R.P. BenDedek
Qumran: A Question of Proof.
By R.P.BenDedek
Sep 30, 2007 - 6:04:00 AM

On the opening page of 'The King's Calendar: The Secret of Qumran', I state 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 my book is the result (mathematically and therefore historically), of using a specific numerical value for each 'year' listed in the Bible.

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; prove that it derives from the Essenes; prove that it comes from the Dead Sea Sect or that it originates in Qumran.

But 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.

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. The article states that Archaeologists, Yizhak Magen and Yuval Peleg of the Israel Antiquities Authority report that their extensive excavations turned up pottery kilns, whole vessels, production rejects and thousands of clay fragments. "The association between Qumran, the caves and the scrolls is, thus, a hypothesis lacking any factual archaeological basis". They maintain that 'Qumran had nothing to do with the Essenes'.

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?

There are so many books and articles that one can read on or about The Dead Sea Scrolls, The Dead Sea Sect, Qumran, The Essenes, and The Jubilee Calendar; and when you look at them, they all conflict at some major junction. No one at this time can definitively assert anything at all, let alone 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.

Take for example the Damascus Document which provides chronological details about the 'community' 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. [The Dead Sea Scrolls-A New Interpretation By:  David Ramsay] He writes:

• 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."

From this point he 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 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: 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 experimentation, was that a 336 day biblical year pretty much 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: The Math & Science of 'The King's Calendar' No. 2 : 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?

For more internet links to issues related to Qumran go to: No. 2 : Onias III : Teacher of Righteousness at kingscalendar.

Hardcopy related reading.

• 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

R.P.Bendedek

Email: rpbendedek@hotmail.com

• List of KingsCalendar Academic Articles at Magic City
• What is the King's Calendar?
• Methodology
• King's Calendar Linear Causality

"The King's Calendar" is a chronological study of the historical books of the Bible (Kings and Chronicles), Josephus, Seder Olam Rabbah, and the (Essene) Damascus Document of The Dead Sea Scrolls.