Qumran, Essenes, Dead Sea Scrolls, Dead Sea Sect, Damascus Document, and Teacher of Righteousness Apologetic at King's Calendar.
Qumran: A Question of Proof.
Proving 'The Secret of Qumran' Hypothesis.
Preface.
Stated on the opening page of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran', is the following:
It is the hypothesis of this research that the Jubilee Calendar of the Essenes which measures 364 days per year, was artificially divided into thirteen months (13) of four (4) weeks of seven (7) days, with the thirteenth month being 'carried over' so to speak, so that every twelve (12) solar years, an extra year (13th) is created. By this process, real Jewish history was extended. Biblical Synchronisms from this perspective, do actually synchronise, and this will be demonstrated.
Two academic complaints laid against the 'King's Calendar' at this point in time, maintain that no proof has been offered to demonstrate that it was in fact the Dead Sea Sect (Essenes, Proto-Essenes, Hasidim, or whatever name you attach) that created this calendar, or that they inserted it into their history.
That however is NOT THE PURPOSE of this book. This book demonstrates the effectiveness of using a 336 day period for each 'YEAR' mentioned in Scripture and that the Synchronous Chronology of the Divided Kingdom, as presented in the Bible, is correct. We simply have never been able to see it before.
What is presented in this book is the result (mathematically and therefore historically), of using a specific numerical value for each 'year' listed in the Bible.
A Challenge to "Prove" the 'Secret of Qumran' Hypothesis.
I have in the past been told that I must prove that:
This 336 day artificial calendar is derived from the 364 day Jubilee Calendar;
That it derives from the Essenes;
That it comes from the Dead Sea Sect or
That it originates in Qumran.
Academic Proof?
There is nothing to Prove!
Whilst I have been asked to prove the points listed above, the fact is that there is no current hard evidence to prove anything at all about the Essenes, the Jubilee Calendar, the Dead Sea Sect, or Qumran.
Whatever we read in relation to these topics is but theory and reasonable assumption based on archaeological evidence of something in relation to these topics, and that archaeological evidence is constantly being challenged.
What can Academics Prove About The Essenes, Qumran or the Dead Sea Sect?
In 2006 The New York Times ran an article entitled: Archaeologists Challenge Link Between Dead Sea Scrolls and Ancient Sect by By John Noble Wilford. Based upon this report, how can it be imagined that archaeologists and historians know what they are talking about in relation to Qumran?
New archaeological evidence is raising more questions about the conventional interpretation linking the desolate ruins of an ancient settlement known as Qumran with the Dead Sea Scrolls, which were found in nearby caves in one of the sensational discoveries of the last century.
...two Israeli archaeologists [Yizhak Magen and Yuval Peleg of the Israel Antiquities Authority] who have excavated the site on and off for more than 10 years now assert that Qumran had nothing to do with the Essenes or a monastery or the scrolls. It had been a pottery factory.
“The association between Qumran, the caves and the scrolls is, thus, a hypothesis lacking any factual archaeological basis,” Dr. Magen said in an article in the current issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.
With this revelation in mind, how is it that I could prove that the Qumran community (potters perhaps) had anything to do with Biblical redaction? The very last passage of the article cited above records that:
'Despite the rising tide of revisionist thinking, other scholars of the Dead Sea scrolls continue to defend the Essene hypothesis, though with some modifications and diminishing conviction.'
"Need more be said?"
Facts or Finance?
There are so many books and articles out there in the big wide world that one can read to learn about The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Dead Sea Sect, Qumran, The Essenes, and The Jubilee Calendar, and most earn the writers an income.
But when you look at them, they all conflict at some major junction.
No one at this time can definitively assert anything at all about Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls, let alone if or who instigated, inserted or propagated an artificial timeline into the historical records of Israel.
The 'King's Calendar' doesn't even bother to try. It merely demonstrates the results.
Academic Disagreement!
Just to note academic disagreement, let us look at just one issue as an example. The Damascus Document provides chronological details about the Essene 'community' [supposedly at Qumran] and the Teacher of Righteousness.
Such is the paucity of definitive understanding of the chronological information and the identity of the Teacher of Righteousness, that Mr. David Ramsay on his website provides 'A New Interpretation' of the data, seeking to back track the chronological statements, to the reign of King David. He writes:
The first paragraph of the Damascus Document describes the events leading up to the first appearance of the Teacher of Righteousness. There is a key phrase which sets these events in time. It reads, "390 years after He had given them into the hands of Nebuchadnezzar".
