Paleojudaica blogspot comments on Kingscalendar: Archaeology: History of Israel: Bible times.I am extremely skeptical of this sort of anonymously self-published attempt to solve a huge problem that has been occupying scholars for many years. In this case, I'm not at all sure that this problem has a solution, at least of the straightforward type the author envisions.
PaleoJudaica Blogspot
The First Academic Website to Comment on the "Secret of Qumran"
A Book on the Qumran Calendar and the Bible is being self-published on the Web.
Here's an excerpt from the Yahoo News press release:
'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' Sheds New Light on Questions of Old Testament Chronology
Tuesday November 18, 8:18 am ET BRISBANE, Australia, Nov.18 /PRNewswire/
After ten years of research into the chronological inconsistencies of the Bible's Old Testament - primarily the books of Kings and Chronicles - theologian R.P. BenDedek has uncovered the millennia-old mystery that, he believes, was intended to result in an inflation of the chronological history of ancient Israel. Now BenDedek has published his findings in a new book, "The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran," on the Web at www.kingscalendar.com.
"For over a century, the chronological history of ancient Israel has remained problematic for theologians, archaeologists and historians alike, by virtue of biblical chronology that exceeds the known parameters of ancient Near Eastern history," BenDedek explained. "But when I stumbled across a common mathematical thread running through biblical chronology, the records of Josephus, and the Damascus Document of the Dead Sea Scrolls, I knew I had found something of great significance."
Paleojudaica Comment Published.
That something turned out to be an artificial calendar year. When BenDedek substituted a 336-day year (twelve months of four seven-day weeks) for the Essene 364-day solar year (thirteen months of four seven-day weeks), he found that the chronological inconsistencies in I and II Kings and Chronicles disappeared.
The first third of the book is free but you have to pay for the rest, when the rest becomes available.
Site Comments
I am extremely skeptical of this sort of anonymously self-published attempt to solve a huge problem that has been occupying scholars for many years. In this case, I'm not at all sure that this problem has a solution, at least of the straightforward type the author envisions.
If the author wants to be taken seriously, he or she should go public, present their credentials, and convince a reputable academic publisher to publish the book. This is not an area I have a lot of interest in, but a quick look-through doesn't turn up anything to allay my skepticism. For example, I can find nothing in chapter one on the numerous, extremely difficult, calendrical texts from Qumran or the burgeoning secondary literature on them. In general, knowledge of the secondary literature looks quite sketchy. If any specialists in Qumran or Israelite calendrical problems want to take the time to have a look and e-mail me their comments, I'll consider posting them here.
Meanwhile, I would advise you to save your money for something more credible.
posted by Jim Davila 1:44 PM
---------------------------------------
May I say to Mr. Davila....
"Thank you very much Sir - Your comments were appreciated". RPBD.
Quote:If the author want to be taken Seriously...!!!
WHY WOULD I NOT WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY??
What is interesting about the comments is:
That two Highly respected Academic Publications would not publish an excerpt from my work because they found it too technical for the readership.
Notice the comments about: Presenting credentials?
How many people with credentials are worthy of such credentials?
What would be considered to be 'credentials'?
Would my credentials be acceptable?
I suspect that since I don't belong to a boy's club, that no amount of credentials would be acceptable.
If my work is proven legitimate, it is going to put a lot of theorising academics out of work. Theories make more money than the fact. N'est ce pas?
R.P.BenDedek
Some Academics think that the hypothesis of the King's Calendar is absurd, but where the rubber hits the road, they do not even attempt to disprove one historical conclusion made in the KingsCalendar.
Instead much of what they present as historical fact is little more than opinion, presumption and extrapolation. The following list of articles was written to demonstrate this very point.
If you have ever done a jigsaw puzzle then you know that it is possible for a number of pieces to look like they fit, but it is not until you are down to the last few pieces, that you discover that some pieces that originally seemed to fit, were misplaced.
This article is devoted to demonstrating that pieces of the historical jigsaw in relation to Ancient Near Eastern History that were thought to fit the jigsaw, have actually been forced to fit; and many pieces thought by Historians to have been superfluous and which were consequently thrown away, actually do belong.
Note:
You will find nothing in this article by way of chronology or narrative, that contradicts the Egyptian, Assyrian or Babylonian Records of events that transpired during the period from 609 BCE to 562 BCE, the period covered in this article.
