|Home||Forum - Discussion||Chapter Precis - TOC||Full Version||TOC||Biography||Appendix 5 (Chart)||Email Contact|
CHAPTER ONE: The Dead Sea Scrolls.
|Chapter One relates to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Dead Sea Sect, the
Essenes, the Hasidim of Babylonia, the Proto-Essenes or the Qumran Sect, whatever is your favourite term for the peoples at Qumran on the Dead Sea. It is not meant to be an in-depth
study. It merely provides some background information on Scriptural Transmission. It discusses such issues as Biblical
transmission, Secret Calendars, Ciphers, The Damascus Document, the 364 day calendar Essene Calendar (Jubilees Calendar),
and the teacher of Righteousness, Onias III.
This Chapter serves as an introduction to both the reliability of Bible Chronology, and the apologetic arguments to follow in chapters Two and Three for changing the length of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, and the date for the Fall of Jerusalem.
The Terms Dead Sea Sect, Essenes, and Qumran Community are used interchangeably throughout this chapter to signify the group that introduced and/or used the artificial construct, and it is recognised that each of these designations may historically represent different groups.
It is highly recommended that readers acquaint themselves with 'The Dead Sea Scrolls' by Wise et.al. (1) in order to appreciate more fully the rather abbreviated contents of this particular chapter.
Some four years after discovering the artificial nature of the Biblical Chronological Data, an examination was undertaken of the chronological data contained in the 'Age of Wrath' (Damascus Document). When it appeared that this data was also presented from the perspective of the artificial construct, it became necessary to research the whole question of the Dead Sea Scrolls, their origin and history.
That research highlighted three significant points. Firstly, that there existed at Qumran, almost identical religious texts which predate our oldest manuscripts by a thousand years. Secondly, that ancient Israelite documents were copied with tremendous precision; and Thirdly, that the 'sect' apparently used the same artificial construct as found in the 'King's Calendar'.
The implications of this discovery resulted in a re-examination of Josephus' data, the result of which was that it too was apparently heavily indebted to the artificial construct. Since by virtue of the almost complete agreement between the Masorete (2) and Septuagint texts, it is possible to conclude that most of the transcription of the artificial construct had been completed by the mid third century BCE, it seemed apparent that the use of the artificial construct by the 'Qumran community' in reference to events in the mid to late second century BCE, indicated a working knowledge of the calendar.
Furthermore, independent references by Josephus in the artificial construct, to events in the beginning of the Second Century BCE, indicated that knowledge and use of this construct existed as late as 104 BCE, some one hundred and fifty years after the major portion of Israelite History had been altered.
Given that much of Josephus' chronological material exists no where else; that he was somewhat indebted to the Essenes; that the 'Damascus Document' is allegedly an Essene Document; and that the Qumran community was allegedly involved in the transcription of historical and religious documents, it became impossible to ignore the conclusion that the 'Dead Sea Sect' was intimately familiar with the artificial construct.
It is precisely because this link between the Artificial Calendar, the Scriptures, Josephus and the 'Essenes' exists, that the examination undertaken here is necessary.
Because there are far too many varied and complex issues arising out of such an examination, this examination must be limited to but a few relevant areas. (3)
1. Scriptural transmission.
2. The Artificial Constructs' transcription
3. The significance of the 364 day calendar
4. Identity of the Dead Sea Sect
5. Identity of the Teacher of Righteousness
6. The Inherent Flaw in the 364 Day Calendar
7. The Starting Point
1. Scriptural transmission.
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. (4)
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. (5)
The fact that they are almost totally identical, provides clear demonstration of the care with which the Scriptures were copied. This fact alone requires either that 'All' Biblical authors used the artificial construct, or that 'all' Biblical books were transcribed with the artificial construct.
