By Nathan Lawrence (not fully edited notes)

This is a lengthy, deep dive into the so-called Zadok Priestly/Enoch/Qumran/Dead Seas Scrolls Calendar as opposed to the traditional visible crescent new moon/abib barley calendar that was extant in the second temple era and during the time of Yeshua and his followers. This is a detailed, technical and somewhat tedious read. If you are not inclined to slog your way through this, I suggest that you scroll down to the end and read my concluding overview comments.

(If you encounter typos in this article—and you will—please email me at hoshanarabbah@earthlink.net, so I can make corrections! Thank you.)

---

Division and Strife Within the Messianic, Hebraic Roots Movement

New winds of doctrine and earl tickling teachings are perpetually blowing through the Hebraic roots movement. I refer to it as “The Flavor of the Month Club. A few examples of this include: the lunar Sabbath, following rabbinic Judaism, the flat earth, new calendars, plural marriage or polygamy, unorthodox Bible translations, sacred names cults to name a few.

It seems that many people including some Bible teachers are ever learning and never coming to a knowledge of the truth (2 Tim 3:7). One minute they are championing this new doctrine (and peddling their merchandise to promote it and gaining a following), then the next minute they are promoting some new doctrine and their money grubbing gig repeats itself.

Sadly, the Hebraic roots movement lacks true scholars or those who have learned critical thinking skills, the rules of biblical interpretation or hermeneutics and exegesis which are based the science of logic. Thus, the movement is full of many unskilled teachers who teach errant doctrines and proffer false information. Buyers beware!

Add to the unskilled teacher the many self-appointed Bible “experts” and “teachers” who have neither been mentored by or are who are accountable to anyone including spiritual elders, who are more likely to possess knowledge, wisdom and understanding and can help mentor and raise up the newbies.

On top of all of this, enter the internet where anyone can get up and say anything no matter how inaccurate, whacky or off-the-wall ridiculous and gain a following especially if what they are saying is well-packaged and marketed. A good package can make even unkosher treif look appealing, tantalizing and palatable.

In Matthew 24, Yeshua warned us against false teachers, prophets and those who claim to be anointed (little messiahs, if you will). Even the very elect could be deceived (Matt 24:24 cp. 2 Pet 2:1–3)!

How to Examine New Information

I went into this study open-minded. What can I learn? Honestly, I knew very little about the so-called Zadok priesthood, the Qumran community, the Essenes and the my understanding of the teachings of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) was rudimentary at best. When examining new knowledge, we must be careful to guard against bias confirmation—that is, looking only to information that confirms our preconceived notions or our current deeply held beliefs about something. Maintaining objectivity and keeping an open mind is essential if one is searching for truth. We must let the facts speak for themselves (in hermeneutics referred to as exegesis) as opposed to reading into the facts our own interpretations and biases (eisegesis).

A Picture Quickly Began to Form Regarding Zadok Priestly or Enoch Calendar 

The more I listened to the proponents of the so-called Zadok calendar, the more I realized that their arguments are fundamentally flawed. A house may look beautiful, but if it is built on a foundation of sand or straw, no matter how wonderful the superstructure may look, it will fall down. I soon discovered, and it is easy to see, that the arguments for the Zadok calendar are built on a foundation of sand or straw. The advocates of the Zadok calendar make many gross and misleading assumptions at the outset and then build their case from that point onward. That is like saying that 2 + 2 = 5, and then building a system of mathematics on that premise. No matter how elaborate and sophisticated that system may look, it is still predicated upon a false premise and is thus erroneous and irrelevant. This is the case with the Zadok calendar.

Don’t Be So Open Minded That Your Brains Fall Out!

There is no doubt that many people who are teaching, promoting and following the Zadok calendar are well meaning and zealous truth seekers. Their heart is intent on serving YHVH Elohim and rediscovering biblical truths that have been lost over time or purposely hidden by Christian and Jewish religious systems. But as we search for truth, we must make certain to get our facts straight before moving into a new belief system, so that we do not repeat the errors of the past. Stay open minded in the search for truth, but keep your wits about you. We can’t be so open minded that our brains fall out and we end up unwittingly following a false teaching.

In recent times, past erroneous belief systems have fallen away as our understanding of Bible truth has been ungraded as we return to the truths of our biblical and Hebraic roots. The problem is that some people are ever learning and never coming to the truth. As soon as a new “truth” comes on the scene, too many people jump on the band wagon of that new doctrine. It was a problem in the first century, and it is a problem now. Sadly, there is always a bevy of well-meaning but misguided teachers, as well as just plain false and greedy peddlers who are all too willing to take people’s money as they promote their new teachings. The Bible warns us against these folks. Therefore and ultimately, it is the duty and responsibility of each Bible student to roll up his or her sleeves and to prove who is right or wrong based on what the Bible says. When you buy an automobile or house, do you just blindly take the seller’s word for it that all is good, or do you investigate, ask questions, and even seek the help of impartial experts to determine if what you are about to purchase is in good condition and is all that it is represented to be? To wit, the Bible instructs us to rightly divide the word of Elohim, to be good Bereans and see if what we are being told lines up with the Scriptures or not, and to prove all things and to hold fast to that which is good. There are no short cuts in this process. It requires hard work and much effort.

Does the Bible or Nonbiblical Sources Determine Truth?

A big question each person has to ask themselves when determining spiritual truth is whether they are going to rely primarily or foundationally on the Bible or on primarily on secular sources. I have no problem with looking to reputable, secular or extra-biblical sources for background information that supports what the Bible says. However, there is a problem when we look to extra-biblical sources as our primary source of truth, and then reach back into the Bible and cherry pick verses therefrom to confirm what the secular sources are saying. This is exactly what mainstream Christian theologians and Bible teachers have been doing since the time of the early church fathers in their efforts to disprove the seventh day Sabbath, the biblical feasts, the biblical dietary laws and YHVH’s Torah-law in general. Let’s not repeat their mistakes and up with the tangles web of truth and error that characterizes modern Christian theology.

Beware of Sectarianism and Exclusivism Which Can Lead to Cultism

Everyone wants to feel special like they have something that no one else has, and that they have an inside track on the truth, are part of an exclusive group that has secret knowledge. Because of this, people can be led to believe that htey a special relationship with Elohim that no one else has. But being part of an exclusive group is dangerous when what we believe is not based on Bible truth, especially if we are following a personality who is promoting this hidden truth. This can even become a form of neo-gnosticism. This is how cults get started.

Nathan’s Analysis of Claims Made By Proponents of the Zadok Calendar

In response to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCXV76e8dgE&list=PLdoqNkN5ekbjKOCFdQTL7o7hIahXOsLiC&index=6 (a teaching by from two of Eddie Chumney’s disciples speaking in their local congregation)

The claim is made that the term rosh chodesh is found only three times in the Bible and is not proof that the new month begins at the sighting of the new moon. This is a specious argument and is proof of nothing. The Torah says that a matter must be confirmed in the mouth of two or three witnesses. The Hebrew word chodesh meaning “new moon” is found 279 times in the OT.