This article does not in any way dispute the Archaeological Evidence of any of the events listed herein.
PREFACE
The Stated aim of this article is to challenge many false academic assumptions which have been accepted by the general community as academic fact. In short, this article strives to demonstrate where the Academics got it wrong!
We sometimes tend to think that our knowledge of history is based on irrefutable evidence, but as pointed out by Sir Alan Gardiner (1961) [James Et.Al 1991 p.222] in reference to Egyptian History, our knowledge is based in a collection of rags and tatters. That there are probably many errors and circular arguments in relation to ancient history is attested to by many, including Colin Renfrew, Professor of Archaeology, Cambridge University (James Et. Al. 1991 : foreword pages.xiii-xv)
As pointed out by Peet. T.E. (1924. p 75): "Archaeology is not an exact science, and deals more often in probabilities and possibilities than in irrefutable demonstrations.'
Whilst it is understandable therefore that some conclusions might be occasionally incorrect, it remains a fact however that it is sometimes difficult for scholars to admit to errors. (Aharoni 1978, p.183). A good example of this is provided by James et.al. (1991, p.250) in 'Centuries of Darkness', which cites Mazar (1986, pp231/47) in relation to Mazar's preference for accepted dating despite his own evidence to the contrary.
Sir Charles Marston (1935, p.156) made similar comments in relation to prejudiced refutation of evidence in reference to potsherds from Jericho that indicated a 15th century Exodus. His point was that rather than change the then current academic opinion, the system of pottery dating indicating a 15th century Exodus was considered questionable. In short, the evidence itself was disbelieved in preference for current academic opinion.
Unfortunately however, there is a bigger problem than merely losing a little face at having to admit that some conclusion or other was incorrect. Miller and Hayes (1986, p.74 'Taking the Account as It Stands') whilst offering an honest and even-handed approach to their examination of various historical matters, offer us insights into some of the less than scientific approaches that are taken by some academics that lead one to speculate that for some, admitting that the scriptural record of history might be right, may be sufficient incentive to ensure that that Scriptural Record be summarily rejected.
James et.al. (1991, p.162) are quite straightforward in their criticisms of Academic "poor methodology, hypercritical treatment of Scripture, blindness, prejudice and a sectarian like rejection of the Biblical Record".
Such observations lead us to consider that some historians and archaeologists would rather provide us a factually incorrect history, than one which might cause us to give credence to anything recorded in the Bible.
What is hypocritical however is when many of these same Academics, quote the very Scriptures which they consider to be fictional, to support their many and various hypotheses.
In this article, through the use of a computer generated mathematical artificial calendar, (What is the King's Calendar?) I am going to demonstrate, that without any contradiction to any Ancient Historical Record, that the chronological data recorded in the Bible, for the period from 609 BCE to 586 BCE, is correct, and that some of the chronological conclusions reached by historians, are incorrect.
11 : Conclusion
Given that historians can provide no actual evidence for their chronological determinations, there can be no refutation of the King's Calendar chronological determinations, unless it can be proved either that the King's Calendar mathematical process is mathematically incorrect, or that the mathematical hypothesis of the King's Calendar is unjustified.
Needless to say, given that the King's Calendar computer generated Mathematical Synchronisation of the Biblical Chronological Data for the Divided Kingdom generally demonstrates the accuracy of the current academically determined history of Israel, the only way to prove that the King's Calendar mathematical hypothesis is wrong, is to prove beyond reasonable doubt that two specific chronological determinations which are separated by Biblical time, are in fact wrong, thereby demonstrating that the King's Calendar value for Biblical Years is incorrect.
Until that time, the legitimacy of the King's Calendar chronology for King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon and Kings Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin and Zedekiah of Judah, remains incontestable.
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'.
Copyright 2011/2012 is held by the nominated authors on this article page.
About the KingsCalendar Publisher
R.P.BenDedek is the owner and Editor of KingsCalendar.com which was originally set up to publicize his research results into the Chronology of Ancient Israel. Those results were published under the title: 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran'.
Whilst there have been many attempts to solve the chronological riddle of the Bible's synchronisms of reigns of the kings of Israel and Judah and their synchronism with other Ancient Near Eastern Nations, no other research is based on a simple mathematical formula which could, if it is incorrect, be disproved easily. To date, no one has been able to dismiss the mathematical results of this research.
