End of Days Sale: The king's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran, which has been available to academics at an academic price for 6 years now, has run its course. Before the Merchant Banking contract expires in November 2010, this book is being made available [From August 20th] to 'lay readers' at the all time low price of US$10. This offer only lasts until November 2010. 'PURCHASE NOW'.
The purpose of this excerpt is to challenge many false academic assumptions which have been accepted by the general community as academic fact. In short, it 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 except, we see through the use of a computer generated mathematical artificial calendar, (What is the King's Calendar?) 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.
Throughout this article I have said many times, that Academics use Bible chronology to justify their own theories, despite the fact that they constantly maintain that Bible Chronology is misleading.
In this Section, which forms a natural bridge between the two invasions of Jerusalem, [596 BCE & 586 BCE] I want to demonstrate Academic Mathematical fudging.
Academics know that Nebuchadrezzar's reign ended in 562 BCE, and they (incorrectly) assign him a 43 year reign preceeded by an ascension year in 605 BCE. Therefore his First Regnal Year commences in 604 BCE. From this they can calculate that the Babylonian captivity commenced in 587 BCE.
Furthermore, because both Zedekiah and Jehoiakim each had 11 year reigns, by adding these 22 years to 587 BCE, they can determine that Jehoiakim ascended the throne of Juddah in 609 BCE, which by implication, is the year in which King Josiah died.
Furthermore, they use Jeremiah 46:2 to support their claim that Jehoiakim's 4th year was Nebuchadrezzar's Accession year. [It is Not. Jeremiah 25:1 is correct]
But look what happens when you actually count out these years:
587 BCE - Zedekiah's 11th year.
588 BCE - Zedekiah's 10th year.
589 BCE - Zedekiah's 9th year.
590 BCE - Zedekiah's 8th year.
591 BCE - Zedekiah's 7th year.
592 BCE - Zedekiah's 6th year.
593 BCE - Zedekiah's 5th year.
594 BCE - Zedekiah's 4th year.
595 BCE - Zedekiah's 3rd year.
596 BCE - Zedekiah's 2nd year.
597 BCE - Zedekiah's 1st year.
From this Table we can see That in 597 BCE, which is supposed to be Nebuchadrezzar's 7th year and the one in which he campaigned against Jehoiakim for refusing to pay tribute, and during which year he set Jehoiachin on the throne of Judah, it was actually King Zedekiah who was ruling. So what happened to Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin?
Not a Problem. As many historians will tell you, this is not really a problem, because obviously Zedekiah really only reigned 10 years not 11 years.
So let's change this calendar a little and delete one year from Zedekiah's Reign.
587 BCE - Zedekiah's 10th year.
588 BCE - Zedekiah's 9th year.
589 BCE - Zedekiah's 8th year.
590 BCE - Zedekiah's 7th year.
591 BCE - Zedekiah's 6th year.
592 BCE - Zedekiah's 5th year.
593 BCE - Zedekiah's 4th year.
594 BCE - Zedekiah's 3rd year.
595 BCE - Zedekiah's 2nd year.
596 BCE - Zedekiah's 1st year.
597 BCE - Jehoiakim's 11th year.
598 BCE - Jehoiakim's 10th year.
599 BCE - Jehoiakim's 9th year.
600 BCE - Jehoiakim's 8th year.
601 BCE - Jehoiakim's 7th year.
602 BCE - Jehoiakim's 6th year.
603 BCE - Jehoiakim's 5th year.
604 BCE - Jehoiakim's 4th year.Not according to Historians
605 BCE - Jehoiakim's 3rd year.
606 BCE - Jehoiakim's 2nd year.
607 BCE - Jehoiakim's 1st year.
608 BCE - Josiah's Last year : Out by 1 year
So the first thing to notice is that adding the 22 years assigned in the Bible to Zedekiah and Jehoiakim interfers with current academic chronology which puts the Death of Josiah in 609 BCE. Not to worry though many Academics will just say Josiah died around 609 BCE, perhaps in 608 BCE. It is one way to solve a problem, but in the process, creates another.
The Other Problem:
By the reckoning of the chronology provided above, Jehoiakim's 4th year, the year which apparently corresponds to Nebuchadrezzar's accession year, (as per Jeremiah 46:2) is now 604 BCE, not 605 BCE. Coincidently, this happens to be the year insisted upon by The King's Calendar.