2. Transcription of the Artificial Construct
From about 250 BCE. when the 'Scriptures' of the day were translated into Greek, a variety of translations into other languages has occurred, and indeed is still occurring. Some of these, for example the Greek and the Syriac versions, contain chronological details which differ from the Masoretic text passed down to us today. (6)
As most of the details in the Septuagint agree with those of the Masorete, it is safe to assume that the chronological transcription of Israel's history had all but been completed (and accepted) by the time the Septuagint was published in the mid-third century BCE. Since the historical and prophetic books were not collated until the mid-fifth century BCE. the time frame within which this task was performed was circa 250 BCE and c.450 BCE.
One must wonder why it was thought appropriate to alter history. The only answer seems to be that (these ubiquitous) 'they' wanted to outdo other national groups in their boasts to descend from 'the oldest' civilization. (7) If one wished to extend one's history, this artificial history would be the easiest, whilst still retaining a true and accurate historical record.
3. The Significance of the 364 day calendar
The artificial construct, hereinafter referred to as the 'King's Calendar', appears to have derived from the same concept of a 364 day solar year, as was held by the 'Essenes'. That is to say, that each year was (believed to have been) comprised of 364 days that were easily divisible by seven (7) day weeks, (8) four (4) week months, and as a result, thirteen (13) month years. By recording history in terms of years consisting of 336 days (12 months of 4 weeks of 7 days), that history could actually be extended. But were the Essenes responsible for having done this? The only 'reasonable' answer 'must be' that 'perhaps' they were the ones responsible.
When one researches the history of Qumran, there are numerous significant indicators that implicate the original sectarian society of Qumran. The best that can be suggested here is that readers investigate matters raised in the 'Footnote Apologetic' (9) and form their own opinions.
4. Identity of the Dead Sea Sect
Within this chapter, references to the Qumran community tend to be provided in less than definitive ways. This is because there is still much debate as to the composition, origin, and philosophy of those comprising the community at any given point in the history of Qumran.
On the subject of Qumran, its inhabitants and the authors of the scrolls found there, there are as many opinions as there are books and it is not my intention to enter discourse on any of them. What I will say here, is that 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. See Wise et.al. (1996 p.32), who also assert (p.19) that what is called the Standard Model of interpreting the Damascus document, is chronologically flawed, and not consistent with the latest archaeological findings (p.24).
The 'King's Calendar' has nothing to offer in the continuing pursuit to understand the people and history of Qumran, save one thing, and that relates to the Damascus Document, and the identity of the Teacher of Righteousness.
5. The Teacher of Righteousness.
According to the Damascus Document, a three hundred and ninety (390) year Age of Wrath (10) extended from the Fall of Jerusalem in 586 BCE to the formation of the (Dead Sea Sect) 'Community', and another twenty (20) years passed before the coming of the Teacher of Righteousness. Another forty (40) years were prophesied to transpired between the time of the Teacher's death, and G-d's judgment. (Wise Et.Al. p. 60 & p.221)
Few would not understand the difficulties currently encountered in identifying the Teacher of righteousness, but as the 'King's Calendar' demonstrates, the chronological data provided (11) in the Damascus Document clearly indicates the Teacher of Righteousness to be Onias III.
The Age of Wrath is chronologically broken down into two categories, the actual age of wrath followed by a period of groping in darkness until the Teacher of Righteousness arrives. Later we are informed that subsequent to his death, a forty year period transpires until judgment arrives. These chronological references are interpreted by the 'King's Calendar'. Note that 'line' numbers are those listed in the far left column of the 'King's Calendar' (Refer to Appendix Three).
From the Exile in 586 BCE (Line 'O') there are 390 years ascribed to the Age of Wrath. This extends to and includes (Line 389) the Artificial year 15/5/227 to 17/4/226. From the end of the Age of Wrath, there is a Twenty year period of 'Groping' (to Line 409), to and including the Artificial Year 31/10/209 to 2/10/208 after which time the 'Teacher of Righteousness' appears.
