There Is a New “Biblical” Calendar in Town

For those of us returning to the pro-Torah, Hebraic roots of our Christian faith, the Sabbath and biblical feasts are fundamental our faith—they outline the Creator’s plan of redemption for sinful man. Recovering these lost biblical truth treasures, that the early church fathers quickly abandoned after the death of the last apostles, is vital to our spiritual growth and development. To keep YHVH’s feast as the Bible instructs, we need to know how and when to celebrate them. The when part necessitates a calendar, but which one? Hopefully the study below will help the reader to navigate these troubled waters.

When I came into the Torah faith more than six decades ago, we knew of only one biblical calendar—the Hillel 2 or rabbinic calendar from ca. AD 360. Then forty years later, a second calendar appeared on the scene—the abib (green in the ear) barley, visible new moon calendar, which was much closer to biblical truth than the previous one. Now, in the last 25 years, numerous other calendars have spontaneously combusted all claiming to be the “true biblical calendar” dividing the body of believers into numerous factions opposed to each other. Many of these calendars rely on extra-Bible sources to substantiate their validity. This is a problem for those of us who look to the Bible as the final word on how to obey YHVH. The latest calendar to emerge center stage is Enoch-Zadok calendar. Is this finally, the truth once and for all delivered and we need to look no further, or is this another sleight of hand on the part of Bible peddlers who have something to sell or a following to build?

How to Examine New Information

I went into the study of the Zadok calendar open-minded. What could I learn? Honestly, I knew very little about the so-called Zadok priesthood, the Qumran community, the Essenes and my understanding of the teachings of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) was rudimentary at best. When examining new information, we must be careful to guard against bias confirmation—that is, looking only to information that confirms our preconceived notions or our deeply held beliefs. 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). I have been a truth seeker all of my life. Were I not so, I would still be in the church I was born into—12 churches ago! Thus I dove into a study of the Zadok calendar.

Does the Bible or Do Non-biblical Sources Determine Truth?

A big question each person has to ask themselves when determining spiritual truth is whether they are going to rely primarily on the Bible or on non-biblical, secular sources. No one is averse to conducting research using reputable, secular or extra-biblical sources for background information that supports the Bible. 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 Christianity has been doing for the better part of 2,000 years does when denying the more pro-Torah, Hebraic truths of the Scriptures. We have inherited many lies, and in our search for Truth, many of us have exited the mainstream church system. This chicanery started with 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 end up with a tangled web of truth and error, good and evil where the word of Elohim is made of none effect by men’s traditions and philosophical theologies as Yeshua warned us against (Mark 7:9–13).

With these words of caution ringing in our spirits, let’s now move on to examining the pro-Zadok calendar arguments and see if they line up with sola Scriptura, or are they merely another example of men’s philosophical theologies.

Addressing Pro-Zadok Calendar Arguments—Answered and Refuted

The Enoch-Zadok Calendar Explained

The Enoch calendar is based on a 364-day year (not 3651/4 days) and is first mentioned in the ancient pseudepigraphal Book of First Enoch. This calendar purportedly originated with Enoch, the great grandfather of Noah. This is in spite of the fact First Enoch was written in the third or second century BC, some 2,000 years after the time of the biblical Enoch, who died prior to Noah’s flood. This calendar is appealing to a growing number of pro-Torah Christians who are digging into the Hebraic roots of their faith and endeavoring to keep YHVH’s sabbaths, including the weekly Sabbath and biblical feasts, in accordance with the Creator’s Torah-instructions. Since the Enoch calendar purports to be of ancient derivation, some people assume that it may well be the Bible’s original calendar, hence, the one we should use today to determine when to celebrate the feasts.

 But how did we get from Enoch until today? And is there a biblical basis for the Enoch calendar? These are excellent questions that will be discussed and hopefully answered below. In the mean time, let’s give an overview of a few of the claims that the advocates of this calendar make.

The claim is made that, since the Enoch calendar supposedly dates to the time of Enoch, it must be the calendar that Moses and the Israelites used back in the Book of Exodus. Whereas the Levitical priests were the keepers and teachers of YHVH’s Torah-law, it is correctly assumed that they would have known when to observe the biblical feasts and thus should have the final say in this matter. At the end of the Israelites wandering in the wilderness, YHVH made an everlasting covenant with Phinehas (or Pinchas), the grandson of Aaron the high priest (the brother of Moses), that to his descendants would be given the priesthood forever (Num 25:12–13), and with that charge came, presumably, the knowledge of the correct biblical calendar. 

Moving forward several hundred years to the time of King David, Zadok, a descendent of Phinehas, was the high priest whose progeny carried the mantle of the covenantal promise YHVH made to Phinehas along with again, presumably, the knowledge of the true biblical calendar. 

We hear nothing more about Zadok or his descendants until Ezekiel mentions the descendants of Zadok in regards to his famous but enigmatic temple prophecy (Ezekiel chapters 40–48). In this prophecy, YHVH makes the sons of Zadok the officiants in the temple because of their faithfulness to him and his commandments (Ezek 40:46; 43:19ff; 44:15f; 48:11), and it is their role to interpret the Torah-law in matters of controversy including calendrical issues (q.v., Deut 17:8–11). Because Ezekiel states that the Zadokites had been faithful to YHVH’s law, they were given this glorious charge. However, there is much debate among Bible scholars concerning whether Ezekiel’s temple is literal or allegorical. Moreover, was it fulfilled in the building of the Second Temple, or is it an allegory referring to Yeshua and the church, or is it a literal temple yet to be built? The prevailing view is that this is a millennial temple—called the Fourth Temple—that is yet to be built. One thing is certain. The Second Temple that was built in the fifth century BC and was destroyed in AD 70 never fit the description of Ezekiel’s temple, and thus Ezekiel’s prophecy concerning the sons of Zadok is for a future time. 

Despite the fact that Ezekiel’s temple is yet to be built, and the Zadokite priesthood as officiants in that temple is for a future era, the proponents of the Zadok calendar still cite Ezekiel 44:15 and 23–24 as proof for their calendar. Ezekiel 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 17:8–11). This, the claim is made, was fulfilled by the Zadokite priests of the monastery at Khirbet Qumran on the shores of the Dead Sea in Israel beginning in the late second century BC and lasting for about 175 years afterwards. After that, the inhabitants of Qumran disappear from the pages of history until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls in 1947.

Additionally, not letting facts and historical realities stand in their way, the proponents of the Enoch calendar, now referred to as “the Enoch-Zadok calendar” (or simply “the Zadok calendar”), have somehow parlayed the faithful priests mentioned in Ezekiel’s future temple prophecy into the priests living at the time of the Maccabees in the second century BC. This is where the Dead Sea Scrolls (or DSS) and the Qumran community enter the picture. The DSS were discovered in 1947. The original group of DSS scholars from that era who, based on the evidence available to them at that time, firmly believed that a group of righteous priests had been excommunicated, if you will, from the Jerusalem temple when a group of supposedly illegitimate Maccabean priests took charge thereof in the second century BC. The legitimate (Zadokite) priests fled Jerusalem and established a monastery at Qumran near where the DSS were discovered. It is believed that they were largely the writers of the DSS of which the Book of 1 Enoch is a part of this larger corpus. Since the The Book of Enoch promotes the Enoch calendar, and since, it is believed, that these scrolls dictated the lifestyle practices and theology of the Qumran sectaries, and since, it is assumed, these priests were the literal, biological descendants of Zadok and Phinehas the high priests, and since YHVH said through Ezekiel that the sons of Zadok had been faithful to guard and obey his laws, it is assumed that the Zadok calendar is the true biblical calendar for us to follow today in order accurately keep YHVH’s feasts. Hopefully you followed that line of reasoning, since it is essential to understanding the pro-Zadok calendar argument. 

There is more, but this is the essence of the pro-Zadok calendar argument. The proponents rely solely on extra-biblical books including those of the DSS to prove the validity of the Zadok calendar. Then, almost as an after thought, they reach back into the Bible, which contains not even the slightest allusion to the Zadok calendar, and attempt to “prove” their point by twisting Scriptures, a technique that the anti-Torah and “the law is nailed to the cross” and “done away with” mainstream Christian church has mastered over the centuries to the detriment of Bible truth resulting in the deception of myriads of people who now longer believe in the validity of YHVH’s Torah-law. Old habits die hard!

In what follows, we will critically analyze several of the key elements undergirding the Zadok calendar theory to see if these square with the empirical evidence, and then we will leave it up to you to decide where the truth lies.

One more word of warning. My comments and notes below are mind-numbing in detail and neither intended for the faint of heart of for those looking for a quick overview of this subject. This is a deep dive and is angled for only the most knowledgable and detail-oriented Bible students. Please do not feel bad if this material is difficult to wrap your mind around. Most of my other writings and video presentations on the Zadok calendar, are much less detailed, more digestible, yet still cover the main points. If you get bogged down in what follows, I humbly invite you to check out some of my other material. Or better yet, skip to the end of this article for section entitled “Summary and Conclusion”, which is a short summary and of the following study and my conclusions.

Onward…!

What Proponents of the Zadok Are Saying and My Responses

In what follows, we will critically analyze several of the key elements undergirding the Zadok calendar theory to see if these square with the Bible, and then it will be up to you to decide where the truth lies or whether lies are being peddled for truth. The following are my personal responses and notes after watching several video presentations by several pro-Zadok calendar teachers.

In response to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tCXV76e8dgE&list=PLdoqNkN5ekbjKOCFdQTL7o7hIahXOsLiC&index=6.

• Some Zadok calendar proponents claim that the term rosh chodesh (the Hebrew word for “new moon”) is found only three times in the Bible and, therefore, cannot be a proof that the biblical 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; therefore, three biblical references is enough to establish a biblical truth. For example, the prohibition against bestiality is only mentioned three times, but no one would doubt that this is a sin. By the way, the Hebrew word chodesh meaning “new moon” is found 279 times in the Old Testament (Ol).
• Some Zadok calendar proponents claim that Exodus 12:2 does not specifically state that 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 the 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.
• Some Zadok calendar proponents correctly claim 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 mean that all of the Essenes were Zadokites (i.e., descendants from Zadaok the high priest) as one Zadok calendar proponents claims or 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. This is not true. To say it is would be an ignorant lie. 
• Some Zadok calendar proponents claim many of Yeshua’s disciples 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?
• Some Zadok calendar proponents claim, without biblical proof, that John was a Nazarene and an Essene.
• Some Zadok calendar proponents claim that Yeshua was an Essene based on the etymology of the word Nazarene, which goes back to the Hebrew word for branch, which is one of the terms the Qumran community applied to themselves. This claim is not supported biblically or logically. This 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 of Christian you want to name. This may or may not be true.

The following is from my own Bible commentary notes on Matthew 2:23 and explains the etymological origins of the words Nazareth and Nazarene:

Nazareth…Nazarene. (Cp. Acts 24:5). Nazareth means “the guarded one”. The name Nazareth is not found in the OT. The closest word similar to it is naziyr (or nazarite) meaning “one who is consecrated, devoted.” Naziyr derives from nazar 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 New Testament on the Old Testament, 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).