The claim is made that Exod 12:2 does not specifically state this will be the first day of the month or new year. However, it is implied that this is the case since in verse two we read that on the tenth of the month the lamb is separated out for Passover. Day ten makes no sense, unless we are counting from day one of this month, which is implied in verse two. The Scriptures imply many things that are not explicitly spelled out or stated in black and white but the context clearly indicates a fact (e.g., Nadab and Abihu were drunk, do not light a fire on Shabbat if it is a work related fire). Interestingly, of these three verses, the Dead Seas Scrolls Bible reads the same as the Masoretic Text.

Their claim is true that the Zadok priesthood is the true priestly lineage with YHVH’s authority to judge in controversial matters regarding Torah (Ezek 44:24 cp. Deut 17:8–13), but this does not imply that all of the Essenes were Zadokites, that everything that the Essenes taught was exactly true to Scripture, or that everything that the Pharisees and Sadducees taught was unscriptural. That is like saying that everything that mainstream Christianity teaches is unscriptural. It is not. To say it is would be an ignorant lie.

The assumption is made that many of Yeshua’s were Nazarenes (and thus members of the Qumran community or Essenes including Mary and Martha). There is zero biblical proof of this. For example, if Zechariah, the father of John, was a Nazarene, then how could he continue to officiate as a priest in the temple under the Sadducean system?

It is assumed, without biblical proof that John was a Nazarene and an Essene.

Supposedly, Yeshua was an Essene based on the etymology of the word Nazarene, which goes back to the Hebrew word branch, which is one of the terms the Qumran community applied to themselves. Isn’t that like saying that because the word law appears in my last name Lawrence, that must mean that I am a law-yer? Also, the Book of Acts refers to the early believers as being of The Way, which was also an Essene term. That’s like saying that because I call myself a Christian, that is proof that I am a Roman Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant or some other type Christian you want to name. This may or may not be true.

The following is from my Bible commentary:

Matthew 2:23, Nazaret…Nazarene. (Cp. Acts 24:5). Nazareth means “the guarded one” (G3478). The name Nazareth is not found in the OT. The closest word similar to it is naziyr (or nazarite, H5139) meaning “one who is consecrated, devoted.” Naziyr derives from nazar (H5144) meaning “to dedicate, consecrate, separate, to keep sacredly separate.” The appellation “the sect of the Nazarenes” was applied to the early redeemed Israelite believers in Acts 24:5 by their enemies.

There is debate among some Bible students about whether the word Nazarene derives from Nazareth. The fact that Matthew juxtaposes the two words in a form of literary parallelism indicates that he saw some etymological, spiritual or prophetic connection between them. 

There is no Old Testament prophecy declaring that the Messiah will come from Nazareth or will be called a Nazarene, nor does any known apocryphal or pseudepigraphal text include such a statement. So to what prophecy is Matthew referring? He may be making a wordplay on the similarities between the Hebrew words Nazarene and netzer meaning “branch” as it relates to the Messianic title in Isaiah (Isa 11:1 cp. Isa 53:2) (Commentary on the NT on the OT, p. 11 by Beale and Carson). Keener mentions other Old Testament prophets that likened Messiah to a tree branch (or scion from Judah), although they do not use the Hebrew word netzer in their prophecies(Jer 23:5; Zech 3:8; 6:12) (The IVP Bible Background Commentary—New Testament, p. 51, by Craig S. Keener).

Chumney quotes Dr. Robert Shriner from his book,Yeshua—He Will Be Called a Nazarene, who says that Matthew (Matt 2:23) is not linking Yeshua to the town of Nazareth (based on linguistics) but is connecting him rather to the sect of the Nazarenes or Essenes. This is further confirmed in Acts 24:5 where Paul is linked with the sect of the Nazarenes (or Essenes). This apparently is positive proof that Yeshua and Paul were connected spiritually to the Essenes. The same scholar asserts that some verses in the NT where the word Nazarene is found associates Yeshua with the town of Nazareth, while others associate him with the Essenes. Both the words Nazarene and of Nazareth are the Greek words (G3480, found 18 times in the NT), while the word Nazareth (G3478) is different, though related. Shriner maintains that the phrase of Nazereth is referring to the Essenes, since if it were referring to being an inhabitant of Nazareth, it would be a different Greek word. Chumney then relates Yeshua being an Essene back to Isaiah 11:1 who is prophetically called “The Branch.” This prophecy is stating, among other things, that Yeshua (and his disciples) would have been connected to the Essene community, which the NT seems to indicate. Chumney then quotes Yair Davidy (a non-scholar and a sloppy historian who makes many unsubstantiated statements in his books) to further substantiate his belief. 

Jubilees 2:9 (found in the DSS and written ca. 100 to 25 BC) is another supposed proof of the solar-based not lunar-based Zadok calendar for determining Sabbaths, feasts, etc.

Jubilees 6:23 mentions four special days of remembrance that are the first days of certain months each season. This is based on the dates listed during Noah’s flood and were supposedly ordained by Noah.

The claim is made that the Zadok/Enoch calendar year is 364 days long and that the Hillel II calendar is 354 days long. This is false when you intercalate a thirteenth month seven times every 19 years. This makes the abib barley, visible new moon calendar a lunar-solar calendar that now syncs with the solar year of 365.25 days unlike the Enoch calendar of 364 days (1 Enoch Ethiopic Version 73:11; 81:7 cp. 72:4–5).

The Zadok/Enoch calendar is 360 days plus four “special days of remembrance” at the beginning of each season (Jubilees 6:23), which equates to a 364 day year. Proponents of the Zadok calendar claim that Noah (not YHVH) ordained them forever, and therefore, we are mandated to do the same. Where is this in the Bible??? These special days of remembrance are based on the spring equinox. That is how you know when to observe them. This is an unbiblical reckoning since there is no mention of the equinox in Scripture are any command to reckon the biblical calendar thereto.

Proponents of the Zadok calendar claim that because the sun is the greater light and the moon is the lesser light (Gen 1:16), the sun, therefore must regulate the calendar, not the moon which is the lesser light. The claim is also made that all of the ancient calendars (e.g., Babylonian, Egyptian, etc.) were lunar based including the Hebrew calendar, which, it is also claimed came from the Babylon influence while the Jews were in exile. However, it is incorrect to say that the Hebrew calendar is a lunar calendar. It is a lunar-solar calendar.

The claim is made that the new year begins on either the eve of the tenth of the first month at Passover. Therefore, if day 14 is four days after the first day of the month, then day 14 is not really day fourteen as the Bible calls it, but, in reality, is day four on the biblical calendar. This assertion, however, contradicts Scripture—specifically, Exodus 12:2–3, which, if this claim is true, makes no sense when the Torah says to separate the lamb on the tenth day of the month and keep it until the fourteenth day of the month (four days after the tenth of the month), which is actually the first day of the month. This kind of illogical reasoning and twisting of the Scriptures is mind-boggling if not mind-numbing, to say the least!

It is claimed that as supposed proof of the Zadok calendar, the Bible mentions 12 months in a year two times (Est 2:12; Dan 4:29) and by implication two more times (1 Kgs 4:7; Rev 22:2), but never a thirteenth month as occurs every two to four years on the abib barley, visible new moon calendar. Therefore, the claim is made that the abib barley, visible new moon calendar is not in line with Scripture. On the other hand, the counterclaim can also be made that nowhere does Scripture mention or even make allusions to a vernal equinox, which is critical to and a central component of the Zadok calendar. So where does that leave us? Simply this. Absence of evidence is not validation of a thing one way or the other.

The Zadokites claim that while the Gospel of John gives the Passover on the Pharisee/Sadducee calendar (which Zadokites conflate with the Hillel 2 calendar of A.D. 360), which, according to them, is why John calls this Passover “the feast of the Jews”, while the other Gospel writers supposedly give the timing of the Passover on the Zadok calendar. This apparently clarifies in their minds the confusion between Yeshua’s celebrating an early Passover on the Jewish calendar but actually on the fourteenth day of the first month on the Zadok calendar. The Jews celebrated Passover at the end of the fourteenth going into the fifteenth, which John refers to as the “Jews’ Passover” (John 2:13; 6:4; 11:55). The claim is made that Yeshua actually died when the Passover lambs on the Pharisees’ calendar were being killed. Supposedly, Yeshua and his disciples killed their Passover lamb earlier in accordance with the “true” biblical or Torah/Zadok calendar. This is, supposedly, because “John was a Nazarene” (sic, here they Chumney confuses John the Baptist with John the disciple and writer of the Gospel that bears his name), and was thus part of the Qumran community, who referred to themselves as “Nazarenes.” Thus John was signaling that Yeshua as a Nazarene held the true Passover with his disciples earlier, while he actually died on the Pharisees’ calendar (although it was not actually the Passover according to the Zadok calendar). Why, do they claim did Yeshua die on the Jew’s Passover, and not on the “true” Passover according to the Zadok calendar? He did so to prove the point that he was the Jews’ Passover Lamb. A major problem with this argument is that John, the Gospel writer was not John the Baptist, and thus a Nazarite or member of the Qumran community as John the Baptist is alleged to have been. John the Revelator and John the Baptist were two different people! So the year that Yeshua died on the Zadok calendar was one day ahead of the Jewish calendar. Thus Joseph and Nicodemus wanted to get Yeshua off the cross before the Sabbath going into the Jews’ first high holy day of Unleavened Bread on their calendar, not on the Zadok calendar for that year. Are you confused yet by this interpretation? It’s a bit mind numbing to say the least!

My commentary on the phrase “the Jews’ Passover”:

John 2:13, Passover of the Jews.(See also John 5:5; 6:4; 11:55; 12:1; 13:1.) This “Passover of the Jews” was in opposition to the Passover feasts held by competing religious sects of the time (e.g., the Essenes at Qumran and the Samaritans). The modern Samaritans following ancient calendric traditions, for example, held their Passover on May 4 in 2012 as opposed to April 6, which is the actual date on the biblical calendar. The ancient Qumran community embraced an “unorthodox liturgical calendar that [set] them apart from the rest of Jewry” (The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, by Geza Vermes, p. 41). For example, on the Qumran community’s solar-based calendar that is based on a 364-day year, the Passover always fell on a Wednesday (ibid. p. 79). 

Notes from an Eddie Chumney teaching at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQZa9P5RaIQ:

Chumney traces the Zadok priesthood from Pinchas to Zadok to the Essene community, who were comprised of the descendants of the Zadok priesthood who, Eddie claims, were expelled from officiating in the temple during the time of the Maccabees. This was a theory (called The Standard Model, The Dead Sea Scrolls—A New Translation, pp. 16–21, by Wise, Abegg and Cook) proposed in the late 1940s by the original discoverers and translators of the DSS (e.g., Roland deVauz, Józef Tadeusz Milik, Eliezer Sukenik et al) (ibid. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scroll). Since then, with the discovery of new scrolls and the ongoing translation of all of the scrolls, that view has been called into serious question by modern scholars (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scroll; Wise, Abegg et al., pp. 14–43).

Since Chumney believes that the Zadok priest ended up in Qumran, and since they were purportedly the true priesthood, and since they allegedly wrote the DSS (to this day, DSS scholars find no direct proof of this), he claims that we need now to follow and practice the teachings of the DSS. The problem with this argument is that this assumes that (a) the Qumran inhabitants were the actual descendents of Zadok the priest (a claim the DSS writers make of themselves, but is not confirmed biblically), and (b) that the Qumran priests had actually adhered to biblical truth without variation from the time of Zadok the high priest (ca. 1000 BC) to the time of the Qumran community (some 800 years later). This is a major assumption considering that there is no record in the Bible of anyone ever remaining unswervingly faithful to YHVH and the Torah for much longer than 40 years! To say assume the priests at Qumran had remained 100 percent faithful to every aspect of YHVH’s Torah-word for some 800 years is a gross assumption, and to assert that the saints must now follow all that they taught and recorded in the DSS (assuming they were the writers of the DSS—another gross assumption that many scholars now question) is a giant leap of faith. If what they taught is not 100 percent in line with the word of Elohim, then Chumney is leading his followers down a potential path of error and himself becoming a false teacher.

Moreover, Chumney, again with little or no biblical proof, claims that Yeshua’s disciples, the NT Jewish believers and the company of priests mentioned in the Book of Acts were all Essenes, or at least of that belief system.

Chumney says that since the Protestant Reformation, there has been a gradual restoration of biblical truth in preparation for the second coming and that this is the restoration of all things that must occur before this Yeshua can return as per Acts 3:21. He maintains that the restoration of the Zadok priesthood is the final installment in this long process. He traces this restoration of truth in the tabernacle of Moses. 

The alter of sacrifice prophetically speaks of Martin Luther and the Protestant reformers re-established the basic salvation model of salvation by grace through faith. I would also add to this the concept of and sola scriptura.

The bronze laver corresponds to the rise of the Baptists who rediscovered water baptism of adults as opposed to baptism of infants as practiced by the Roman Catholics. 

The menorah is a prophetic picture of the outpouring of the Holy Spirit during the revivals in England and America in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries culminating in the Azusa Street Revival in 1906 and the healing revivals of the 1940s and the subsequent word of faith movement as promoted by Oral Roberts, Kenneith Hagin and later by Kenneth Copland and others. Chumney failed to mention the charismatic renewal starting in 1960 through the Jesus Movement of the 1970s.

The table of showbread speaks of the Messianic Jewish movement of the 1930s to 1960s. Chumney fails to mention the role the Herbert Armstrong and his Worldwide Church of God played in the Messianic movement and the restoration of Torah from the 1930s through the 1980s. He also failed to mentioned Batya Wooten who also championed the Torah and the brought forth the revelation of the regathering of the reunification of two houses of Israel from the 1980s onward.

The altar of incense pictures the prophetic intercessory movement of the 1990s with an emphasis on praise, prayer and worship.

For Chumney, the grand finale of the restoration of truth is pictured by the holy of holies and the restoration of the Zadok priesthood as symbolized by the stone tablets and Aaron’s rod that budded located in the ark of the covenant. However, he fails to mention the restoration of the Melchizedek priesthood and the royal priesthood of all believers as per 1 Peter 2:9 and Revelation 1:6, 5:10 and 20:6. 

Notes from Eddie Chumney at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkJrVS2VwLw:

Chumney claims that although Yeshua was not an Essene, his beliefs and what he taught was most closely aligned with this sect. However, there is no concrete biblical evidence to support this claim. Such a claim makes as much sense as saying that because one is Christian who believes that the Bible is the inerrant word of Elohim, that Yeshua died on a cross, is the Son of God, was born of a virgin and is God incarnate that this means one is a Roman Catholic because Catholics believe the same.

Without biblical proof, but solely based on assumption, Chumney equates the Essenes’ belief system with that of the early Nazarene sect of Acts 24:5.

Apparently, some of the early church fathers (e.g., Epiphaneaus amd Hippolytus of Rome) record that the early Jewish believers were Nazarenes associated with the Essene sect. Chumney claims without proof that originally the Essenes did not believe that Yeshua was the Messiah, but gradually accepted this idea.

The Essenes lived not only in Qumran, but throughout Israel including the Essene Quarter in Jerusalem.

The Essenes were also known as the People of the Way. Here Chumney erroneously conflates the Essenes with the Qumran community. This view is 70 years out of date and one that was held by the original DSS scholars. Since then, with the discovery and translation of more scrolls, the evidence shows that the Essenes were a separate group from the Qumran community. 

Josephus (along with Pliny the Elder and Philo) refers to those who lived in the Qumran community as Essenes, while the NT seems to indicate that the early Christian believers aligned themselves with the Essenes but who then believed in Yeshua as Messiah were called Nazarenes or of the Way or what me might refer to as Jewish Pentecostals according to Chumney. Prof. James Tabor says that the historical evidence shows that the testimony of Josephus et al in this regard is incomplete and misguided.

The Qumran community claimed to be the sons of Zadok and that their leadership was from Zadok’s genealogical lineage. Their chief leader was called the Teacher of Righteousness, and they believed that their main mission was to restore the Torah and to prepare for the coming of Messiah. Again, this claim cannot be backed by historical evidence and many DSS scholars doubt this claim. No outside evidence supports the claim by the Qumran community that they are the literal descendants of Zadok.

Chumney claims that when James 5:7 refers to “the early and latter rain”, this is in the Hebrew reads “teacher of righteousness”—a title for the Messiah and a link to the Qumran community. James 5:7 points back to Joel 2:23 where we read, “he hath given H5414 you( H853 ) the former rain H4175 [moreh meaning “teacher”] moderately, H6666 [tsedâqâh meaning “righteousness”]—hence, teacher of righteousness. Chumney claims that same term is mentioned in Hosea 10:12, “ break up H5214 your fallow ground: H5215 for it is time H6256 to seek H1875 ( H853 ) the LORD, H3068 till H5704 he come H935 and rain H3384 righteousness H6664 upon you.” The problem is that the word rain is the Hebrew is the word yarah meaning “rain”, not specifically “teacher”, although moreh is a cognate of yarah its primitive root. Thus Chumney makes this claim erroneously. 

Chumney admits that most of his understanding of DSS came from A New Translation—The Dead Seas Scrolls by Wise, Abegg and Cook. Interestingly, in this book, chapter 71 entitled “Calendar of the Heavenly Signs” (pp. 389–393), we read that the Qumran calendar consisted of a 364 day year. The Qumran calendar was not just a solar calendar (as some Zadok calendar proponents falsely claim) but was actually a lunar-solar calendar and contained an algorithms that apparently reconciled the lunar cycle with that of the sun (ibid., p. 389). The Qumran community’s interest in the moon and its phases is found in the section entitled “The Phases of the Moon” (ibid., pp. 385–386). There we learn that the Qumran community followed a lunar calendar based on the visible moon, possibly beginning their months on the full moon or on the visible crescent. DSS scholars debate this issue to this day, while the Egyptians followed a calendar based on the astronomical (the moon’s conjunction) and not a visible new moon (ibid., p. 383). This is curious to me, since Chumney and other modern Zadok calendar proponents totally reject all reliance on the moon for calendric purposes as being of pagan origination and claims that the Qumran community did not adhere to a lunar based calendar. Moreover, apparently the Qumran community during its existence at times adhered to five different calendars one of which was the Enoch 364 day calendar and one of which was a lunar based calendar (ibid., pp. 383–384). Obviously, the so-called Zadok priests who supposedly inhabited Qumran and assuming they are the ones who actually wrote the DSS (an assumption that some scholars now question; ibid., pp. 23–25), were (a) either not in unity as to which calendar to follow, or (b) they adhered to various calendars over their some 200 plus year history. Either way, the claim, based on the written record of the DSS, that these Zadokite priests faithfully adhered to and maintained the one original calendar from the time of either Enoch or Noah forward is a dubious one at best.

The term “the People of the Way” —a self-attributed moniker of DSS writers—comes from Isaiah 40:3, “The voice of one crying in the wilderness: “Prepare the way of the LORD; make straight in the desert A highway for our God.” In John 1:23, John quotes this verse to describe himself. Thus, Chumney claims there may be a possible implied connection here between John and the Qumran community—or at least they shared a common mission based the same verse in Isaiah.

From TorahIsLight.org at https://torahislight.org/zadok-basics/

On the Zadok calendar, Wednesday is the day mandated as the first day by the creation order, since the heavenly lights—sun, moon and stars which form the basis of any calendar—were created on the fourth day (Gen. 1:14–19). Actually, a literal reading of the creation story in Genesis one plainly tells us that day one of creation is the first day, not the fourth day. It is true that the sun and moon were created on the fourth day, but light still shone on the first day and that the earth rotated around it as the of the Hebrew word for night (Heb. layliyl) by definition indicates. I believe that this original light was both a physical and a spiritual light that originated from the pre-incarnate Yeshua, who Malachi refers to as “the sun of righteousness (Mal 4:2), is the Light of the world (John 1:4–5; 8:12; 9:5), who is the spiritual light of the saints (2 Cor 4:6), whose face shines like the sun (Rev 1:16), and who will again be the light that replaces the sun in the world to come (Rev 21:23).

On the Zadok calendar, there are fixed dates for the major festivals and cannot fall on a Sabbath, keeping them separate and distinct, thereby, it is claimed, avoiding worrisome difficulties affecting sacrifices. Why is this not having fixed dates for the biblical feasts a “worrisome difficulty”? Says who? This idea is found nowhere in the Bible. Perhaps it is a worrisome difficulty in our modern era for those people who have secular jobs and bosses and find it hard to get time off of work to celebrate YHVH’s feasts, when they do not know in advance on which days the feasts will fall.

The Zadok calendar is based on the vernal equinox. The problem with this theory is that the ancients had now way of determining the exact timing of the vernal or spring equinox, according to Prof. James Tabor, DSS scholar.

Although the Zadok calendar is a supposedly a solar based one and is not a lunar-solar based, and it is, therefore, supposedly not necessary to intercalate or add a thirteenth month roughly every three years to reconcile the lunar cycle of 354 days with the solar cycle of 365 days to keep the feasts in their seasons as the Torah requires (Lev 23:4, KJV). This is (supposedly) not a problem with the Zadok calendar. However and in reality, the Zadok calendar falls behind the actual solar calendar by 1.25 days per year, thus roughly every 30 years or so, a thirteenth month needs to be added to the Zadok calendar to reconcile its 364 day solar year with the 365.25 actual solar year. Actually, one of the DSS calendars, added to their lunar-solar calendar a thirteenth month or 30 day leap month every 36 months (ibid., p 383). So the 364-day calendar was not the only calendar to which the Qumran community adhered during its some 200 plus year existence.

For the exact details of the Zadok calendar, one must rely on the extra-biblical books of 1 Enoch 72:23–33 and Jubilees 6:34–38. This is problematic for the believer who looks to the Bible as the foundation of all knowledge and not extra-biblical books. Relying on extra biblical books to understand the biblical calendar and hence to know when to observe the Torah-mandated biblical feasts is a problem, since now the Bible is insufficient for knowing how to walk out the Truth of Eohim including when to observe his commanded biblical feasts!

Some Zadokite calendar proponents admit that the first month is called Abib meaning “green ears of grain,” yet the Zadok calendar totally disregards the green ears of barley grain for which the first biblical month is named (Exod 12:2; 13:4). If the barley is irrelevant in determining the first month of the biblical new year, then why does the Bible refer to it as “the month of the abib”?

It is true that in Scripture the months are rarely referred to by name. For instance rather than saying “in the month of Bul”, the authors would say “in the eighth month’” Nevertheless there are times that the Scriptures do in fact call the months by name. The reason for this is not entirely clear according to some Zadokites. However, the reason is clear if one understands that the name of the biblical first month has to do with the barley ripening, because the first month of each year was determined by this. 

It is claimed that the method of intercalation on the Zadok calendar is confusing, complicated and difficult, and various methods have been invented by which this is done (https://torahislight.org/intercalation/). Therefore, the Zadokites look to 1 Enoch 74:5 (again relying on an extra-biblical sources) to help them to know how to do this. In reality, relying on the Bible (not on extra-biblical books) and the abib barley-visible new moon to determine the first month is simple. If the barley in Israel is abib, then the next visible new moon begins the first month of the new year. If the barley in Israel is not abib, then you add another month to the current year. This would have been a simple thing to do for the agrarian based Israelite people of Bible times. Even a child could understand this!

It is unknown when the Zadok 364 day solar calendar was invented. “The only question that must be asked is whether this calendar goes back to Maccabean times, as the third text on the Priestly Courses implies—or even earlier—and whether the Maccabeans themselves preferred it before the Pharisees took over with the rise of Herod once and for all. However this may be, the anti-Pharisaic and consequently, the anti-Herodian character of the calendar cannot be denied (https://torahislight.org/the-qumran-scrolls/). However, some Zadok calendar proponents (e.g., Eddie Chumney) trace the origin of this calendar back to the Book of Enoch. Although this book is named after that pre-Noah biblical saint, it was not written by Enoch, though it purports to record some oral traditions from a much earlier period than the date of its actual writing which is sometime in the early first to mid second century BC.

 It is claimed that the anti-Pharisaic and consequently, the anti-Herodian character of the Zadok calendar cannot be denied (ibid.) If this is true, and the author gives no supporting evidence from the DSS or any other historical source to verify this claim, this is likely because the Zadok calendar came about during this period in Israel’s history. Moreover, the Sanhedrin, according to the Mishnah, determined the new moon or rosh chodesh each month and when the barley was abib at the beginning of each year. The Zadok calendar, which is based solely on the solar cycle and the vernal equinox, would have circumvented the need to rely on the Sanhedrin for calendric determinations. This may have coincided well with the supposedly pre-existing bias of the Qumran community against the corrupt ruling religious system in Jerusalem, who determined the calendar by making caldenric determinations totally unbiased since the their calendar relies totally on the solar cycle and vernal equinox. At the same time and as already noted, the Qumran community’s antagonism with the rulers in Jerusalem is now a debated issue among DSS scholars.

The invention of the Zadok calendar may be a result of the Greeks banning Jewish observances based on the previous biblical calendar supposedly extant at that time. It is claimed that in 167 BCE, King Antiochus returned to Jerusalem after his second campaign in Egypt, and he immediately banned the Hebrew religion and the Zadok priestly order, and prohibited all religious practices. He dedicated the Temple in Jerusalem to Zeus, the Lord of Heaven (Baal Shamen), and ordered the Hebrew people to worship Zeus and to participate in the festival honoring Dionysus, who was Zeus’ son, (who was called Bacchus by the Romans), and Dionysus/Bacchus was known as the “dying and rising god” as he was “twice born.” This festival, called Bacchanalia, was held on March 16th and March 17th to pollute the Hebrew Spring Equinox Day and New Year’s Day. When King Antiochus began sacrificing swine and making abominable offerings in the Temple, this began the Maccabean revolt (1 Maccabees Chapter 1, and 2 Maccabees Chapters 4, 6 and 7)” (ibid.).

“However, the term “New Moon” (yareach chadash) is not written anywhere in the Hebrew Scriptures” (ibid). The truth is that this statement fails to examine the full evidence presented in Scripture on this subject and so it is incorrect.

“I do not want to offend anyone here as I have many friends and acquaintances that follow different calendar methods, but I will say that generally speaking the same people that claim that the Zadok calendar has no scriptural support will also make that claim while clinging to the notion that they are to search the hills of Judea for ripe barley (which is absolutely never mentioned in scripture). Yah only commanded that we “Observe” (shâmar) the month of Abib. see Deut 16:1.” Once again, this author’s statement is incorrect since it fails to correctly note the full meaning of the Hebrew word shamar. The word shamar also means “to guard, keep, to exercise great care over, the careful attention to be paid to the obligation of a covenant, to laws, statutes, etc.” according to The Theological Wordbook of the OT.

From Eddie Chumney at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2jhGkCdLYIc

Chumney states that the month of the Abib was the Canaanite designation for the first month. The other way to designate months was the priestly way where month were simply numbered. He gives no proof for the Bible referring to the month of the Abib a Canaanite-based label. Actually, the Moses in the Torah gives us the name “the month of the Abib” in Exodus 12:2, thus this designation cannot be assumed to be of Canaanite origination. Furthermore, Chumney cites the priestly Ezekiel as his source for numbering the months since this is how Ezekiel the priest designated the months. The third way of naming the months was to use the Babylonian names.

From the Encyclopedia Britannica, the Egyptians and Babylonians followed a lunar calendar with months beginning with the citing of the new crescent moon with a thirteenth intercalated every several years to keep in it sync with the seasons and solar cycle. Thus, the lunar calendar with rosh chodesh or the sighting of the new moon as the first day of the month is a pagan concept and not the true biblical calendar. Actually, the Egyptians at least, as we note and document elsewhere in this paper, calculate their month from the full moon, not the crescent moon.

Chumney goes on to say that Exodus 12:2 does not say that the new month begins on rosh chodesh, but simply that this month is the first of the twelve months and nothing more. This is his interpretation of the meaning of the Hebrew words in this verse. He claims that in Exodus 12:2, YHVH actually commanded the Israelites to stop using the Egyptian calendar. Sadly, this is a twisting of what this Scripture says. If you go on to read verse three, the tenth day of the month is mentioned. This is the tenth day of the month from what day? Obviously, this refers back to verse two which implies the that this is the first day of the month. No other reading of these two verses makes logical sense.

He claims that the ancient and modern Jewish calendar (he conflates the abib barley calendar of ancient Israel with the calculated Hillel 2 calendar of ca. A.D. 359–360 and refers to both as Babylonian calendars (because they are based on the new moon) as pagan and thus, he claims, should be rejected. He fails to consider the idea that perhaps the pagans got the calendar from the same source as the Hebrews—i.e., from YHVH back at the Garden of Eden. 

He cites numerous extra-biblical scholarly and historical sources that state that the biblical/Jewish calendar came from Babylon. Yet so far, other than a his brief (two minute) re-interpretation of Exodus 12:2, he has given no biblical references to any of his assertions.

Chumney states again and again, citing secular scholars, that the Jews were following the Babylonian (and Egyptian, Persian, Syrain, Greek, et al) calendar as early as the fifth century BC. But he never entertains the idea that the pagans may have been following the Hebrew calendar, which YHVH originally revealed to man. Abraham, for example, came from Babylon. Shem lived in that area as well and did not die until the time of Jacob. So where did the Babylonians get their calendar? Noah obviously had a calendar, since the Genesis flood narrative mentions specifics dates. This was prior to the existence of Babylon, which came into existence later. Perhaps both Hebrew calendar of Abraham and that of Babylon originate from the same source, that is, Noah and Shem or, more likely from YHVH himself going back to Genesis 1:14. 

First Chumney says (sighting secular scholarly sources) that the Jews got their current calendar from the Babylonians when they were in exile in the sixth the fifth century B.C. Then he states that they adopted the Babylonian calendar during the time of the Greek Selucids (during the time Antiochus IV Epiphanes) just prior to the Maccabean revolt (in the second century B.C.) several hundred years later. So which is it? When did the Jews supposedly get their calendar? In the sixth century BC or the second century BC? In the same breath, Chumney erroneously refers to the Babylonian calendar that the Greeks supposedly imposed on the Jews in the second century B.C. as “the Hillel calendar.” The problem with this assertion is that the Hillel 2 calendar would not come about until ca. AD 360—more than five hundred years later. Therefore, Chumney is conflating the Hillel 2 calendar with the visible new moon-barley calendar that the Jews used in the time of Yeshua, which the Hillel 2 or rabinic calendar eventually replaced. Clearly, Chumney does not have an understanding of these facts, and is thus operating out of some ignorance regarding the Jewish lunar-solar calendar of the second temple era as opposed to the later calculated or Hillel 2 calendar., which replaced the visible sighted crescent new moon/abib barley based calendar.

So Chumney, in assuming that the lunar-solar calendar of pagan and not divine origination, builds his entire premise on this point. If the lunar-solar calendar is not of pagan but divine origination, then the entire premise of his subsequent arguments totally collapses. And upon the false premise that the Jewish calendar was pagan, he adds the further claim that the Qumran community was comprised of Zadokites priests who held to the (supposedly) true, non-pagan solar based Zadok/Enoch calendar. The error in this assertion is that Chumney can provide no conclusive evidence that the Qumran community were genealogically descended from Zadok the priest other than their citing their own claims saying such. But as Robert Eisenman shows evidence in his book, these claims, in light of the examination of more recently translated DSS manuscripts cannot be substantiated. That is to say, when the DSS claim that their authors were Zadokites, this could just as easily be taken to mean that they were righteous (the Hebrew for which is zadiq, from which the word zadok originates) as opposed to being actual descendants of Zadok (The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians, pp. 15–26). Thus Chumney’s assertion that the Zadok calendar was given to the Qumran community by the Zadok priests is a tenuous at best if not a totally erroneous conclusion, since it can neither be definitively proven from the Bible, nor the DSS themselves. 

Chumney goes on to quote the Book of Enoch and the pseudopigraphal book of Jubilees (both written in the intertestamental period), which state the 364 day calendar (i.e., the Enoch or Zadok calendar) was of a heavenly source. So based solely on these and other non-biblical sources, we are to believe that the visible, new moon calendar is pagan and not of a divine origination. The former, he asserts is superior since it is based on divine origination, as opposed to the latter which is based on human observation. This may sound like a convincing argument, but prove he fails to prove his point from the Scriptures!

Thus based on all of the questionable assertions that Chumney makes, he then goes on to say that Elohim does not follow Babylonian ways, and thus we must reject the visible new moon, abib barley calendar, since it purportedly is of Babylonian origination. Thus for the saints to come of Babylon as per Revelation 18:4, they must reject the Jewish, visible new moon/barley abib calendar and adopt the so-called Enoch or Zadok calendar.

Chumney claims that the Zadok priest abandoned the temple priesthood system when Antiochus Epiphanes forced the pagan calendar upon them. It was then subsequently that the Qumran community was formed in order to preserve the Zadok calendar, which was the central issue and theme of their community. Yet, earlier, Chumney states that the Jews obtained the visible new moon/abib barley calendar from their Babylonian exile. Yet he gives no biblical proof for either of these claims. Moreover, as DSS scholars debate how, why and when the Qumran community formed and whether it was out of an animus for the ruling Jerusalem priesthood or not. But this is another discussion.

Chumney claims, again without proof biblical, that when the DSS writers refer to themselves as “sons of light” and the other Jews as “sons of darkness” that they are specifically referring to their adherence to the Zadok calendar as opposed to the so-called Babylonian calendar of the Jews. According to Eisneman, the DDS writers used many such metaphors to set their sectarian (cult) apart from their religious Jewish counterparts, yet from their writings it is not clear exactly to what particular religious sect they are referring, since they are speaking in broadly vague and generic terms (The Dead Sea Scrolls and the First Christians, pp. 15–26).

Again, Chumney claims, without conclusive proof biblical or otherwise, that there was a calendar dispute lasting from 175 BC to AD 70 between the descendants of Zadok at Qumran and the Pharisaic Jews who purportedly adhered to their Babylonian calendar.

Ezekiel 44:15 and 23–24 states that the sons of Zadok will teach YHVH’s people the difference between the holy and unholy, between the unclean and the clean. They will also act as judges in controversies regarding YHVH’s appointed times and Sabbaths (q.v., Deut 17:8). This, Chumney claims, was fulfilled by the Zadok priests of Qumran. The problems with this assertion are several. First, Ezekiel’s prophecy is a millennial one, and second, Ezekiel describes a larger sacrificial system when the sons of Zadok will be ministering in a literal temple, which the Qumran community was not doing, and, third, Chumney’s claim assumes that the inhabitants of Qumran were the literal genealogical descendants of Zadok the priest, which, despite their claims, cannot be independently proven from Scripture or other extra-biblical sources. Moreover, as Eisenman points out, their claim to be descendants of Zadok can just as well be taken as a metaphorical designation as a literal one. That is to say, they may be literal sons of Zadok, or they may simply be sons of righteousness, or people who are walking in righteousness though not actual descendants of Zadok.

The essence of the Zadok calendar primarily comes from the Book of Jubilees—an extra-biblical source.

On the Zadok “Priestly” calendar, all the feasts as well as the first day of the month always fall on a Sunday, Wednesday or Friday. Chumney claims that the rabbinic Jews developed their lunar calendar to ensure that no feasts would fall on those days (called postponements) in a direct opposition to the Zadok calendar. The problem with Chumney’s line of reason on this point is that the abib barley, visible new moon calendar does not adhere to the idea of Pharasaic or rabbinic Jewish postponements, so his assertion is irrelevant with regards to this calendar. Again, he conflates the rabbinic Jewish calendar with the abib barley, visible new moon calendar.

