synchronised with the accession of Amel-Marduk in Babylon in 562 BC, and an astronomical event in the year 568 BC.

This takes us back to the statement in ‘Assumptions 1,’ that it is illogical for Academics who believe that the biblical data is false through inaccuracy or encryption, to use that data to support their particular opinions, for, if one asserts that the chronological synchronism of Ezekiel 1:1 is true and correct in solar years, it must also be accepted as correct, that Jehoiachin was imprisoned for Thirty-Seven (37) solar years until Amel-Marduk’s accession. Such can be demonstrated not to be true. However, that he was imprisoned for Thirty-Seven (37) artificial years is demonstrable.

This interconnectedness of a variety of issues is not only the basis of the justification for the ‘King’s Calendar,’ but the heavy burden of it’s ‘Burden of Proof.’

Readers are invited to read the Free to Air Chapters and Appendices
which are available on the internet.
The Research Proposal can be found in Appendix Two
Methodology of the King’s Calendar on this new site.

Other Articles of Interest:

Biblical Infallibility and Skepticism.
Israel’s Period of the Judges
What is the King’s Calendar?
Chapter Precis

The KingsCalendar The Secret of QumranR.P. BenDedek
Email: rpbendedek@hotmail.com
www.facebook.com/reb.bendedek
Articles at iPatriot.com

Author of
The King’s Calendar : The Secret of Qumran
“Finding Myself in China: A Politically Incorrect Story”

Comments

comments

3 thoughts on “Assumptions and Limitations of ‘The Secret of Qumran’ Research”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *