Methodology of The Secret of Qumran: King’s Calendar


This article was originally published on the Old KingsCalendar website but because it is not smartphone friendly, I have republished the article here. Assumptions and Limitations also appear on this new site.

King’s Calendar Chronological Hypothesis

The King’s Calendar: The Secret of Qumran hypothesis is that ‘original’ Biblical (Historical) Chronological data was transcribed into an artificial calendar and that that calendar 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 70 years of Sabbath Rest visited upon the land (2 Chronicles 36:21), in consequence of 490 years (Leviticus 25:4) of past Monarchal History in which it did not occur. The redactorial creative process of the artificial calendar reduced each true Solar year by one and one quarter days, which must be corrected in order to accurately portray the true solar history of Israel. 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]

The ‘Hypotheses’ may be broken down into Six Assumptions.

Assumption One

The biblical (and extra biblical) data is recorded in artificial ‘years’ of 336 days each, and that this data can be measured against ‘real’ history/time and synchronised with it.

Assumption Two

That the artificial construct was derived from a ‘Perceived’ Solar Calendar comprised of 364 days.

Assumption Three

That there is contained within the encoded data an inherent one and one quarter day error for each true solar year that was erroneously assigned the value of 364 days.

Assumption Four

That the original number of ‘full value 365.25 day’ solar years of Israelite History used to create the artificial calendar, can be reconstructed.

Assumption Five

That the formula for constructing the artificial calendar was ‘X’ times 364 equals ‘Y’ days divided by 336 equals ‘Z’ artificial years.

‘X’ being any given number of historical ‘real’ years multiplied by the 364 perceived days in a year resulting in ‘Y’ number of days calculated divided by the 336 days assigned for an artificial year to create ‘Z’ artificial years.

Therefore ‘Z’ = 1.083X. The figure ‘Z’ (artificial years) represents the original number of the converted years plus 8%.

The reverse process must be ‘Z’ times 336 equals ‘Y’ divided by 364 to equal the Number of ‘X’ years converted.

Assumption Six

That in order to generate a calendar that reflects both the ‘True and Original’ Solar year history as well as the artificial history, the missing one and one quarter days per true solar year converted must be reinserted into the artificial calendar that is created in order to reflect the ‘Actual’ solar years elapsing during that history.

The Methodology of the King’s Calendar

Step One: Select a commencement date.

The first trial artificial calendar created was commenced on 1.7.934 BC as an equidistant point in a randomly selected year within a range of years available for the commencement of the divided kingdom. From this it was determined that an artificial calendar of 336 days per year was effective in eliminating many of the various synchronistic difficulties within the Biblical Narrative.

As recorded in Chapter One and discussed in Chapter Two however, it was eventually calculated that the insertion or synchronisation point of the artificial calendar within the Babylonian Calendar, was the 9th day of the fourth month of the year in which the Temple was destroyed, and from this it was determined that the First Day of the Artificial Calendar for that year was 17.4.586 BC. Nevertheless, two calendars were generated, one for 586 BC and one for 587 BC as current academic opinion favoured 587 BC as the year in which Solomon’s Temple was destroyed.

Step Two: Generate a computerised calendar.

It was necessary to create a computer program that would generate a consecutive and continuous ‘calendar of days’ over a two thousand year period. The first such calendar using 1.7.934 BC as its commencement date was organised by a friend. Sometime later the task of duplicating this calendar was assigned to a company which hired a professional to accomplish the task.

Once it was determined that the two productions were similar in results, a commission was given to generate a number of other calendars for use in experimenting with the 336 day year.

Step Three: Divide the calendar into periods of 336 days

Creating these divisions provides a base from which to reconstruct the original data. The 336 day periods of artificial years however contained an accumulating error, which needed to be corrected. These divisions of 336 days give an approximation however of what the ‘redactorial instigators’ intended, although such is incorrect by virtue the inherent error.

Step Four: Divide the data into 13 year blocks (representing 12 solar years)

Since a 364 day calendar year will devalue true ‘solar years’ by 15 days over twelve solar years, thirteen artificial year ‘blocks’ were marked out for the purpose of artificially re-instating the 15 missing days.

Step Five: Offset the inherent error.

This was achieved by adding an extra day to Eleven of the Thirteen artificial years, extending them to [b]337 days, and adding two extra days to the remaining two artificial years extending them to [b]338 days. In this manner the fifteen days per (12 solar) 13 artificial years is restored.

Via this process it was observed that the date of each of the thirteen artificial New Year Days, reoccurs every thirteen artificial years.

Step Six: Record adjusted new year dates.

Having reinserted the missing days, each ‘Artificial Year’s New Year Day’ was identified and noted.

Step Seven: Compare the data with chronological samples.

Samples of artificial chronologies include not only Biblical records but extra biblical records contained in the works of Josephus, and the chronological references in the ‘Damascus Document’ of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The chronological data of each of these samples was measured in artificial years within the calendar.

Result: The various samples were observably synchronous.

Since the calendar operates on the principle of ‘lineal causality,’ it proceeds on the same principle known as the ‘ripple effect.’ It MUST continue in a straight line without deviation. If it is demonstrably (Chronologically) in error in one place, is MUST be chronologically in error EVERYWHERE else.

This by no means requires that all of the conclusions and applications of data contained within the ‘King’s Calendar’ MUST be correct. It means only that the principle of the ‘artificial year’ is a constant with a constant value (relatively speaking). [The arbitrary reconstruction of the calendar does allow for some ‘real time’ variation in individual ‘year’ applications].

The Calendar of course can only be as correct as is the chronological data upon which it relies, and some of that data has been revealed, (by virtue of failed synchronisms) to be incorrect.

The Limitation of an Artificial Calendar

Generally, Biblical Chronological Data in relation to specific Kings is provided in ‘whole’ years, not parts thereof. By this is meant that there is almost no reference to specific events occurring in specific months.

Given that the reconversion of the artificial years into solar years does not approximate ‘whole’ solar years, that is to say, they do not fall on or around anticipated ‘First of Nisan’ dates, the data contained in them must be comprised not only of ‘whole’ years in which kings reigned, but accession year months as well.

Therefore it is further speculated, that this data is meant only to indicate that point within a solar year that the kings ascended to their thrones.

Because this artificial calendar is presented from within a Gregorian calendar, it cannot be asserted that these New Year dates approximate the associated months in the Babylonian Calendar, (by reason of the variable length of the Babylonian Year). Refer to Limitations and Assumptions

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

Other Articles of Interest:
Chapter Precis
Divine Inspiration & Academic Deceit. 
Biblical Infallibility and Skepticism.
Israel’s Period of the Judges

The KingsCalendar The Secret of QumranR.P. BenDedek
Articles at

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