Chumney goes on to claim that the Pharasaic and later rabbinic calendar was a type of Korah rebellion, since he and his cohort rejected the Aaronic priesthood. Again, the fundamental flaw in this argument is that it cannot be proven that the Qumran community was genealogically descended from Pinchas and then Zadok, thus this is a specious argument. YHVH’s answer to the Korahite rebellion was to make Aaron’s rod to bud. Chumney claims that the fact that Aaron’s rod was placed in the ark of the covenant shows how important the true priesthood was to YHVH. Thusly, Chumney claims that the Qumran community were the direct descendants of Aaron through Zadok, so we should listen to them in the matters of calendar controversies. Again, this argument is foundationally flawed for the reasons already stated. 

Jubilees 6:36–38 condemns the Pharisaic calendar including citing the new moon as the first day of the month. According to Jubilees, the tenth day of the month is actually the first day of the month (this is Chumney’s curious if not twisted explanation of Exod 12:2–3).

He claims that the Jews followed the Zadok calendar from the days of the first temple onward since the Zadok priests officiated then and there, and adhered to that calendar for hundreds of years down to the time of Qumran—again, another claim that is highly questionable and debatable for the reasons already stated above. The Jews, it is alleged, followed the Zadok calendar down to their Babylonian captivity at which time they adopted their captors’ lunar calendar.

Daniel 7:25 discusses the changing of times and seasons. This is supposedly a prophecy speaking about this alleged calendar from the Zadok to the lunar-solar calendar. Chumney suggests (quoting 1 Macc 1:41–63; 2 Macc 6:7a; 1 Macc 1:59) that this “may” allude to Antiochus Epiphanes’ changing of the Zadok calendar to that of the Babylonian lunar calendar. Here Chumney quotes several modern secular historians as well as the books of Maccabees and Jubilees in supporting the claim that the Greeks forced the Maccabees to adopt the lunar calendar, thus forcing the Zadok priests out of the mainline Jerusalem-based priesthood thus giving the Maccabees the priesthood at which time the Zadok priests established the Qumran community with the “true” calendar. He offers no biblical proof of this except the possibility that Daniel’s prophecy maybe referring to this event. 

Chumney believes that the Zadok calendar goes back to Enoch because it is mentioned in the pseudapigraphal Book of Enoch which was written sometime in the second century B.C. He goes on to claim that if Enoch followed this calendar, then obviously this was the calendar of Noah, the patriarchs, Moses and so on. It is a giant leap to state the Book of Enoch contains the actual writings from the time of Enoch and that we are to believe what it says, even though it contains a mixture of both biblically true as well as questionable if not false statement that cannot be verified in the Bible.

Chumney alludes to the idea that some Jews viewed the Book of 1 Enoch as canon. This is strange since 1 Enoch clearly contains passages that are at odds with the Scriptures. This shows how intent Chumney is at proving the validity of the Zadok calendar that he would infer that Enoch may be worthy of canonical status. As proof that Enoch merits canonical status, he quotes Jude’s quote of Enoch and suggests that Jude, because he quoted Enoch, likely considered it to be of highly authoritative, and even possibly of divined origination. Perhaps the same can be said of other biblical authors who quote extra biblical books or even Paul when he quoted  Greek poet on Mars Hill in Athens (Acts 17:28).

Chumney goes on to claim again without citing sources or evidence that there was no official OT canon in the time of the Qumran community as early as the second century B.C. and all the way until Yeshua’s day, thus Enoch could just as well have been part of the unofficial canon of Scripture. This is quite a leap, and a highly debatable one too. He quotes a scholar who claims that there was no official canon anytime during the second temple period. However, there are many scholars who believe otherwise. Thus, Chumney seems to be choosing one scholar who confirms his bias that the 1 Enoch could or should have been part of the OT canon, since this book is the origination of the 364 day year calendar, which has come to be known as the Enoch or Zadok calendar. Chumney goes on to question OT canon suggesting, again without evidence, that the Pharisees canonized the OT after A.D. 70 and excluded from it books (such as 1 Enoch) that did not support their views or that held views opposite to their own because they were supposedly at odds with the so-called Zadok priests of Qumran and their calendar. He then states that he believes that the OT canon we have today is divine Scripture, but perhaps other books should have been added to it that are not presently contained in the OT canon.

Conclusion

The proponents of the so-called Enoch or Zadok priestly calendar primarily rely on extra-biblical sources and not the Bible to prove their point. They then reach back into the Bible and reinterpret (or twist) certain biblical passages to conform with their belief. They reinterpret Exodus 12:2–3, and question the authenticity of the OT canon, when they suggest that other books such as 1 Enoch and Jubilees should have been added to the canon.

They ignore the meaning of the Hebrew term rosh chodesh—a meaning that is universally accepted by all the major Hebrew lexicologists and Bible translators to mean “new moon”, and come up with their own and novel interpretation as to its meaning.

They make the assumption that the inhabitants of Qumran and the authors of the DDS were genealogical descendants of Zadok and Pinchas the priests and offer no proof of this except what the DDS authors say about themselves along with what some secular historians assert. However, there are other secular historians and DSS experts who say that this connection cannot be made. They assert that there is no definitive proof that the Qumran community was composed of descendants of Zadok the priest. Moreover, when the DSS authors refer to themselves as “sons of Zadok”, this could also be an allegorical or metaphorical reference to mean merely that “we are sons of the righteousness”, that is, “we are righteous priest”.

If the DSS were actually literal descendants of Zadok, who is to say that they remained faithful to the truth they had initially when Zadok was the high priest during the reigns of David and Solomon? To say that they were is a gross assumption and flies in the face of historical precedent with regard to YHVH’s people remaining unswervingly faithful to his truth for such a long period of time.

The proponents of the Zadok calendar interpret Exodus 12:2–3 in a most curious way that does violence to the plain meaning of the text.

They fail to explain the biblical designation “the month of the Abib” and the meaning thereof in the larger biblical context.

 They claim, without proof, that the term “the month of the Abib” is a Canaanite designation, even though the Torah records that Moses  used this term himself in Exodus 12:2.

They rely on the vernal equinox to determine the beginning of the new year, even though the Bible never mentions the vernal equinox directly or indirectly, and the exact timing of the vernal equinox was unknown by the ancients.

They blithely assume that using the moon as a calendric indicator is of pagan origination simply because all the pagans used it and that the Israelites must have gotten it from the pagans. They fail to consider the possibility that this calendar was initially of divine origination given to Adam (Gen 1:14) and was handed down to Noah then to Shem and so on.

The claim is made that the term rosh chodesh is found only three times in the Bible and is not proof that the new month begins at the sighting of the new moon. This argument is neither valid proof for or against anything biblically. The Bible tells us that a matter is established in the mouth of two are three witnesses. The term rosh chodesh may only be mentioned several times in Scripture, but the term chodesh meaning “new or renewed moon or month” (referring to the lunar cycle of 29.5 days) is mentioned in the OT alone 246 times.

Chumney erroneously claims—a claim that cannot be supported from Scripture—that “the great company of priests” mentioned in Acts 6:7 were all Zadokite priests from Qumran and that all the early Jewish disciples were Essenes, which he claims is synonymous with the Zadokite inhabitants of Qumran.