• Eddie Chumney, a major proponent of the Zadok calendar, 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 New Testament (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 countless, unsubstantiated and often laughable claims in his books) to further substantiate his belief. (Years ago, I tossed all of my Yair Davidy books in the trash because they were riddled with much wildly inaccurate nonsense!)
• The non-biblical book of 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. Again, they are looking to non-biblical sources to support their arguments.
• 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. More non-bibical sources!
• 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 a false statement and shows ignorance of the Hillel II (from AD c. 350), rabbinic, fixed or calculated calendar which religious Jews use to this day. In this calendar, a 13th month is added or intercalated seven times every 19 years at the end of a given 12 month year to keep the solar year of 365.25 days and the lunar year of 354 days in sync with each other. This calendar is based off of the Second Temple era abib barley, visible new moon calendar, which is a lunar-solar calendar that is self-adjusting in that it maintains an average 365.25 day year unlike the Enoch or Zadok calendar which is 364 days long (1 Enoch Ethiopic Version 73:11; 81:7 cp. 72:4–5) and thus loses or retrogrades 1.25 days each year. In about 25 years, the Zadok calendar will be a month behind. In seventy five years, people on this calendar will be celebrating Passover shortly after Christmas!
• The Zadok 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. The proponents of the Zadok calendar claim that Noah (not YHVH) ordained the addition of these days forever, and therefore, we are mandated to do the same. Where is this in the Bible? These four 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 neither any mention of the equinox in Scripture nor any command to reckon or add days to the biblical calendar.
• Some 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. In fact, it is a lunar-solar calendar. And long before the Jews went to Babylon, the Torah records that the Israelites were calculating their months, on YHVH’s command, based on the lunar cycle. There are 279 such references in the OT!
• Some proponents of the Zadok calendar claim that the new year begins on the evening 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 14 as the Bible clearly states, but, in reality, is day four on the biblical calendar. This assertion, however, contradicts Scripture—specifically, Exodus 12:2–3, which, if pro-Zadok calendar 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!
• Some proponents of the Zadok calendar claim that 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, they claim that the abib barley, visible new moon calendar is not in line with Scripture. While this claim is true, it fails to mention that the Dead Sea Scrolls contain a documents where the moon was a factor in calendrial calculations along with the possible addition of a thirteenth month (DSS documents 4Q306, 4Q319, 4Q320–321a). Furthermore, if the Zadok calendar proponents’ claim that the Scriptures are lacking evidence to a thirteenth month being added to the calendar, 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.
• Some proponents of the Zadok calendar claim that while the Gospel of John gives the Passover on the Pharisee/Sadducee calendar (which some Zadok calendar proponents conflate with the Hillel 2 calendar of ca. AD 350), 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, at least in their minds, the confusion between Yeshua celebrating an early Passover on the Jewish calendar but actually on the fourteenth day of the first month on the Zadok calendar. In reality, 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 also 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 Zadok calendar. This is, supposedly, because “John was a Nazarene” (sic, here 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 supposedly signaling that Yeshua as a Nazarene held the true Passover with his disciples at the earlier time, while he actually died on the Pharisees’ calendar (although it was not literally the Passover according to the Zadok calendar). According to the proponents of the Zadok calendar, why did Yeshua die on the Jew’s Passover and not on the “true” Passover according to the Zadok calendar? He did so, they claim, 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, supposedly, 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 of the timing of Yeshua’s last supper? It is a bit confusing and mind numbing to say the least!

The following is from my own Bible commentary notes on John 2:13 et al on the meaning of the phrase, “the Passover of the Jews.” 

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 calendrical 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). 

From Eddie Chumney’s on the Zadok calendar teaching (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQZa9P5RaIQ)

• Eddie Chumney traces the Zadok priesthood from Pinchas (or Phinehas) to Zadok to the Essene community, who were comprised of the descendants of the Zadok priesthood, and who, he 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) that was 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, Abegget al., pp. 14–43).
• Since Chumney believes that biological descendants of Zadok the high priests 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 Christians need 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 biological descendants of Zadok the priest (a claim the DSS writers make of themselves, but is not confirmed biblically or even by the DSS themselves), and (b) that the Qumran priests had actually adhered to biblical truth without deviation 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 much less 800 years! To assert that 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 (again, assuming they were the actual writers of the DSS—another gross assumption that many scholars now question) is a giant leap of faith. If what the DSS 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 is running the risk of becoming a false teacher—something the Bible vehemently condemns again and again (2 Peter 2:1–22; 1 Tim 4:1–5; Matt 24:5).
• 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 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 layout of the tabernacle of Moses. It is true that there has been a gradual restoration of biblical in the Christian church from Protestant Reformation of the early 16th century until now. However, claims that the sectarians of Qumran, the Essenes of the same era were biological Zadolites and Chumney’s implied notion that modern Christians who return to the beliefs proffered in the DSS, and by assumption, as believed and taught at Qumran, are now, somehow, associated with the Zadokite priesthood is far-fetched and unprovable on all fronts. Indeed, the NT speaks about a priesthood of believers which Peter refers to as “the royal priesthood” that involves all the saints (1 Pet 2:9)as does John (Rev 1:6; 5:10). Furthermore, John goes on to talk about the saints being kings and priests in Yeshua’s millennial kingdom (Rev 5:10; 20:6). But neither Peter nor John mentions or hints at these being Zadokites. They may well be, but we cannot assume so, since Scripture does not tell us. For Chumney, the grand finale of the restoration of truth is pictured by the holy of holies in the Tabernacle of Moses 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. Again, upon listening to Chumney, one cannot help wonder if he is not trying to resurrect the Zadok priesthood with himself and others who agree with him leading the way. Is this the beginning of a new “club” of people who have been led to believe that they are part of the Zadok priesthood with no biblical proof to substantiate this notion? Beware! This is how cults are formed. 

From Eddie Chumney’s teaching at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XkJrVS2VwLw:

• Eddie 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 must mean that 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 that is mentioned in 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 initially the Essenes did not believe that Yeshua was the Messiah, but gradually accepted this idea.
• Chumney makes the claim, again without evidence, that the Essenes lived not only in Qumran, but throughout Israel including the Essene Quarter in Jerusalem. That they lived in Qumran cannot be proved either from the DSS or the archeological evidence found at Qumran. The fact is that some of the world’s leading DSS are now saying that there is no way prove who lived at Qumran. Were they Essenes, disaffected Zadokit priests, Sadducees, a Sadduceean subsect or novitiates priests preparing to join the Sadduceean priesthood? I have written about this giving in another well-documented article on the subject of the Qumran community.
• Chumney claims that the Essenes were also known as the People of the Way (nomenclature presumably based on a similar reference in Acts 9:2 referring to the first century Messianic believers). Here Chumney again, erroneously, conflates the Essenes with the Qumran community. As prove in my other study paper on the DSS and the Qumran community, this view is 70 years out of date and was one that was held by the original DSS scholars of the 1950s. 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 of Alexandria) refers to those who lived in the Qumran community as Essenes, while the New Testament seems to indicate that the early Christian believers aligned themselves with the Essenes who had believed that Yeshua was the Messiah. These followers of Yeshua were called Nazarenes (Acts 24:5) and were of “The Way” (Acts 9:2; 19:19, 23) or what me might refer to as Jewish Pentecostals according to Chumney. Contradicting Chumney on this point, the historical evidence shows that the testimony of Josephus et al in this regard is incomplete and misguided. Again, we are expected to take Chumney’s word for this without his giving any evidence.
• 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 substantiated by historical evidence and many DSS scholars doubt this claim. In fact, the DSS themselves do not make the connection between the Teacher and the Qumran sectarians. So to connect the two requires a giant presumptive leap on Chumney’s part. Moroever, no evidence exists to supports the claim by the Qumran community that they were the literal descendants of Zadok. This is because it cannot be proven that the sectarians even wrote the DSS contain these claims about the Zadokite priesthood. 
• Chumney claims that when James 5:7 mentions “the early and latter rain”, that in Hebrew this is referring to “the Teacher of Righteousness”—a title for the Messiah and this is somehow a link to the Qumran community. By way of contextual review, 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”]”, and this is supposedly a prophetic reference to the, Teacher of Righteousness. Chumney then goes on to claim that the 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 word yarah meaning “rain”, not specifically “teacher”, although moreh, the Hebrew word for teacher, is a cognate of yarah, which is its primitive root. Thus yarah and moreh are etymologically related, but it is a linguistic to make a one-to-one correlation between them. Thus Chumney makes an erroneously linguistic connection between the words teacher and rain, and thus fails to prove his point that the DSS’s Teacher of Righteousness is somehow someone from whom the end time saints should take their spiritual direction. What we have before us, sadly, are more false, mind-numbing claims based on erroneous assumptions punctuated by the lack of scholarship!
• Chumney admits that most of his understanding of the DSS comes 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 DSS promote the idea of a solar-based 364-day calendar, where they looked primarily to the sun as the main calendrical indicator. However, these scrolls do record a more than casual interest in the moon and its cycles. In my other article, I discuss this in full detail with references provided. The fact that the DSS address the moon issue is curious to me, since Chumney and other modern Zadok calendar proponents totally reject all reliance on the moon for calendrical calculations, something that is at odds with the DSS. In fact, Chumney states that looking to the moon for calendrical purposes is of pagan origination and claims that the Qumran community did not adhere to a lunar based calendar. The reality is that no one knows which calendar the Qumran sectarians used since we cannot even definitively connect the to the DSS which record the information about the Zadok calendar in the first place.
• 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 on the same verse in Isaiah. This is a tenuous connection at best and fails to prove if, in what way or for how long John was involved with the Qumran sectaries. True, his ministry was in the Jordan Valley, may not far from Qumran, but this proves nothing. As I am writing this, there is a Roman Catholic Church a block away, but that in now way proves that my ministry is associated with Roman Catholicism!

