LXX and MSS Bible Texts: Septuagint, Masorete, Bible Dates:Because the academic world cannot understand Biblical chronology, they assume that the fault lies with the record. If the Biblical information is no longer correct, then modern Academics demonstrate a highly unscientific approach to history, when they quote Scripture to support various archaeological and Historical propositions. When they do this, they are quite clearly 'manipulating' the public". The earliest, and best known, source for the story of the Septuagint is the Letter of Aristeas, a lengthy document that recalls how Ptolemy (Philadelphus II [285?47 BCE]), desiring to augment his library in Alexandria, Egypt, commissioned a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek.
An Academic Apologetic relating to the Chronological Differences
between the LXX (Septuagint) and MSS (Masorete) Biblical Texts
LXX (Septuagint) and MSS (Masorete) Biblical Texts
PREFACE:
This article is the academic apologetic for the position taken in: The Septuagint, The Masorete and the Exodus, which dealt with chronological differences at 1 Kings 6:1, and examines further the general issue of discrepancy between the chronological records in the Septuagint and the Masoretic texts.
This article is divided into the following sections:
Part A. (3400 words)
1. Introduction
2. Chronology in Today's Received Text - The Masorete.
3. Chronology in Seder Olam Rabbah
4. The Babylonian Talmud
5. The Creation of the Septuagint.
6. Collation and Compilation: The Masorete, Septuagint.
7. Qumran: Essenes: The Dead Sea Scrolls
Part B. (3300 words)
8. A Brief Summary in Review.
9. Is the King's Calendar Position Scientific?
10. The (Essene) Reworking of Biblical History.
11. The Dead Sea Scrolls.
12. Article Conclusion.
**********PART A**********
1. Introduction.
"The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran", some of which is freely available on this Website (See Table of Content) presents the research results of a computer generated mathematical synchronous calendar of the Divided Kingdom Period of Israel, using an artificial calendrical system.(See Footnotes.)
What it demonstrates is that the chronological data presented in the Received Text (Masorete), is actually quite reliable, and that to date, all the confusion over Biblical Chronology arises from an Academic inability to 'Think outside the Box'. No one has ever taken a scientific approach to the problem, and this is because no one wants to believe that the Bible might be correct.
I wrote in Newsletter No. 2: Academic Opinion that "It is a strong thing to publicly state that Academics are arrogant, but what can you call the attitude of 'professional or scientific' people, whose refusal to look at an issue is based solely on their 'personal' reactions to and prejudices against people and their ideas".
Because the academic world cannot understand Biblical chronology, they assume that the fault lies with the record, but as I pointed out in Biblical Infallibility, Divine Inspiration & Academic Deceit and Manipulation, "if the information is no longer correct (for whatever reason), then modern Academics demonstrate a highly unscientific approach to history, when they quote Scripture to support various archaeological and Historical propositions. When they do this, they are quite clearly 'manipulating' the public".
I further stated that "if the Biblical data has been presented in an 'heretofore unknown' manner, which is to say, in some 'cypher', then it is logical to assume that what has been encrypted, ought to be able to be deciphered and understood, and any claim to have achieved such a 'deciphering or decoding', ought to be reviewed and subjected to scientific methods of testing".
My point was: "That you can't have your cake and eat it too!"
You can't dismiss the history or chronology of the Bible,
-and-
then use it to prove or support your pet theory, even if it is correct.
The King's Calendar Premise is that the Biblical chronological data has been passed down to us in an artificial form, and that the History recorded in the Bible is reliable and trustworthy. The King's Calendar research results demonstrate this.
The Problem is that too many people have come up with too many schemes to solve the chronological difficulties in the Divided Kingdom period of Biblical History, that no one is interested any more.
The King's Calendar however can be scientifically tested, and "Proved or Falsified".
What follows, is a brief discussion (with research links provided) relating to processional development of the Bible, specifically in relation to chronology, before focusing on the development of the Received Text and the Septuagint.
To that end, we will briefly discuss a few different ways of measuring time, commencing with the Received (Masoretic) Text we have today, and work back through time to the composition of the Masorete and Septuagint.
2. Chronology in Today's Received Text - The Masorete.
(Mosorete is not technically correct in reference to Texts prior to the 9th Century AD. Text of the Day is more appropriate. See Lipman. D.P. (2000) Gates to Jewish Heritage.)
From: King's Calendar Chapter One: The Dead Sea Scrolls See "Precis-TOC" on toolbar
Something which many people fail to realise is that the bible, in addition to being a religious text, is also an extensive historical document, which, when combined with extra-biblical Ancient Israelite documents, provides far more chronological and historical information, than is provided by any other ancient civilization. [Starr.C.G. (1991)A History of the Ancient World. Oxford University Press. UK. p.145]
That history has been transmitted to us with precision, as is demonstrated by the Isaiah scrolls from Qumran. Although they come from a different period in time (a thousand years earlier than our oldest biblical texts), and are written in a different type of writing, they yet remain (in content transmission) almost identical. [Yadin. Y. (1957) The Message of the Scrolls. Weidenfeld & Nicholson. London. p.83]
The fact that they are almost totally identical, provides clear demonstration of the care with which the Scriptures were copied.