To correct this faulty chronology historians would have to assign Zedekiah a 10 year reign and Jehoiakim a 12 year reign.
609 BCE - Death of Josiah. : At last the desired outcome.
But what if 596 BCE is the year of the Babylonian Captivity?
586 BCE - Zedekiah's 11th year.
587 BCE - Zedekiah's 10th year.
588 BCE - Zedekiah's 9th year.
589 BCE - Zedekiah's 8th year.
590 BCE - Zedekiah's 7th year.
591 BCE - Zedekiah's 6th year.
592 BCE - Zedekiah's 5th year.
593 BCE - Zedekiah's 4th year.
594 BCE - Zedekiah's 3rd year.
595 BCE - Zedekiah's 2nd year.
596 BCE - Zedekiah's 1st year.
597 BCE - Jehoiakim's 11th year.Fits Nicely
598 BCE - Jehoiakim's 10th year.
599 BCE - Jehoiakim's 9th year.
600 BCE - Jehoiakim's 8th year.
601 BCE - Jehoiakim's 7th year.
602 BCE - Jehoiakim's 6th year.
603 BCE - Jehoiakim's 5th year.
604 BCE - Jehoiakim's 4th year. : Not according to Historians
605 BCE - Jehoiakim's 3rd year.
606 BCE - Jehoiakim's 2nd year.
607 BCE - Jehoiakim's 1st year.
608 BCE - No King at all! -:- Oops!-:- -:--:-
609 BCE - Josiah's Last Year.
This synchronism also does not fit the picture painted for us by historians.
At the End of the day, the Academics we trust so much are just pulling the wool over our eyes.
(Refer to: James et.al. (1991, p.162) comments in relation to hypercritical treatment of the biblical narratives, and poor methodology. See also Miller & Hayes (1986, p.74) in relation to 'attitudes' of historians.)
The following chart comes from Appendix 6 which can be found on the Chapter Precis page.
It demonstrates that Academic rejection of Biblical Chronology is not actually justified, for it shows that the 37 artificial years (35 Solar years) of Jehoiachin's captivity, does fit with a 42 Regnal year reign for Nebuchadrezzar.
Remembering that there is no actual evidence to prove that Nebuchadrezzar reigned 43 years.
The 'King's Calendar' insists that Nebuchadrezzar reigned Forty-Two (42) Regnal years not Forty-Three (43) regnal years. In presenting this chart it is important to remember that it's purpose is to 'Synchronise' the Biblical Data with Nebuchadrezzar's reign, the most certain date for which is 562 BCE, the year he died. Also note that:
Jehoiachin's Captivity is recorded in the Bible in artificial years not solar years.
He was not in prison for 37 solar years, but 35 solar years.
Academic Chronologies use Solar years, and thus, if Amel-Marduk's accession year were 562 BCE, Jehoiachin could not have been held in Captivity for Thirty-Seven Solar Years (Based upon current Chronologies).
Thiele (1966, p.216 , Appendix 'G') bases his chronology on Ptolemy's Canon and places Nebuchadrezzar's reign between 604 BCE and 562 BCE. which is Forty-Two (42) Solar Years.
Thiele (1966, p.218, Appendix 'H'), in relation to eclipses that establish the chronology of the ancient Near East, refers to an event in 568 BCE as having occurred in Nebuchadrezzar's 37th year. By Thiele's standard this is actually his 36th Regnal year, not 37 th year, unless Thiele includes the Accession year.
Wiseman (1985, p.36) also refers to an event recorded in Nebuchadrezzar's astronomical diary for his 38th year, which by his standard must be 567 BCE.
The Accession and First Year dates for Nebuchadrezzar provided in this chart are as they should be since 562 BCE is recognised as Nebuchadrezzar's last year.
The reigns of the Kings of Judah only synchronise with Nebuchadrezzar's first regnal year when that 1st Regnal year commences in Nisan of 603 BCE.
It should be remembered that the regnal years referred to in the columns relating to Wiseman and Thiele, have as their starting date, the First of Nisan, which occurs in March or April.
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'.
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.
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.