Historically, this appears to refer to High Priest Onias
III. Although no time is quote for the length of his ministry, he died or was murdered (whilst in exile subsequent to having been deposed and
imprisoned) in 172/171 BCE., which would take us to Line 449, or the
artificial year 2/10/172 to 4/9/171, which,
interestingly enough, is Forty artificial years.
(See Vanderkam, (1994) page 105.)
The Damascus Document also records that from the Teachers Death until the Coming of Judgment (presumably the Messiah), there will extend a period of Forty (40) years. Forty years from Onias' death, (Line 489), is the artificial year extending from 4/7/135 to 7/8/134, during which year John Hyrcanus assumed the roles of 'High Priest' and 'King'. (Vanderkam, 1994, p.105)
In all, from the Destruction of the Temple until the Judgment, there elapse 490 years, a figure that does not escape anyone's attention.
Whilst many have tried in vain to identify the Teacher of Righteousness, the sect's chronological timetable from the perspective of the artificial construct of the 'King's Calendar' appears to identify Onias III as that teacher arriving in the group in 209/208 BCE. It further appears to identify the year 135/134 BCE. (the same as that for the assumption of John Hyrcanus) as the year in which the Judgment is to come.
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. (12)
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. (13) 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. (14) 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, (15) 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.
It must be close to a statistical impossibility (16) for the chronological data in the Damascus document to pinpoint via the 'King's Calendar', specific persons and historical events, which of themselves constitute only one of three possibilities (See Schonfield 1984 p.23-27) pertinent to the information provided. It seems also clear that if the Judgement forty years after the Teacher's death refers to the year 134 BCE., it is connected to either the assumption of John Hyrcanus as High Priest/King, or some event in the reign of Antiochus VII, or else, this portion was written prior to 134 BCE, and was intended to be prophetic. On the other hand it may be connected to the prophecy of the Gadfan (Wise et.al. p353) who is to come 10 jubilees after the destruction of the temple. This could be interpreted as 490 years after the fall of Jerusalem, or the 'King's Calendar' year 134 BCE., in which case the blasphemer may not be any foreign King, but John Hyrcanus?
To summarise then, the 'King's Calendar' would assume that the transcription of the artificial calendar into the biblical books, having occurred pre-mid 3rd century, was a closely guarded secret, one that was known to the High Priest in Jerusalem. When he was usurped and later killed, the transmission of this secret to his 'high priestly' successors was interrupted, (17) the task falling upon the 'group' with which the High Priest had associated himself. Not all in this group (nor their subsequent descendant groups) could have been aware of the secret.
6. The Calendar's Inherent flaw.
As discussed in the 'Research Proposal', the proposition that a 336 day artificial calendar was constructed from a 364 day solar calendrical year, inherently results in erroneous tabulation. Such a calendar inherently devalues 'true' history by one and one quarter days for each solar year thus converted. This is to say that if a solar or agricultural year is given a value of 364 days, the conversion process is in error before it begins. When reconstructing the data this error must be corrected. The formula used to create artificial years is believed to have been:
['X' = any given number of 'real' years]
'X' multiplied by 364 days = 'Y' number of days
'Y' divided by 336 days = 'Z' artificial years.
'Z' = 1.083X
The figure 'Z' (artificial years) represents the original number of the years plus 8%.
According to this formula 12 years x 364 days = 4368 days.
4368 days divided by 336 = 13 artificial years.
13 artificial years = 12 calendar years (or 12 x 1.083)
The number of the artificial years, represents the original number of the converted years plus 8%.
However if 'X' = any given number of 'real' years, which is to say, 'True Solar years' then 'X' must be multiplied by 365.25 days (not 364 days) to determine the number of 'Y' days. Therefore when restoring the 'artificial calendar' to it's original form of 364 day 'X' years, an additional 1.25 days must be added to the calendar for each 'X' year that was converted. In order to do this the following Steps were undertaken.
