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.
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.
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?
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.
Since 2004 he has been writing academic articles, social commentaries and photographic 'Stories from China' both here at KingsCalendar, and formerly as a contributing columnist at Magic City Morning Star News (Maine USA) where from 2009 to 2015 he was Stand-in Editor. He currently has a column at iPatriot.com and teaches English to Business English and Flight Attendant College Students in Suzhou City Jiangsu Province People's Republic of China.)
BenDedek originally created the site 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. Check the Chapter Precis Page to see details of each chapter and to gain access to the Four Free to Air Chapters
(The Download book does not contain a section on Seder Olam)
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 5. to see how it synchronises the Divided Kingdom Period]
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!
*************************************** 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.