Given the precision of transcribing Biblical texts combined with Academic failure to understand Biblical Chronology, it stands to reason that if as the King's Calendar insists, Biblical chronology is artificial, then either all Biblical authors used the artificial construct, or, that all Biblical books at some point in history, were transcribed with the intention of inserting the artificial construct.
A rejection of the 'King's Calendar' concept of the introduction of an artificial calendar into the Hebrew (Masoretic) 'writings', totally ignores the many historic approaches that Jews took and had (before and after the Canonisation of Scripture), in relation to the Divine workings in history. The Septuagint, The Masorete and the Exodus.
It also holds true that despite academic claims, the redactors were not erroneous in their collation and compilation of Biblical Material. Biblical chronology as passed down to us, was deliberately, purposefully and precisely what was intended to have been passed down.
That "received text" provides us with a precise synchronisation of reigns for the Kings of Judah and Israel, as well as for King Nebuchadrezzar of Babylon.
"if the Biblical data has been presented in an 'heretofore unknown' manner, which is to say, in some 'cypher', then it is logical to assume that what has been encrypted, ought to be able to be deciphered and understood, and any claim to have achieved such a 'deciphering or decoding', ought to be reviewed and subjected to scientific methods of testing. Biblical Infallibility, Divine Inspiration & Academic Deceit and Manipulation.
The Claim of the King's Calendar is that what was intended to be passed down to us, was in fact done so.
3. Chronology in Seder Olam Rabbah: 2nd Century (A.D. / C.E.)
The Seder Olam Rabbah was written around the same time as the Talmud, and attempts to sort out the chronology of the Biblical Records, dating everything from Creation.
Seder `Olam is explicitly devoted to the problem of calculating the sequences of events in Jewish history, based largely on the information supplied by the Bible.
it does not actually provide the total number of years that elapsed since the creation
Rabbi Yos?made use of more imaginative midrashic interpretations that were not supported by a straightforward reading of Scripture
when checked against the extra-Biblical historical records, the resulting chronology was severely flawed,
The Point drawn here is that there was a second century Christian Era attempt to understand Biblical Chronology.
Fundamentalists who insist that Biblical Chronology is straightforward are of necessity claiming to understand more about Jewish History than Jewish intellectuals 1800 years ago. It was only about this time (a century and a half after Jesus), that Christians began to accept the four gospels contained in the New Testament. Bishop Irenaeus (185 C.E.)
The only point being made here is that it took time for various writings to be understood and accepted as authoritative, or as in the case of the Talmud, for the Oral Law to be formalised.
4. The Babylonian Talmud: 2nd Century (A.D. / C.E.)
Like the previous section, introducing the Babylonian Talmud as a topic for discussion may seem strange, but it is important to later discussion on the Septuagint and Masorete.
The Babylonian Talmud (written close to the time of Seder Olam Rabbah and Christian acceptance of the 4 gospels) is a written account of the Oral Law. Jewish Virtual Library: Talmud/Mishna/Gemara
The Jewish community of Palestine suffered horrendous losses during the Great Revolt (66-70 C.E.) and the Bar-Kokhba rebellion (132-135 C.E.) Well over a million Jews were killed in the two ill-fated uprisings, and the leading yeshivot, along with thousands of their rabbinical scholars and students, were devastated.
This decline in the number of knowledgeable Jews seems to have been a decisive factor in Rabbi Judah the Prince's decision around the year 200 C.E. to record in writing the Oral Law.
Two points to which attention is now drawn are that:
Many people seem not to be cognizant of the fact that the Bible as we have it today, did not exist at this point in history (2nd Century Christian Era). It was something that evolved. - and -
That Historical circumstances (catastrophes and other events), played a significant role in the formalisation process. (A point that will be revisited a little later in this article).
Like the Talmud which put tradition into one place so to speak, the books of the Bible took time to become formalised. The process took time, and like the Talmud, arose out of necessity. Prior to the formalising event, there existed a long period of, (for the want of a better word), evolution, a process similarly undergone in what today is referred to as the Septuagint.
The earliest, and best known, source for the story of the Septuagint is the Letter of Aristeas, a lengthy document that recalls how Ptolemy (Philadelphus II [285?47 BCE]), desiring to augment his library in Alexandria, Egypt, commissioned a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek.
Although opinions as to when this occurred differ, scholars find 282 BCE an attractive date.
Philo of Alexandria (fl. 1st c CE) confirms that only the Torah was commissioned to be translated, and some modern scholars have concurred
Over the course of the next three centuries however, other books of the Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek in an order that is not altogether clear.
Thus, from the second century ..(CE).. onwards, Christians embraced a Septuagint that encompassed a larger body of literature than that found in the Hebrew, and they attributed it all to the work of the seventy-two ancient Jewish translators.
Jewish rabbis, particularly Pharisees, reacted to the Christian appropriation of the Septuagint by producing fresh translations of their Scriptures (e.g., Aquila, in 128 CE, or Symmachus in the late 2d c. CE), and discouraging the use of the Septuagint.
There are Four points I wish to draw attention to at this time. They are:
Books like King's and Chronicles were not originally incorporated in the Septuagint of the 3rd Century BCE.
400 years after the Septuagint was first introduced, The (Masorete) Received Texts were formalised.