Step One: Select a commencement date
Step Two: Generate a computerised Calendar of days equivalent to two thousand years (For a Discussion of the process of these steps, refer to Appendix 10.)
Step Three: Divide that Calendar into periods of 336 days
Step four: Record every 337th day as the first day of an artificial year
Step Five: Divide artificial years into 13 year blocks (representing 12 solar years)
Step Six: Insert 15 days into each 13 year block. (1.25 days per 'year' converted into 364 days)
Step Seven: Record adjusted new year dates
These procedures were followed in the generation of the 'King's Calendar', and the missing one and one quarter days from the original conversion of ancient Israelite History, were re-inserted. The commencement point for this calendar was the 9th day of the 4th month of 586 BCE as recorded in the Babylonian Calendar, and it is appropriate here to briefly discuss this issue.
7. The Starting Point
At the time that the redactors introduced the artificial construct into the nations historical data (between 5th and 3rd Centuries BCE), they would have required some point in their history from which to introduce it. The 'King's Calendar' process in its calculation of that Starting Point, is fully explained in the next chapter, but briefly stated, it was determined that the fall of Jerusalem on the 9th Day of the 4th Month of Zedekiah's 11th year in 586 BCE. was the prime conjunction for both the Babylonian and Artificial Calendars.
By this is meant that the 9th day of the 4th month of the Babylonian Calendar, was synchronised with the Artificial Calendar, so that the historical commencement point of the artificial calendar was its' 9th day of the 4th month. From that day, both past and future history were transcribed into an artificial chronological system.
Based upon this premise, it was determined that the first day of the first
month of that artificial year was April
17th. 586 BCE. Using this
date as the cornerstone of research, calculations were done forward and backward
in time, to create an artificial calendar covering the period 2000 to 30 BCE.,
in accordance with the protocols listed in Section Six (6).
8. Chapter Summary:
One of the major contributions to theological understanding derived from the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, is that the transcription of Scriptural and other historical material, was treated by the ancients with the utmost care and accuracy. Nevertheless, the chronological data that has been recorded and transmitted, is demonstrably incompatible with known history.
Derived from the Sect's belief that G-d had commanded
Israel to follow a 364 day calendar year, an artificial construct of 336 days,
has demonstrated that the Sect's chronological history in relation to the 'Age
of Wrath' and the arrival and death of their 'Teacher of Righteousness',
indicates specific, known, historical dates. From this we may assume
that not only is there an artificial calendar, but that it is sourced in the 364
day calendar year of the Dead Sea Sect. A commencement date for the
transcription of the artificial calendar has been calculated. All that
remains is to put the 'King's Calendar' to the mathematical and historical test.
To Chapter Two
Abegg.M., Cook.J.R., Cook.E. (1996)
Dead Sea Scrolls:
and including the most recently released
and including the most recently released
2. Mosorete is not technically correct in reference to Texts prior to the 9th Century AD. The term 'Masorete' therefore may at times appear in lieu of the perhaps more correct term 'Text of the Day'. See Lipman. D.P. (2000) Gates to Jewish Heritage. The Masora and the Masoretes http://www.jewishgates.org/history/jewhis/masorah.stm Return
3. Wise et.al. (1996) offer concise material relevant to the discussion in this chapter. For more complex and controversial materials, the following volumes might be consulted:
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 Return
4. See also: Starr.C.G. (1991)A History of the Ancient World. Oxford University Press. UK. p.145 Return
5. Refer to: Yadin. Y. (1957) The Message of the Scrolls. Weidenfeld & Nicholson. London. p.83 Return
6. Refer to Kenyon. F.G. (1958) Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts. Eyre & Spottiswoode. page 76 for discussion on the Massoretic text. Return
7. Such a concept is far from outrageous- Refer to: Conzelmann. (1992) Gentiles - Jews - Christians. Polemics and Apologetics in the Greco-Roman Era. Translated by M. E. Boring. Fortress Press. Minneapolis. p.145 Return
8. Refer to De Vaux. R. (1961) Ancient Israel. It's Life and Institutions. Darton, Longman and Todd. London. p.188, Return
Apologetic For the Significance of the Qumran 364 day calendar
As a good place to start in the search for significant indication of complicity by the original sectarian society of Qumran, the following material may be of assistance.