In their book "The Dead Sea Scroll, A New Translation" (1996, Harper) Wise, Abegg Jr., and Cook, state "The ambiguous statement about 390 years is interpreted so that the 390 years follow, rather than precede (as is possible in the original Hebrew) the conquest of Nebuchadnezzar."
If it is assumed the conquest took place about 597 BCE the date referred to could be either 207 BCE or 987 BCE. Despite 50 years of effort no one has been able to find events that even remotely resemble those described in the Scroll around the year 207 BCE. Some have tried to get around the problem by suggesting the 390 years "is only symbolic" and really means some other time span, but that solution I do not find satisfactory.
In this essay I will examine other possibilities and look for the events anchored on the date 987 BCE.
From that point onward, Mr. Ramsay seeks to find answers back in time. What he writes is extremely interesting and I enjoyed reading it. For those wanting more academic information on the Damascus Document, go to: "The Damascus Document and the Community Rule": (Summary of a lecture by J. R. Davila on 15 February 2005) from which I quote in part, highlighting specific phrases:
Some Specific Issues Regarding the Damascus Document
(1) The Origins of the Community. Due to space limitations, my focus here will be on a single pericope near the beginning of the Admonition, CD A 1.1-2.1, which appears to give a brief summary of the origins of the sect. We are told that preexilic unfaithfulness was punished by God and was followed by the "period of wrath," dated to 390 years after the conquest by Nebuchadnezzar (the Babylonian exile, presumably 587/6 BCE). Then there came twenty years in which the people knew their own guilt and groped for the path, until God raised up a "Teacher of Righteousness" who revealed God's will. He was opposed by the "man of scoffing" who initiated the persecution of the sect. This outline appears to date the period of wrath to c. 196-97 BCE and the rise of the Teacher of Righteousness to c. 177-76 BCE. But there are two problems. First, the number 390 is suspicious. It looks to be based on the number of years decreed for the punishment of Israel in an oracle in Ezekiel 4.5. In addition the twenty years could be taken as half of the forty years of punishment for Judah decreed in the same passage. Therefore it could be a very schematic estimate that is attempting to fit the sect's history into the eschatological ten-Jubilee cycle alluded to in Daniel 9 and 11QMelchizedek (11Q13). Second, it is widely agreed that this pericope of the Damascus Document is a piece of poetry, since it can be divided very easily into couplets of parallel lines characteristic of Hebrew poetry. However, the numbers and the reference to Nebuchadnezzar do not fit the poetic structure of the passage. They are clearly secondary additions to it by a later editor. We have no idea what the basis for the numbers was or how much they are historical vs. an ideological construct. So the chronological outline of the Admonition is highly suspect.
Third, Philip R. Davies, like Hempel, believes that a real community lies behind the Damascus Document. There may also have been a real group that called itself the Yah9ad, but the manuscripts of the Community Rule are private or library copies of a utopian document, one that reflects not a real community but an invented society inspired by antiquarian interests. Such utopian speculation is common in ancient Jewish literature. Consider, for example, Ezekiel's Temple, the Temple Scroll, the War Rule, and the Mishnah. If Davies's suggestion is true, it would require a radical rethinking of the whole field of Qumran studies.
About the Author. James R. Davila - Reader in Early Jewish Studies St Mary's College University of St Andrews St Andrews, Fife Scotland - also - weblog: PaleoJudaica.com (a blog on ancient Judaism and its historical and literary context)
The point of the highlights in the foregoing section is just to remind you the reader, that speculation does form a major part of academic thinking about what various archaeological evidences actually mean. This is stated with more clarity in The Judaism of the Damascus Sect: Abstract: Philip R. Davies (University of Sheffield)
Despite occasional attempts at defining the Judaism of Qumran, it is now generally recognized that the current uncertainty about the origin and relationship to each other of the Qumran scrolls makes it impossible to or unwise to collate them all into a single coherent statement.
The King's Calendar Position.
'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' recognises, as do all academics, that Biblical Chronology seems to be somewhat of a mess. (See:What is the King's Calendar?)