In many instances, for example 1 Kings 6:1, the chronology of the Septuagint differs from the Masorete.
The Qumran Scrolls (Dead Sea Scrolls) demonstrate precision of the Masoretic transcriptions.
6. Collation and Compilation: The Masorete, Septuagint.
As stated earlier, Historical circumstances (catastrophes and other events), played a significant role in the formalisation process of what we today call the Bible.
A little more than a hundred years after the Babylonian Exile, (586 BCE) the various extant Jewish writings began to be collated by Nehemiah (2 Maccabees 2:13-15) and/or Ezra, probably between 450 and 435 B.C.
However, by the time that Ezra and Nehemiah led the Jews back into the land of Palestine, there were numerous copies of the existing books of the Old Testament available.
Ezra formed a synod of scribes and teachers, known as the Great Synagogue or Great Assembly (Kenesseth ha-Gedolah) for the purpose of teaching and interpreting the Torah.
The Great Assembly was replaced by specialised schools of scribes, the soferim, in about 300 BC.
This they did (producing a standard Hebrew Old Testament text) by comparing available manuscripts and copies, ascertaining which were most correct and where they differed taking the majority readings of those copies deemed most reliable as official.
It is contended, on the basis of ancient Jewish writings, that some of the early soferim made corrections to the text based upon variant readings, spelling changes and even theological conjecture.
However, the later soferim did not believe themselves qualified to make such changes and instead accepted the text as they had it in hand, even to the perpetuating of peculiar readings and spellings, and words or letters which were completely out of place. Instead of changing what they viewed as erroneous readings, they marked them with various dots or circles and placed what they believed to be the correct readings in the margins.
By the time the soferim were charged with preparing and transcribing standard texts, the scene was set for a Greek version (of the Torah).
Regarding the Torah: Two things to note at this point are that:
b). If these chronological differences existed in the 3rd Century BCE texts, then we must conclude that the Septuagint was created from a different source than was passed down to us, or the Septuagint version passed down to us was changed at some point in time.
Regarding the Other Books:
a). There are some chronological differences between the Septuagint and the Massoretic texts in such books as King's and Chronicles.
b). Given that these books were translated into Greek during the course of the following centuries, we can plausibly assume that the traditional (Masoretic) texts were not the source material used in those books. The Catholic Encyclopedia in fact claims that the Hebrew versions of Kings and Chronicles is derived from the Septuagint versions. Third and Fourth Books of Kings. Such a claim seems odd to me, but nevertheless, it does not answer the question: "Why do their chronological materials differ?"
Masorete 1 Kings 22:41 Jehoshaphat the son of Asa began to reign in the fourth year of Ahab king of Israel.
Septuagint 1 Kings 16:28 Jehoshaphat commenced in the 11th year of Omri. [He therefore co-reigned with Asa].
Masorete 2 Kings 1:17 Jehoram of Israel began to reign in the second year of Jehoram the son of Jehoshaphat king of Judah
Septuagint 2 Kings 8:16 In the 5th year of Jehoram of Israel, Jehoram of Judah, son of Jehoshaphat began to reign [adding that Jehoshaphat was still living]
Masorete 1 Kings 6:1 Solomon's temple was commenced in the 480th year the Israelites came out of the land of Egypt: It was the fourth year of Solomon's reign.
Septuagint 1kings 6:1 Solomon's temple was commenced in the 440th year after the departure of the Israelites out of Egypt. It was the fourth year of Solomon's Reign.
The King's Calendar demonstrates that these apparently divergent readings are not contradictory.
The Whole issue of which Scriptural version (LXX or MSS) is the better, or which is the primary source, is extremely contentious and complex, and not a matter under consideration in this article.
The point under Discussion in this article, is that there are differences in the way chronological data is presented, which demonstrates different textual sources, and the question that this article addresses is: Why?
As mentioned earlier, the discoveries at Qumran 60 years ago of the Dead Sea Scrolls demonstrate the incredible accuracy of the Scripture transmission process, showing that the Masoretic Text (dating back to 9th Century CE) corresponds with those at Qumran which date back to the First Century.
To reiterate what I stated earlier:
The Claim of the King's Calendar is that what was intended to be passed down to us, was in fact done so.
7. Qumran: Essenes: The Dead Sea Scrolls
Background Information.
From King's Calendar Chapter 1 The Dead Sea Scrolls:
On the subject of Qumran, its inhabitants and the authors of the scrolls found there, there are as many opinions as there are books but according to recently released research (Wise et.al.1996), many time honoured theories about Qumran and the 'Essenes', now need revising.
The 'Standard Model' which has the Essenes as the inhabitants of Qumran and authors of the various scrolls, has, for a variety of complex reasons, been subjected to intense scrutiny and found to be lacking in substance. Whilst the Dead Sea Sect is acknowledged to have been the source of the Damascus Document (Wise et.al.1996 p49) it is suggested that this groups earliest origins and perceptions were different to those of its latter composition, and that there did develop subsequent to it's conception, a variety of heirs and offshoots. [Wise et.al. 1996 p.32]
The Scrolls appear to be the library of a Jewish sect which was hidden away in caves around the outbreak of the Jewish-Roman War (66 C.E.). Archaeological evidence indicates the settlement had been inhabited since about 150 B.C.E.