Free to air 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.
During the current economic downturn, this book has been dramatically reduced in price but will eventually rise as the economy improves.
Check the Chapter Precis Page to see details of each chapter and to gain access to the Four Free to Air Chapters
R.P. BenDedek writes social commentaries and photographic 'Stories from China' both at KingsCalendar, and as a contributing columnist at Magic City Morning Star News in Maine USA.
1. Could you tell me why it is that you feel that 'purchasing' the book from an author makes it unworthy of sale, but giving your money to an academic publisher is fine? (This is rhetorical - I'm not looking for you to post this email).
2. Please note that my work is anything but simple.
3. However everything that one needs to examine it, is free online, so there really is no need for 'academics' to buy it. The tools are provided free for them to 'scientifically' test the hypothesis and check the results against known history.
4. Thank you for recommending it to qualified academics. That was much appreciated.
Best Wishes. RPBD
REPLY FROM JIM DAVILA:
In relation to my point about Academic Publishers, he replied:
Because the publisher puts the book through a peer review process that weeds out books that don't reach at least a reasonable control over the primary and secondary sources and the relevant methodologies.I am generally suspicious of self-published efforts for that reason.In the specific case of your book, it looks to me as though it would not have made it through the peer review process. Thus I don't think my readers would get their money's worth by buying it.
I can only say that the work (about 50% mathematical - 10 % legal argument and the rest being citations and commentary) will have to speak for itself.
The principle is simple, and the 'falsification/verification' should be easy, because the mathematical principle relies on linear causality. If one thing (date) must be changed, the ripple effect throws everything out.
Unfortunately, from China, as is so often the case, many sites on the web are inaccessible, and yours is one of them, although I did manage to access one page. Nevertheless, in the MEDIA WATCH section of the King's Calendar, I have recorded your article, my reply email, and your reply about 'peer review'. I have also listed your link!
Thanks Again.
*************************************** Personal note:
I was not being sarcastic in my email to Mr. Davila. I was well pleased to see that he bothered to make comment. He could easily have ignored the press release, or just reprinted it verbatim.
He has a point about peer review, but to say two things about this from my perspective:
1. Given the arguements and counter claims between Academics, it seems to me that a 'peer review' can also be the stage for 'subjective' feelings and opinions, which is to say that one can be 'blocked' by others with power who simply do not like having their toes tread on.
2. I did make three attempts at having an extract of my research published. BiblioTheca Sacra in Dallas, Vetus Testamentum in Holland, and the Institute of Archaeology in Melbourne. All found it too technical for their readership, although the then director of the Institute of Archaeology, Piers Crocker did offer to 'simplify' it, but pointed out that I would not be happy with it. I agreed. He also commended me saying that my writing was 'tight' by which he explained that I leave no room for arguement. He was a very helpful person and gave me much encouragement, and it was he who recommended Vetus Testamentum.
The reason why I wanted to publish an article or extract all those years ago, was that I felt 'not up to such a monumental task', and I was hoping that someone would see its merit and assist me.
3. As time went by I realised two things. Firstly that publishers, distributers, wholesales and retailers take the most money and the author gets virtually 'nix'; and secondly, that it was such a big book, especially with all those charts, that it would be easier in these techno times, to study it on a computer.
Suffice it to say, the work will be easy to debunk if I have gotten it all wrong, but if the maths holds up, there will be a lot of academics 'cheesed off' with me.
And then of course there is the bottom line. After all these years of poverty, will I finally find some $$$$?
AS STATED PREVIOUSLY I CANNOT ACCESS PALEOJUDAICA.COM - so thanks to syanas_gallium@------ for emailing me a copy of this latest article UPDATE in which he linked back to this section in kingscalendar.
Mr. Davila published our mutual correspondance and made an updated comment to his readers.
*************************************************
UPDATE (19 November): "R.P. BenDedek" and I have had an e-mail exchange that is recorded in part here. This is the full text of my reply to his/her message (BenDedek's words in italics, mine in Roman font):
[He then quotes my email as it appears above. Then ends with...]
I wasn't precisely recommending it: I was drawing it to their attention. But if they want to take the time to look at it I'd be interested in their reactions.