Wise, et.al.(1996) pp. 25,119,125.
Schonfeld. (1984) Ch.7 pp66-67
Additionally Note that although Josephus and Philo reveal no knowledge of the 364 day calendar (Wise Et.Al.1996 p 25) Josephus does provide extra Biblical data recorded in the artificial construct, and one wonders at its' point of origin. For example, his reference to there having transpired 471 years between the re-establishment of the monarchy under Aristobolus in 104 BCE and the return from Exile under "Cyrus. [Cornfeld.G. (1982) Josephus: The Jewish War. Zondervan Publishing House Michigan. p.25. Ch. III (1) 70.]
It can hardly be coincidence, that the mathematical construct of the artificial calendar interprets and confirms that the stated parameters of Josephus' chronological reference are precisely as he indicate, ie. He was right!
Later he changed this figure from 471 years to 481 years, (Antiquities XIII Cornfeld, 1982, p.25), which is correct in Solar years, but for a different set of parameters. (Josephus : Chapter 20 & Appendix 12)
The conclusion to draw is that the chronological data was derived from an external source, and that its artificial nature was unknown and therefore not understood. The question remains though, 'From whence did such data originate'?
There appears to be no evidence to assert that the artificial calendar had its Origin in the Dead Sea Community at Qumran, but their fanatical adherence to the 364 day calendar, coupled with their secret and mysterious ways do provide significant indication of both their knowledge and use of it.
The 'Palestinian' community was undoubtedly not involved in the original transcription, for it appears that they had no knowledge of it until the appearance of the Teacher of Righteousness. It is nevertheless possible that they may have continued to search for and adjust any previously missed details, for example 1 Kings 6:1 which in the received text at the time of the Septuagint, must have read 440 years not 480 years.
Refer also to Wise et.al. 1996 p 172 on the community's rewriting of scriptural portions - to p. 199 clarifying confusing chronology concerning Sinai and to pages 119 & 125 on the 'pesher' approach to biblical interpretations.'
Refer also to Vanderkam. (1994) in reference to the 3rd century placement of the 364 day calendar.
Sociological Perspective and Canonical Sanctity:
Possibly the biggest obstacle to not only the concept of an 'Artificial Construct' but 'Essene' complicity in it, will be something not generally found discussed in the fields of Theology, Archaeology or Ancient History, but in the fields of Psychology, Sociology and Anthropology.
Our biggest obstacle to such a 'Novel' idea is that which one writer in relation to 'God honouring' approaches. [Gottwald. N. (1979) Tribes of Yahweh. New York . Orbis Books page 5] describes as 'Canonical Sanctity'. This expression relates to the ways in which our thinking processes are affected by either our 'religiosity or anti-religiosity'. See Bibliotheca Sacra (1989) McFall [page 404]
Another obstacle (inhibition) is described by Gottwald as 'academic overspecialisation' which by definition, does not promote a 'holistic view' of the totality of the matters given over to such specialisation.
What these mean to the 'King's Calendar' is that between those whose total focus is on one specific field, and those feeling that their underlying religious or anti-religious tendencies are threatened, there will be an automatic 'knee jerk' reaction to either the possibility of an artificial construct, or to the possibility that 'The Bible' has been tampered with (Refer to next section: Redactorial Opinion), or to the possibility that it originated with the Essenes or Proto-Essenes.
The 'experts' in matters relating to the Dead Sea Sect and the documents of Qumran, will find their particular 'mind sets' challenged. Many will provide forceful logical argument, but when it comes to 'Sectarianism', Sociology, not Logic is the regimen required in its understanding. Sectarianism and indoctrination go hand in hand, and its' faith always supercedes Logic, evidence and commonsense.