The sect has most often been identified with the Essenes, who are mentioned by the historian Josephus and are in a few other sources, but are not in the N.T. They were an intensely messianic, apocalyptic, baptist, wilderness, new covenant group, led by a priest they called the "Teacher of Righteousness" who was opposed and possibly killed by the establishment priesthood in Jerusalem.
In truth, at this point in time there is really nothing certainly known about the communities at Qumran. Theories abound about the identity or identities of the Dead Sea Sect; what their purpose was, and whether or not they were scribes involved in the transcription and transmission of Scriptural Materials.
Scholars constantly disagree. The fact that scrolls were found at Qumran does not at this time prove that those scrolls were written there, or written by the people who lived there. There are some of course who believe that the communities (hereafter called Essenes) were involved in Scriptural transmission.
One of things that is clearly believed by all those who have studied the matter, is that the Essenes were a mysterious group of people with peculiar religious beliefs, including the use of a sectarian calendar of 364 days, whose function is not really understood, and about which there is doubt that it ever even served a practical purpose. (This by virtue of the fact that within 22 years it becomes obvious that it is out of sync with the universe by almost a month.
From studies to date, it appears that:
The Essenes were not averse to rewriting scripture portions (p.172)
They expended effort in trying to clarify confusing chronology concerning Sinai (p. 199)
They appear to have taken a 'pesher approach' to Biblical Interpretations (pp. 119, 125)
From: Wise.M., Abegg.M., Cook.J.R., Cook.E. (1996) Dead Sea Scrolls: A comprehensive translation of the controversial ancient scrolls with material never published or translated before now, and including the most recently released texts. Hodder & Stoughton ?Aust.
Furthermore:
Schonfeld 1984 (p.44), in relation to 'ciphers', believes that the Chasidim (Early Essenes at least) may have influenced the Biblical texts more than we might appreciate, and that the Qumran scribes were expert at playing didactic games with ciphers.
Schonfeld.H.J. (1984) The Essene Odyssey : the mystery of the true teacher and the Essene impact on the shaping of human destiny. U.K. Element books.
Wise Et.Al (1996) in their research suggest that the Essenes of the 1st Century C.E. and B.C.E. were a descendant 'splinter group' of an earlier and original Babylonian group of very pious and religious Jews with whom Nehemiah and Ezra were associated.
That the latter groups (or at least the one associated with the Teacher of Righteousness) had their own peculiar mysteries and their own peculiar calendars, is accepted by all.
When the chronological data from the Damascus Document pertaining to the teacher of Righteousness is applied to the King's Calendar, it indicates that the Teacher of Righteousness was Onias III, one of only three historical figures viewed by modern academics, as historically possible contenders for the position.
Other Books on the Dead Sea Sect
Wise.M., Abegg.M., Cook.J.R., Cook.E. (1996) Dead Sea Scrolls: A comprehensive translation of the controversial ancient scrolls with material never published or translated before now, and including the most recently released texts. Hodder & Stoughton ?Australia
Shanks.H. (1992) Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York. Random House
Talmon.S. (1989) The World of Qumran from Within. Jerusalem. Magnes Press
Vanderkam.J.C. (1994) The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. Michigan. Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
Wilson.E. (1978 ) Israel and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York. Farrar, Straus, Giroux.
Knibb.M.A. (1987) The Qumran community. Cambridge university Press.
Golb.N. (1995) who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Search for the Secret of Qumran. New York Scribner.
Schonfeld. H.J. (1984) the Essene Odyssey : The Mystery of the True Teacher and the Essene Impact on the Shaping of Human Destiny. U.K. Element Books
Davies P.R. (1982) Qumran. Michigan. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing co.
Eisenman. R.H., Wise.M. (1992) The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered. Element Books.
Vermes.G. (1987) The Dead Sea Scrolls 3rd Ed. London. Penguin Books
For sociological perspectives on Sect Mentalities, 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).
**********PART B**********
8. A Brief Summary in Review.
From all of the foregoing sections, I now draw attention to some particular points.
1. There are Chronological (and Textual) Differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint.
2. There was a sectarian religious group descended from the Original collators and transcribers of Jewish Religious texts that were different to mainstream Judaism
3. Jewish Historical and Religious Materials were being manipulated well after the Torah was translated into the Greek Septuagint.
Books like Kings and Chronicles were not translated into Greek until centuries later
4. Biblical Material apparently belonging to the Dead Sea Sect, is the same as has been handed down to us today.
5. The Essenes (or another group at Qumran) were involved in secret mysteries which included calendrical systems
6. The Christian and Jewish canonisation of Scripture was not completed until well after the Qumran group disappeared.
7. Attempts were made as late as the end of the 2nd Century C.E. To understand the chronology of the Ancient Jewish Texts. (Josephus and Seder Olam to name two.)
The Essene chronological reference to the Teacher of Righteousness, found in the Damascus Document, appears to be recorded in the same artificial construct used by the King's Calendar.
The King's Calendar sees the same artificial construct running through the chronologies of Josephus and the Biblical Books of King's and Chronicles.
