The King's Calendar' is a computer generated mathematical synchronous chronological presentation of the history of Ancient Israel, as principally recorded in the Biblical books of Kings and Chronicles, and sets forth Apologetics for and the results of R.P.BenDedek's discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Books of the Bible, Josephus,the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah. What is the King's Calendar?
The Secret of Qumran (King's Calendar) Artificial Calendar:
Fanciful or Gnostic?
That 'The Secret of Qumran' proposes that the chronological data in Israel's ancient historical records was (circa 450-250 BC) altered and concealed within an 'artificial' chronology, is enough to put some people off. (Criticism of the Secret of Qumran.)
There have been quite a few Bible codes and conspiracies and other equally interesting books, that in essence read like The Da Vinci Code. It is understandable therefore that "The Secret of Qumran" should be viewed with distrust and relegated to the realms of fanciful 'theories' or 'gnosticism' (the search for hidden Wisdon).
But unlike these types of gnostic delvings and fanciful conspiracies, the Secret of Qumran simply states that a well documented but little understood fact of history is responsible for our failure to understand the chronological record of the Bible. That well documented but little understood fact is that the Essenes [Qumran Sect - Dead Sea Sect] used a 364 day calendar (Jubilee Calendar).
This article shows that the 364-day calendar is used by the Priestly writer both in Genesis 1 and in the Flood Narrative, thus suggesting that one of the aims of the Priestly writing was to establish a new calendar to mark the end of the Babylonian rule.
A jubilee ago, Annie Jaubert claimed that the calendar of the book of Jubilees is to be regarded as an ancient priestly calendar which the Essenes continued to use.
James VanderKam has partly confirmed Jaubert’s hypothesis, and recently B. K. Gardner has produced a monograph where he shows that ‘there was a covert, sophisticated synchronistic tradition of 364-day calendrics in the post-exilic Priestly Writer P’.
This respective hypothesis--that a cyclical count 7 days was once used to track the reoccurrence of 7 years--can be substantiated from certain Jewish sources (2nd-Temple Era). Of particular significance are those passages from the sea scrolls that show the calendar year was defined by a number of days divisible by seven.
As is further shown below, a fixed number of calendar days in each annual cycle (or 364 days) appears to have always been assigned. (Note that this respective number of calendar days is exactly divisible by 7 days).
In some early literature the annual circle, or the year, was calculated through a reckoning of 364 stations:
"... the exactness of the year is accomplished through its separate three hundred and sixty-four stations." ('Enoch', Chapter 75: 2-3, translated by R.H. Charles).
It is well understood that Bible Chronology is excessive of real history. But no one understands why.
The contention of the King's Calendar is that when you divide the 364 days of the Jubilee Calendar into 12 months of 4 weeks of 7 days, to form an artificial year, 13 artificial years replace 12 solar years.
When 336 days is used to measure out the Biblical years, the result is astounding. See for yourself.
What follows now in this article is provided to counter accusations that 'The Secret of Qumran' is fanciful and/or gnostic. Provided here is a copy of footnotes that appear in Chapter One (freely available on line), to draw attention to the underlying apologetic for the 'King's Calendar' position.
King's Calendar Apologetic
(From Chapter One Footnote (9) Nine.
Apologetic For the Significance of the Qumran 364 day calendar.)
ESSENE COMPLICITY:
As a good place to start in the search for significant indication of complicity by the original sectarian society of Qumran, the following material may be of assistance.
Wise, et.al.(1996) pp. 25,119,125.
Davies.(1982).p78
Schonfeld. (1984) Ch.7 pp66-67
Additionally Note that although Josephus and Philo reveal no knowledge of the 364 day calendar (Wise Et.Al.1996 p 25) Josephus does provide extra Biblical data recorded in the artificial construct, and one wonders at its' point of origin. For example, his reference to there having transpired 471 years between the re-establishment of the monarchy under Aristobolus in 104 BCE and the return from Exile under "Cyrus. [Cornfeld.G. (1982) Josephus: The Jewish War. Zondervan Publishing House Michigan. p.25. Ch. III (1) 70.]
It can hardly be coincidence, that the mathematical construct of the artificial calendar interprets and confirms that the stated parameters of Josephus' chronological reference are precisely as he indicate, ie. He was right!
Later he changed this figure from 471 years to 481 years, (Antiquities XIII Cornfeld, 1982, p.25), which is correct in Solar years, but for a different set of parameters. (Josephus : Chapter 20 & Appendix 12)
The conclusion to draw is that the chronological data was derived from an external source, and that its artificial nature was unknown and therefore not understood. The question remains though, 'From whence did such data originate'?
There appears to be no evidence to assert that the artificial calendar had its Origin in the Dead Sea Community at Qumran, but their fanatical adherence to the 364 day calendar, coupled with their secret and mysterious ways do provide significant indication of both their knowledge and use of it.
The 'Palestinian' community was undoubtedly not involved in the original transcription, for it appears that they had no knowledge of it until the appearance of the Teacher of Righteousness. It is nevertheless possible that they may have continued to search for and adjust any previously missed details, for example 1 Kings 6:1 which in the received text at the time of the Septuagint, must have read 440 years not 480 years.
Refer also to Wise et.al. 1996 p 172 on the community's rewriting of scriptural portions - to p. 199 clarifying confusing chronology concerning Sinai and to pages 119 & 125 on the 'pesher' approach to biblical interpretations.'
Refer also to Vanderkam. (1994) in reference to the 3rd century placement of the 364 day calendar.
SOCIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE AND CANONICAL SANCTITY:
Possibly the biggest obstacle to not only the concept of an 'Artificial Construct' but 'Essene' complicity in it, will be something not generally found discussed in the fields of Theology, Archaeology or Ancient History, but in the fields of Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology.
Our biggest obstacle to such a 'Novel' idea is that which one writer in relation to 'God honouring' approaches. [Gottwald. N. (1979) Tribes of Yahweh. New York . Orbis Books page 5] describes as 'Canonical Sanctity'. This expression relates to the ways in which our thinking processes are affected by either our 'religiosity or anti-religiosity'. See Bibliotheca Sacra (1989) McFall [page 404]
Another obstacle (inhibition) is described by Gottwald as 'academic overspecialisation' which by definition, does not promote a 'holistic view' of the totality of the matters given over to such specialisation.
What these mean to the 'King's Calendar' is that between those whose total focus is on one specific field, and those feeling that their underlying religious or anti-religious tendencies are threatened, there will be an automatic 'knee jerk' reaction to either the possibility of an artificial construct, or to the possibility that 'The Bible' has been tampered with (Refer to next section: Redactorial Opinion), or to the possibility that it originated with the Essenes or Proto-Essenes.
The 'experts' in matters relating to the Dead Sea Sect and the documents of Qumran, will find their particular 'mind sets' challenged. Many will provide forceful logical argument, but when it comes to 'Sectarianism', Sociology, not Logic is the regimen required in its understanding. Sectarianism and indoctrination go hand in hand, and its' faith always supercedes Logic, evidence and commonsense.
In short, while the 'Supposition' of the 'King's Calendar' is that the artificial calendar was introduced into the historical materials by the 'Essenes or Proto-Essenes', in Babylon originally, and later in Palestine, there is no absolute proof that they were or were not the instigators. Nevertheless, the indications are there, and such processes are indicative of sectarianism.
For sociological perspectives, see also:
Schwarz. G. (1970) Sect Ideologies and Social Status. University of Chicago Press
Sealey. J. (1985) Religious Education: Philosophical Perspectives. London. George Allen & Unwin.
Elias.N. [1978] What is Sociology? New York. Columbia University Press (page 149 para 2).
REDACTORIAL OPINION:
The 'King's Calendar' premise that historical chronological data was altered by way of an artificial chronology to suit the purposes of sectarian interest, is not at all inconsistent with the many and various theories to come out of the school of 'Higher Criticism'. Grant.M. (1984) The History of Ancient Israel. New York. Charles Scribner's and Sons Chapter 14 onwards, provides a great deal of enlightening information in relation to 'redactorial historical revisionism'.
The 'King's Calendar' hypothesis merely extends such 'commonly accepted' opinions, and transfers them from narrative text to chronological data designed to accomplish peculiar and sectarian redactorial interest and 'interpretation'. In fact, Grant's (1984 p.191/192) comments in relation to Nehemiah, echo similar conclusions reached by Wise et.al.(1996) in relation to the mind set of the Dead Sea Sect community members.
Whilst there appears every indication that the artificial construct originates with the progenitors of the Essenes current academic uncertainty in relation to Essenes, Qumran, and Dead Sea Sect make it difficult to make definitive or absolute assertions.
Definition: King's Calendar Chronological Research
The Premise: Between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE (but continuing down to at least 104 BCE), 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' 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.
To see how effective this method is, SEE:Appendix 5:Diagrammatic Reconstruction of Israelite History from 936 to 586 BCE:
The Principle of Linear Causality
The King's Calendar is a very simple approach to Biblical Chronology. It 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. To see how effective this method is, SEE:Appendix 5: Diagrammatic Reconstruction of Israelite History from 936 to 586 BCE
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 effected 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'.
R.P.BenDedek is from Brisbane Australia and is the author of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' at http://www.kingscalendar.com His academic articles set forth Apologetics for and results of his discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Bible, Josephus, the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah.
He writes photographic 'Stories from China' and social editorial commentaries, both at KingsCalendar, and as a contributing newspaper columnist. He currently teaches Conversational English in China and in addition to his English Lessons at KingsCalendar, he has created specific sites for Students of English.