In short, while the 'Supposition' of the 'King's Calendar' is that the artificial calendar was introduced into the historical materials by the 'Essenes or Proto-Essenes', in Babylon originally, and later in Palestine, there is no absolute proof that they were or were not the instigators. Nevertheless, the indications are there, and such processes are indicative of sectarianism.
For sociological perspectives, 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).
The 'King's Calendar' premise that historical chronological data was altered by way of an artificial chronology to suit the purposes of sectarian interest, is not at all inconsistent with the many and various theories to come out of the school of 'Higher Criticism'. Grant.M. (1984) The History of Ancient Israel. New York. Charles Scribner's and Sons Chapter 14 onwards, provides a great deal of enlightening information in relation to 'redactorial historical revisionism'.
The 'King's Calendar' hypothesis merely extends such 'commonly accepted' opinions, and transfers them from narrative text to chronological data designed to accomplish peculiar and sectarian redactorial interest and 'interpretation'. In fact, Grant's (1984 p.191/192) comments in relation to Nehemiah, echo similar conclusions reached by Wise et.al.(1996) in relation to the mind set of the Dead Sea Sect community members.
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. Return
10. Knibb. M.A. (1987) The Qumran Community. Cambridge University Press. p.20. believes this 390 years to have a spiritual not chronological application Return
11. On the issue of Chronological Data - Robinson T.H. (1932) A History Of Israel. Vol I From the Exodus to the Fall of Jerusalem, 586 B.C. Clarendon Press. Oxford page 19, discusses at length the 'fictitious scheme' of Old Testament chronology. His argument is designed to demonstrate the complete untrustworthiness of that chronology. The whole point of the 'King's Calendar' is that this chronology is indeed 'fictitious' in that it is artifically manipulated, but that does not mean that it does not truly reflect TRUE CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY. Return
12. It is interesting within the overall discussion of the peculiarity of the Sect and it's Teacher of Righteousness, to note the Historical Religious significance of Onias in relation to the Hellenising influences of his day. See the Disscussion by Allegro. J.M. (1971) The Chosen People; a study of Jewish History from the Time of the Exile until the Revolt of Bar Kochbar. London. Hodder and Stoughton. Page 76. Return
13. Hershel Shanks (1992) Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls Random house. New York. Ch 6 pp79-84 on the Palestinian or Babylonian origins of the sect. Return
14. Schonfeld (1984 p44) in relation to 'ciphers' suggests that the Chasidim may have influenced the Biblical texts more than we might appreciate, and that the Qumran scribes were expert at playing didactic games with ciphers. If unto the Teacher of Righteousness 'G-d made known all the secrets of His servants the Prophets', such didactic and other ciphers might be implied. Return
15. I suggest here only that which so many have previously suggested, that the ancients saw pattern in numbers - hence the artificial calendar and its repetitive numerical patterns. Return
16. Ligertwood. A.L.C. (1988) Australian Evidence. First Edition. Butterworths P/l. North Ryde. p.42) 'The more information consistent with a particular hypothesis, the more probable that hypothesis becomes, until it reaches a stage of acceptance by the fact finder, as the most likely explanation of the evidence'. With regard to mathematical possibilities, it can be stated that the consistent ability of the 'King's Calendar' to synchronise such a lengthy period of history, gives rise to a 'probability' of legitimacy. 'Probabilities' in 'law' do have a legitimate function Return
17. Menelaus who supplanted Jason was not of the Zadokite High Priestly line Schonfield 1984, p.26 Return
|Home||Forum - Discussion||Chapter Precis - TOC||Full Version||TOC||Biography||Appendix 5 (Chart)||Email Contact|
© 2003 BenDedek. R.P. The 'King's Calendar': The Secret of Qumran. Australia. www.kingscalendar.com sitemap
Web site design and e-publication by click2.com Australia