What we see in all of these points, is that there existed over a period of centuries, a progression of what is now called the Old Testament, occurring in three different spheres: The Orthodox Masoretic tradition, the Greek Tradition, and the Qumran tradition; and as far as chronology is concerned, apart from some major divergences in the Torah (Genesis Chapter 11) and a few minor divergences in the Rest of the Septuagint Old Testament, the historical chronology of Israel in all three groups are in agreement.
But despite their agreement, modern academia says that they are all wrong.
T.H. Robinson (1932) A History Of Israel. Vol I From the Exodus to the Fall of Jerusalem, 586 B.C. Clarendon Press. ( Page 19) discusses at length what is seen as a 'fictitious scheme' of Old Testament chronology. His argument is designed to demonstrate the complete untrustworthiness of that chronology.
To re-iterate some points already made in this article:
What has been passed down to us is what was meant to be passed down.
If the chronological material does not fit our understanding of history, then it must be 'encoded' (artificial).
If it is artificial, then either all Biblical Writers used this artificial construct, or that all chronological data in those books was translated into the artificial construct.
What can be encrypted ought to be able to be deciphered.
If no such artificial construct exists, and material as we have it today derives from deceit or error, then Academics are unscientific to use that material to support their theories.
Academics need to quit their many deceptions, and start being scientific.
From this section we can draw draw some conclusions:
Someone was tampering with the historical record of Ancient Israel - and -
The final result of that tampering has been passed down to us.
The King's Calendar claims to understand the chronological tampering.
Concerning "Falsification" in Scientific Methodology.
Part of Scientific Methodology is to "Test" theories. When a test of some theory produces a particular result, the theory is considered 'dependable' at least, if the same results are reproduced each and every time. The process is sometimes called 'Falsification', for the process is not designed to 'prove' that a theory is correct, but to see if there is some flaw in it. If the theory cannot be disproved, because repeated testing continues to demonstrate its' accuracy, then it is said to be 'proved'.
Davies. P. (1992) The Mind of G-d. New York. Simon and Schuster. p.25 states that 'the emphasis is thus on falsification, not verification. A powerful theory is one that is highly vulnerable to falsification, and so can be tested in many detailed and specific ways.'
The hypothesis of the King's Calendar is a powerful theory, and is therefore susceptible to Falsification (disproval) if it is in fact an aberration. By aberration I mean 'an accident'. Are the King's Calendar results accidental? If so, the foundational basis can be falsified. Falsification is an integral part of all investigative scientific research. So too is the concept of Mathematical Probability. The statistical odds of the King's Calendar synchronisms for the Divided Kingdom are too great for that success to be considered accidental.
Whilst the mathematical hypothesis of the King's Calendar in fact works, that in itself is not a proof of King's Calendar accuracy in its' reconstruction of Israelite History. Whilst mathematical probability gives authoritative weight to the King's Calendar mathematical basis, the final test of it's accuracy is to be found in the fields of Archaeology and History, which is why The Rules of Evidence Series was written.
Whilst as indicated in the previous section, academics maintain that the narratives in the Israelite historical documents were altered to promote certain sectarian politico-religious viewpoints, the King's Calendar maintains that the real reason why we don't understand the historical narratives, is that it was pre-eminently the chronological data that was altered.
The 'King's Calendar' premise is that historical chronological data was altered by way of an artificial chronology to suit the purposes of sectarian interest. This is not at all inconsistent with the many and various theories to come out of the school of 'Higher Criticism' relating to 'redactorial historical revisionism. See: Grant.M. (1984) The History of Ancient Israel. New York. Charles Scribner's and Sons Chapter 14 onwards.
The 'King's Calendar' merely extends such 'commonly accepted' opinions, and transfers them from narrative text to the chronological data. Whilst many see that redactorial revisionism was designed to accomplish peculiar and sectarian redactorial interest and 'interpretation', the King's Calendar would say it was a case of 'redactorial chronological revisionism? and whilst agreeing that the chronologies presented in the Bible, Septuagint, Josephus, and the Dead Sea Sect are therefore fictitious in that they are not recorded in valid solar years, it does not agree that such chronologies are pre-eminently or predominantly incorrect.
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. One assertion that can be made however, is that Josephus, in one of his chronological references, demonstrates that the transliteration of True Solar years into the artificial construct, was still going on after 104 BCE.
In Jewish War Book One, Chapter III Josephus records that from Cyrus to Aristobulus 104-103 BCE, 471 years elapse.
He later amended this in Antiquities 13:11:1 to 481 years.
However
The 481 years in Antiquities, are exactly the number of Solar Years to elapse between the Babylonian Exile and Aristobolus [585 BCE to 105 BCE inclusive].
Josephus' narrative refers to the time lapse between Cyrus and Aristobolus [471 artificial years]
Josephus originally quoted from an 'artificial record' relating to the period from Cyrus to Aristobolus, and then later, ignoring his own stated parameters, calculated the period from the Exile to Aristobolus in solar years.
Josephus was not really conversant with the material with which he was dealing, and had no awareness of their artificial nature.
This can be verified by going to the Chapter Precis Page toolbar at the top of this page and clicking onto the Appendix 12.