What became apparent in research and experimentation, was that a 336 day biblical year aligns the synchronous chronology of the Divided Kingdom period without requiring a controversial change in the chronologies presented in today's history books.
Although a connection is seen between the Jubilees Calendar's 364 day year and a 336 day year, how is it possible to say let alone prove that there is a specific connection to the Essenes - or a particular group of them - the Dead Sea Scrolls, Qumran, or the Dead Sea Sect, when no one yet understands exactly who and what these really were.
The King's Calendar however can make sense of the chronology of the 390 years of the Damascus Document, even if others cannot. This is discussed at King's Calendar in the article entitled: Onias III : Teacher of Righteousness
As with all the other computer generated mathematical results of the King's Calendar for the Divided Kingdom, the King's Calendar can demonstrate chronological connection to currently established dates for certain ancient historical events.
Is it just a coincidence that the maths of the King's Calendar can do this when no one else can.
Is it just coincidence that it does this using the principle of mathematical linear causality?
Is it just coincidence that the King's Calendar does not arbitrarily change Biblical Data whenever it chooses?
Or is it possible that the mathematical value of 336 days per Biblical year is correct?
The Real Questions is:
Can the results of the King's Calendar Math be disproved?
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'.
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
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
The Premise: Between the 5th and 3rd centuries BCE (but continuing down to at least 104 BCE), Sectarian redactors transcribed the legitimate 'solar year' chronological records of Israel and Judah, into an artificial form, with listed years as each comprised of 12 months of 4 weeks of 7 days, or 336 days per year, thus creating a 13th artificial year where 12 solar years existed.
When the Synchronous Chronological Data provided in the Books of Kings and Chronicles for the Divided Kingdom Period are measured in years of 336 days, the synchronisms actually align. [Refer to Appendix Five to see how it synchronises the Divided Kingdom Period]
General formula for Biblical Data conversion:
The formula for constructing the artificial calendar was:
'X' times 364 equals 'Y' days
'Y' days divided by 336 equals 'Z' artificial years.
Values are:
'X' = any given number of 'real/solar' years
364 = perceived days in the sectarian calendar
'Y' = number of days calculated
336 = number of days in an artificial year
'Z' = artificial years = 1.083'X' and represents the original number of the converted years plus 8%.
To reverse the process by hand:
'Z' years times 336 equals 'Y' divided by 364 equals the Number of 'X' years converted.
To see how effective this method is, SEE:Appendix 5:Diagrammatic Reconstruction of Israelite History from 936 to 586 BCE:
The Principle of Linear Causality
The King's Calendar is a very simple approach to Biblical Chronology. It substitutes a value of 336 days for every year listed in Scripture. As far as the Divided Kingdom is concerned, when you use this 336 day year value, the synchronisms actually work. To see how effective this method is, SEE:Appendix 5: Diagrammatic Reconstruction of Israelite History from 936 to 586 BCE
Because it is a mathematical system, the King's Calendar must abide by certain mathematical rules, the most important of which, is that if you change any date for any day, month, or year every other day, month, or year is effected and must also change. It's like a 'domino effect'. Chronological references cannot be 'forced' to fit, and nor can they simply be ignored or 'compressed' as is the usual case with historians and archaeologists.
If any King's Calendar chronological determination disagrees with anything in the history books, it must argue the case as to why the history books are wrong, or why the evidence for an assertion is untrustworthy. If the King's Calendar successfully defends its' position, then the history books cannot be treated as definitive, and if the King's Calendar is 'proven' wrong, then every other chronological reference it provides is also wrong.
Because of this, the King's Calendar Chronological Reconstruction of Israel's history is unique, in that its' methodology can be scientifically (mathematically) tested and demonstrated to be either true or false. Its' chronological predictions are able to be 'proved' or 'disproved'.
R.P.BenDedek is from Brisbane Australia and is the author of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran' at http://www.kingscalendar.com His academic articles set forth Apologetics for and results of his discovery of an "artificial chronological scheme" running through the Bible, Josephus, the Damascus Documents of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Seder Olam Rabbah.
He writes photographic 'Stories from China' and social editorial commentaries, both at KingsCalendar, and as a contributing newspaper columnist. He currently teaches Conversational English in China and in addition to his English Lessons at KingsCalendar, he has created specific sites for Students of English.