Never forget an important historical fact: the Qumran community ceased to exit in A.D. 70 with the destruction of the Jerusalem temple by the Romans. So these so-called Zadokites priests is sect who supposedly had the true way but then became lost to history. Was this pure happenstance or was it the judgment of YHVH? Who are their spiritual descendant today? No one really knows who they were then (without resorting to much speculations and basing arguments on assumption), much who they are today. If they were the true remnant guarding the Truth of the Bible, why did YHVH allow them to be destroyed by the Romans, and why were their alleged writings lost to history for nearly 2,000 years only to be discovered in the mid to late 20th century? Why did YHVH leave his saints without the supposedly divinely revealed truth that only the Qumran community had for so long? This begs many questions about the inability of YHVH to preserve his truth for his saints. It calls into question the whole premise of the claim that the supposed Zadokite priests of Qumran were the sole guardians of biblical truth of which the calendar, as James Tabor points out, was the central functional aspect of the entire biblical religious system.

Background Info About the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Solar Calendar

From James Tabor (professor emeritus of biblical history at University of North Carolina in Charlotte) — https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2UwFwSH1RM

Who wrote the DSS? 40 percent of the DSS contain the Hebrew Scriptures; 30 percent contain apocryphal or pseudepigraphal books like Enoch and Jubilees, so 70 percent not even written by the DSS community. The remaining 30 percent of the DSS are what is called the Sectarian Scrolls written by various Jewish sects.

What is are dates of the DSS? The traditional view is that they were written in the time of the Maccabees or early Hasmoneans. Tabor believes it to be later—closer to 75 BC and later.

The Sectarian Scrolls are very apocalyptic, but also contain messianic, new covenant (as per Jer 31:31) (as expounded by their true Teacher of Righteousness who, in their eyes, is a prophet like Moses who will inaugurate the new covenant and who will restore the true faith in the last days).

The Qumran community was comprised of exclusivist separatists, and believed that all the other groups are going to hell. They emphasize the wrath, damnation and fire of Elohim that will fall on all others including their fellow Jews all of whom they view as “the sons of darkness.”

Their charter entitled “The Community Rule”, which is the most important scroll that describes their mission and who they are. They believed that they are fulfilling the prophecy of Isaiah 40:3 as the ones crying in the wilderness to prepare the way of Messiah. This was 100 years before John the Baptist came on the scene with the same message.

They view the temple in Jerusalem as an empty shell and devoid of the presence of Elohim and corrupt.

They believe that the Jews (the Pharisees and Sadducees are using the wrong calendar, and have the wrong interpretation on how to keep the Torah.

Josephus’ description of the Essenes, while sharing some similar characteristics with the Qumran community, does not even get close to describing them, so these two groups cannot be viewed as being analogous. The same is true with Philo’s and Pliny the Elder’s description of the Essenes.

There are amazing parallels between the views of the Qumran community and the later “Jesus Movement” and the teachings and mission of John the Baptist. 

In Romans 3:2 Paul tells us that to the Jews were given the oracles (i.e., the Bible), not to the Levites of Qumran or any other Levites. The Levites were the teachers of Torah, not the transmitters of the written Bible down to our time. Therefore, the Bible that we possess is the true and accurate Bible with its completed canon

James Tabor on the DSS calendar at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vliePIpVec

The calendar is the most important functional aspect to a biblical based religious system. It is one thing to have beliefs, creeds or theologies, but apart from that, a calendar brings people together at religious gathering, or it separates people.

During second temple Judaism, there were two competing calendars: the Pharasaic solar-lunar calendar and the DSS or Book of Jubilees solar (basically) calendar. Both took their interpretation from Genesis 1:14. The later looked (primarily) to the moon and secondarily to the sun to determine the timing of the moedim (seasons, appointed times or divine appointments, i.e., biblical festivals) on the calendar, while the latter looked (primarily) to the sun.

Exodus 12:2 just says “new” (Heb. chadosh), not “new moon”. Thus the solar calendar people take this verse to mean that “this is the first month of “the new/news [as in new things relating to the turning of the year or a new 30 day period]” (not new moon, since the moon is not specifically mentioned here), thus, in their opinion, the moon is not tied here to the biblical calendar. This, I add, is in spite of the fact that chadosh from chodesh is understood to mean by all major Hebrew lexicons and to mean “new moon” and is translated as such some 240 times in the major English Bible translations.

What we find in the late second temple era are many sectarian groups who are willing to break off from normative Judaism and follow this different calendar.

The solar calendar was 12 months of 30 days equaling 360 days plus an added 4 days at the end of each seasonal quarter to form a year of 364 days. Thus on this calendar, there were four months of 31 days to catch you up to the 364 day year. No one knows what was done about the lost 1.25 days each year (the difference between the DSS’s 364 day solar year and the actual 365.25 day solar year). Some scholars suggest that they didn’t even know that each year was getting shorter by 1.25 days. Since this was an apocalyptic group, they figured the world was coming to an end in their lifetime, so it didn’t really matter that in thirty years their calendar would be a month too early, since the apocalypse was coming and they wouldn’t be around by then anyway. Moreover, each year the weather was getting a little colder as the calendar fell behind by 1.25 days, and this may have been evidence in their minds that the world was coming apart and coming to an end as Scripture prophesied would occur in the end of days (i.e., the heavens will roll back like a scroll).

This solar calendar is convenient since it is predictable. A certain date on a calendar (e.g., your birth date, an anniversary, a holiday, a feast day, a new month, etc.) always falls on the same day each year, and on same day of the week forever and ever. This makes people feel good since it conveys a sense of order and stability and predictability in the cosmos. No more needing to go out and look for barley or the new moon. Of course, they don’t address the fact that their year is sliding backwards each year by 1.25 days. Nevertheless, the solar based calendar has harmony. It is just matter of counting to 12 again and again, and thus there is order, regularity and predictability. Moreover, Wednesday, the fourth day of creation (the first day of their each new month) when the sun was created seems to put people in sync with the creation story and with Adam and Eve. This was an extremely satisfying thought to the solar calendar adherents. But does it really line up with the Scriptures?

The DSS writers in their Damascus Document believed that they were the true remnant and that all of the rest of Israel had gone astray and that only they had the divine truth of YHVH. 

A major flaw of the in the DSS calendar is that at that time, you couldn’t see the vernal equinox, so you needed a cheat sheet to tell you when the calendar started. It’s like the rabbinic calendar of today. The mathematical calculations are complicated, so one needs a cheat sheet to tell you when the YHVH’s moedim or appointed times occur. Such a cheat sheet actually exists in the DSS which was lost to history for nearly 2,000 years until 1947.

So, unlike the Qumran solar calendar, the Bible promotes a calendar with only two rules to have to remember. It is so simple that even a child can understand it. The biblical calendar also wonderfully ensures that the lunar year of 354 days and solar year of 365.25 days stays in sync with each other. These two rules are as follows: Look for the visible crescent new moon which tells you when the new month starts, and then to determine when which month is the first month of the new year, look for the abib (ripe) barley. If it is not abib or ripe in time for Passover week, then add another month. It’s that simple. For an agrarian-based society like ancient Israel, this would have been a simple and easy to follow and understand procedure.