It is obvious that someone was converting Solar History into an Artificial History as late as the first century BCE. Was it the Qumran Sect? Remembering that the Dead Sea Sect is alleged to have been present from at least 150 BCE to 66 CE. And that they were apparently re-writing the philosophical slant of Jewish History, it is not audacious to suggest that they may also have been responsible for rewriting chronological history.
10. The Reworking of Biblical History.
Throughout this article I have constantly referred to the Books of Kings and Chronicles, because the King's Calendar computer generated Mathematical Reconstruction of Israelite History, demonstrates that the chronological synchronisms listed in the books of Kings and Chronicles do in fact synchronise and fit the time frame and archaeological evidence provided by modern academics.
Remembering that the Biblical Books were not collated until the 5th Century BCE; that the Septuagint of the 3rd Century BCE contained only the Torah, that the Books of Kings and Chronicles were not added until perhaps the Christian Era, and that neither the Jewish nor Christian canonisation process began until the 2nd Century C.E., I want to bring to your attention some comments about the Books of Kings and Chronicles, in relation to the Essenes/Dead Sea Sect.
Academic Readers should read this article at its' source. Here however, I merely wish to draw attention to some statements.
The Qumran community's own rule books are exclusively in Hebrew. This is often characterised as an indication of how the community understood itself to be in continuity with ancient Israel. It was not a post-biblical community but part of a movement which could claim to be the true ongoing heirs of Israel of pre-exilic times, heirs with a renewed covenant.
D.D. Swanson has shown that in several places in the Temple Scroll, or at least in the sources on which the scroll depended, Chronicles seems to play a major role.
In large part Chronicles is the reworking of earlier traditions to meet a particular set of needs. H.P. Mathys, for one, has recently endorsed the view that Chronicles is a counter to Manetho, Hekataios and Berossos, an authoritative presentation of a conviction that Israel has belonged in the land since the beginning of time, and a description of the temple as the means to salvation.
The more overtly Davidic ideology of Chronicles expresses post-exilic aspirations from a priestly point of view; many would date the work to the Ptolemaic period.
As has sometimes been pointed out Samuel-Kings functions ideologically as a religio-political statement which puts David in his place; the chosen one slips up and the royal territory disintegrates after Solomon. Pride of place is given to those with prophetic insight. The more overtly Davidic ideology of Chronicles expresses post-exilic aspirations from a priestly point of view; many would date the work to the Ptolemaic period, (c.300-30 BCE).
What is the politics of this preference for Samuel-Kings at Qumran? There seem to be two sides to a possible answer to this question. On the one hand, from within the community the answer may well concern its antipathy to the monarchy and to the Hasmonean claims to be heirs to the Davidic tradition.
On the other hand, if the politics of canonisation are promoted by the Hasmoneans in the late second and early first centuries BCE, then Chronicles could have supported their Davidic aspirations. Such Davidic aspirations are notably absent from explicit Qumran messianism until the Herodian period or later. There seems to be a fit between the Qumran evidence and the politics of the canonical process in the Hasmonean period.
What we have here are some discussions on both the fact that the historical records of Israel were rewritten, and reasons for it.
Whatever your religious beliefs may be, it is undeniable that the books of Kings and Chronicles openly declare that they are eclectic compositions, and that today, we do not have the original records. This leads us to ask: 'Who wrote them and when?'. There is disagreement as to the correct answer to these questions, with the book of chronicles being dated anywhere from c.530-330 BCE.
It seems certain that by the time that the Septuagint was written, these two books were either not yet ready for translation or not required, but given that their chronological data cannot be correct from a current academic standpoint, it is apparent that their chronological artificiality was both known and understood, if not at the time of original composition, then later after the data was changed.
If as recorded above, the purpose of these books was to provide an authoritative presentation of a conviction that Israel has belonged in the land since the beginning of time, then one can see that 'chronology' was an important component of that claim.
When I originally wrote Chapter One of the King's Calendar I commented:
One must wonder why it was thought appropriate to alter history. The only answer seems to be that 'they' wanted to outdo other national groups in their boasts to descend from 'the oldest' civilization.
In citing Conzelmann. (1992) Gentiles - Jews - Christians. Polemics and Apologetics in the Greco-Roman Era. Translated by M. E. Boring. Fortress Press. Minneapolis. p.145, - I said: If one wished to extend one's history, this artificial history would be the easiest way, whilst still retaining a true and accurate historical record.
The chronological data in King's and Chronicles for the Divided Kingdom period, (936 BCE to 586 BCE) amounts to 393 years, but using the King's Calendar Reconstruction which sees Biblical years as years of 336 days (12 months x 4 weeks x 7 days), the Divided Kingdom period is reduced to just 350 solar years, with all the chronological data contained therein, actually synchronised not only internally between Israel and Judah, but with what Academics tell us was the Real Chronological History of that period.
So some things to consider here are that:
The books of Kings and Chronicles were being developed around the same period that either the Essenes/Qumran Group (c.150 BCE) or the earlier Babylonian Chasidim were organising their compilation.
That there was a politico/historical influence in their compositions
There was sectarian influence in their compositions.
The King's Calendar views this influence on the Biblical narratives as a politico / chronological influence, which was either an originally and officially sanctioned one, or a later creation of a sectarian group.
If the chronological change was officially known, understood and sanctioned, then there is nothing more to say, except to wonder why that knowledge was not passed down through history; or if it was, How it was lost.
On the other hand, if it was undertaken by some sectarian group, then there is a question that begs answering: 'How did a sectarian chronological invention, become the accepted 'norm''
The answer to both situations may be the same.
11. The Dead Sea Scrolls.
Whilst it has already been conceded that there is academic disagreement over the historical realities concerning the Essenes, the Dead Sea Sect, and Communities at Qumran, there is agreement that at various times, Religious and Historical documents were concealed for the purpose of preservation during times of national disaster. (1st and 2nd century BCE and 1st century CE.)
It is totally plausible that if the chronological transcription into an artificial form was not an originally and officially sanctioned event, then subsequent to one of these periods of attempted concealment, the only surviving copies were those of the sectarian group that instigated the transcription. That no one noticed the changes in chronological records pre-supposes that no chronological authority existed, or that no one noticed.
But could the transcription into an artificial calendar have been officially sanctioned? And if so, 'When?' On this topic I wrote in King's Calendar Chapter 1 [See Chapter Precis page]:
Out of the chaos that surrounds understanding of this sect and era, all that is apparently certain is that 'a leaderless group' existed, that 'a teacher' with 'secret knowledge' brought them hope, that he later died, and that it was expected that within 40 years of his death, Judgement would fall on those who turned to the Man of the Lie. The 'King's Calendar' is now able to chronologically identify that Teacher.
That an original society or group of 'peculiar' believers existed is beyond dispute. The various controversies about the sect makes it also seem likely that a descendant group concluded that at a particular point in their history, the Age of Wrath had come to an end, and they recorded that information within an 'artificial' chronological timetable .
Questions remain as to whether the original group originated in Babylon, or were a pious and separated remnant in Israel. The 'King's Calendar' does not offer insight into this question, except to note that it would not be surprising, if the group had a Palestinian origin, that it would be leaderless in regard to the chronological secrets of the Scriptures, since the chronological transcription was undoubtedly commenced in Babylon.
When the Teacher of Righteousness appeared, it is apparent that he originates from outside the group, and brings to it his secret knowledge. There is a specific point to note in this, which is that since Onias III was actually an hereditary Zadokite High Priest, and apparently knew of the artificial calendar, he, not the group, is the remnant of an original movement. This secret knowledge is specifically nominated to be in relation to calendrical systems. (See: Talmon (1989 p.166) If that secret knowledge was in fact the 'artificial calendar', by which their history might be truly put into perspective and by which some supernatural Mathematical design might be made manifest, it might be assumed that as 'high priest' the 'Teacher' was privy to the 'secret', and that when he was usurped in his high priestly office, the new 'high priesthood' was left out of the loop.
If indeed there descended from the 'Teacher's group, a variety of later sects, it is apparent that not all sects were aware of the secret, elsewise it would not have remained secret. That it did continue to be used is evidenced by Josephus' reference to Aristobolus and the restoration of the Monarchy 471 years after the return from Babylon. This figure being correct within the artificial calendar, indicates post-104 BCE knowledge and use of it.
The point being made here, is that a particular Essene type group became privy to a calendrical secret held by the Legitimate High Priest, Onias III. Upon his death, they and they alone knew the secret.
Either, Onias III brought to the sect, a secret concerning the texts of that day, or he introduced a sectarian mathematical cipher into the group. Either way, both occurred before a Greek copy of the original material could be composed. That the Septuagint includes some of the Original "Solar Year" Material may indicate that the total process of conversion was not yet complete. (Suggesting a late date transcription process).
Irrespective of which was the Actual historical reality (Official or Sectarian), that only documents with artificial chronologies remained, might be seen as the result of large numbers of Original Copies being destroyed during the various periods of National Disaster.
12. Article Conclusion
That Biblical Chronology is not recorded in any currently recognised calendrical system is demonstrated by the fact that no one can align it either in it's self proclaimed internal synchronisation of Israelite and Judaean kings, or with known history.
That being taken for granted, Biblical Chronology can only be false or encoded.
If the artificial nature of Biblical Chronology was an official secret, then with the death of the High Priest Onias III, that secret was lost to official circles.
If the artificial nature of Biblical Chronology was a sectarian invention, then it can only have entered official circles if all official records had been destroyed during a period of National Disaster.
Biblical Chronology is,in the eyes of the King's Calendar, an accurate chronological record of the History of Israel, albeit in an artificial form.
The King's Calendar Reconstruction of Israelite History using a computer generated mathematical synchronous calendar, is not only successful in synchronising the kings of Israel and Judah in accordance with the Biblical Record, but also synchronises that history with the currently accepted History of the Ancient Near East.
Related Articles and Bibliography
Bibles
Mechon Mamre A Hebrew - English Bible According to the Masoretic Text and the JPS 1917 Edition
Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking the Bible for Understanding the Canonical Process by George J. Brooke, University of Manchester
Conzelmann. (1992) Gentiles - Jews - Christians. Polemics and Apologetics in the Greco-Roman Era. Translated by M. E. Boring. Fortress Press. Minneapolis. p.145
Cornfeld.G. (1982) Josephus: The Jewish War. Zondervan Publishing House Michigan
Davies. P. (1992) The Mind of G-d. New York. Simon and Schuster.
Davies P.R. (1982) Qumran. Michigan. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing co.
Eisenman. R.H., Wise.M. (1992) The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered. Element Books.
Elias.N. (1978 ) What is Sociology? New York. Columbia University Press
Lipman. D.P. (2000) Gates to Jewish Heritage [http link now void]
Golb.N. (1995) who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Search for the Secret of Qumran. New York Scribner.
Grant.M. (1984) The History of Ancient Israel. New York. Charles Scribner's and Sons
Kenyon. F.G. ( 1958 ) Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts. Eyre & Spottiswoode. page 76 for discussion on the Massoretic text.
Knibb.M.A. (1987) The Qumran community. Cambridge university Press.
Robinson T.H. (1932) A History Of Israel. Vol I From the Exodus to the Fall of Jerusalem, 586 B.C. Clarendon Press.
Schonfeld. H.J. (1984) the Essene Odyssey : The Mystery of the True Teacher and the Essene Impact on the Shaping of Human Destiny. U.K. Element Books
Schwarz. G. (1970) Sect Ideologies and Social Status. University of Chicago Press
Sealey. J. (1985) Religious Education: Philosophical perspectives. London. George Allen & Unwin.
Shanks.H. (1992) Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York. Random House
Starr.C.G. (1991)A History of the Ancient World. Oxford University Press. UK.
Talmon.S. (1989) The World of Qumran from Within. Jerusalem. Magnus Press.
Vanderkam.J.C. (1994) The Dead Sea Scrolls Today. Michigan. Wm B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
Vermes.G. (1987) The Dead Sea Scrolls 3rd Ed. London. Penguin Books
Wilson.E. (1978 ) Israel and the Dead Sea Scrolls. New York. Farrar, Straus, Giroux.
Wise.M., Abegg.M., Cook.J.R., Cook.E. (1996) Dead Sea Scrolls: A comprehensive translation of the controversial ancient scrolls with material never published or translated before now, and including the most recently released texts. Hodder & Stoughton ?Aust.
Yadin. Y. (1957) The Message of the Scrolls. Weidenfeld & Nicholson. London.
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 2013 is held by the nominated authors on this article page.
The Download book does not contain a section on Seder Olam
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.
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 also 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.
He currently (2013) teaches Conversational English in SuZhou City Jiangsu Province in China.
Dates for Nabopolassar & Nebuchadrezzar Kings of Babylon - and - Josiah and Jehoiakim Kings of Judah as per (Wiseman.D.J. (1961) Chronicles of the Chaldaean Kings (626-556 BC) in the British Museum. Trustees of the British Museum. London) Using Babylonian Chronicles B.M. 22047 (p.65) and BM 21946 (p.67) But with a one (1) year adjustment for the Reigns of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadrezzar.
607 bce - Sep - Nabopolassar engaged at Bit-Hanunia / Urartu - 18th year - B.M. 22047 Line 1-4
607 bce - Dec - Josiah's 31st year commences
607 bce - Dec/Jan - Nabopolassar returns to Babylon - B.M. 22047 Line 1-4
606 bce - May/Jun - Campaigning to the north - 19th year - B.M. 22047 Lines 5-7
606 bce - Jun/Jul - Nabopolassar returns to Babylon - B.M. 22047 Line 8
606 bce - Jul/Aug - Necho heads North for Carchemish
606 bce - Aug/Sep - Nebuchadrezzar returns to Babylon - B.M. 22047 Line 12
606 bce - Aug/Sep - Josiah of Judah slain
606 bce - Aug/Sep - Jehoahaz becomes king of Judah
606 bce - Sep/Oct - Nabopolassar Heads to Kimuhu - B.M. 22047 Line 12
606 bce - Nov - Nabopolassar captures Kimuhu - B.M. 22047 Line 14
606 bce - Nov - Jehoahaz deposed by Pharaoh Necho - taken to Riblah
606 bce - Nov - Jehoiakim commences - 1st Artificial year commences.
Topic 1. What is the Seder Olam Rabbah Topic 2. Seder Olam Chronological Chart : Adam to Abraham: Topic 3. Seder Olam & The 430 year Covenant with Abraham: Topic 4. Joseph in Seder Olam Rabbah: Topic 5. Seder Olam & The Pharaoh who knew not Joseph: Topic 6. Seder Olam & Israel Wandering in the Wilderness: Topic 7. 850 year/17 Jubilee Period, Joshua to Ezekiel's Vision in 14th year Exile: Topic 8. Comparative Chronologies:Seder Olam Rabbah, Josephus, Book of Judges: Topic 9. Ehud & 80 years of Peace - Judges 3:30 and Erroneous Biblical Chronology: Topic 10. Seder Olam:How Long was the Ark of the Covenant at Kiriath Jearim?: Topic 11. Seder Olam Rabbah's Confusing Chronology : Samuel, Saul and David: Topic 12: Seder Olam Chronological Discrepancies regarding Samuel, Saul & David. Topic 13: Apportioning the 63 years left for Samuel & Saul Topic 14: Seder Olam Rabbah : How many days in a Biblical year? Topic 15: Chronologies of Samuel,Saul, David & Solomon