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 chapter 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. This is obvious because Elohim’s first act was the creation of light (Gen 1:3), and the earth was rotating with respect to that light as the Hebrew word for night (layil) by definition means. 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). Therefore, the Zadok calendar proponents claim that there was no light shining on the earth prior to the fourth day when the sun was created is false.
• On the Zadok calendar, there are fixed dates for the major festivals and they cannot fall on a weekly Sabbath. This keeps the feasts and weekly Sabbath separate and distinct and, thusly, it is claimed, avoiding worrisome difficulties affecting sacrifices. Why is 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 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. Is this the real reason some people are attracted to the Zadok calendar? Because they can rearrange their jobs schedules around it more easily? If so, since when do righteous people rearrange the Word of Elohim to fit worldly standards and schedules? It should be the other way around. Yeshua instructed us to seek first the kingdom of Elohim and righteousness, and then the things of the world would take care of themselves. 
• The Zadok calendar is based on the vernal equinox. The problem with this theory is that before the modern era the ancients had no way of determining the exact timing of either the vernal or spring equinox.
• Although the Zadok calendar is supposedly solar-based is not 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 since it is solar-based only. However and in reality, the 364-day Zadok calendar falls behind the actual 365.25-day 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 calculation, added to their lunar-solar calendar a thirteenth month or 30 day leap month every 36 months (Wise, Abegg and Cook, p 383). So the 364-day solar-only calendar was not the only calendar which the DSS advocated and, presumably the Qumran community used.
• 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 to 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 suggests that the Bible is insufficient for knowing how to walk out the Truth of Eohim including when to observe his commanded biblical feasts! In fact, until 1947 when the DSS were discovered containing information on the Zadok calendar, it could be argued that YHVH left his people without a calendar for 2,000 years and thus the inability to obey his Torah-word by keeping the feasts. Do you believe this? I do not!
• 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”? The Zadok calender proponents that I have listened to have no explanation for this. In fact, this biblical truth seems to be an inconvenient fact that is simply ignored and swept under the proverbial rug.
• 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 Zadok calendar proponents. However, the reason is clear if one understands that the name of the first month on the biblical calendar has to do with the barley ripening—the month of the Abib. This is because the first month of each year occurred when the barley grain was ripening early in the spring. 
• Some Zadokite calendar proponents claim 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 on 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 religious instruction in the land of Israel with the rise of Herod. Whatever the case, 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 around the second century BC period.
• This same pro-Zadok calendar proponent goes on to say, “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). YHVH only commanded that we ‘observe’ (shâmar) the month of Abib. See Deuteronomy 16:1.” My response is that this is a silly assertion on the part of this author. True, the Bible does not expressly command that the hills be searched for barley. Anyone who has been to Israel knows that barley grows wild, like a weed, along the roadways and volunteer from one end of the land to the other. All one has to do is step outside one’s door and barley will likely be growing nearby. It was simply a matter of observing (shamar) with the eyes and then following the seasonal indicator of the barley. Moreover, this author’s statement is incorrect when Deuteronomy 16:1 commands us to “observe [Heb. shamar] the month of the Abib.” The word shamar not only means “to see or observe” but italso 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 Old Testament. Thus, the author has failed to give the full meaning of this word thereby twisting the Scripture to say something that it does not say at all.  

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

• Eddie Chumney claims that term “the month of the Abib” was the Canaanite designation for the first month giving no evidence, biblical or otherwise, for this assertion. The other way that the Bible designates months was by numbering them: the first month, the second month and so on. In this, he is correct. As far as “the month of the Abib”—another name for the first month of the year—Moses in the Torah gives is the originator of this descriptive name for the first month (Exod13:4); therefor, it is not of Canaanite but biblical origination. 
• Chumney claims, based on an information in the Encyclopedia Britannica, that 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 this calendar in sync with the seasons and solar cycle. Thus, he claims, the lunar calendar with rosh chodesh or the sighting of the new moon being the first day of the month is a pagan concept and not the true biblical calendar. Actually, Chumney’s assertion in this matter proves nothing. It is a ridiculous and illogical argument. That’s like saying that since Hitler believed that 2 + 2 = 4, if I believe that too, this must obviously invalidates this mathematical equation.
• Chumney goes on to claim 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 is actually commanding the Israelites to stop using the Egyptian calendar. Here is the verse:

This month shall be unto you the beginning of months: it shall be the first month of the year to you.

Is this what verse is saying? Obviously, YHVH is making no references to Egypt in this verse. 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 that this is the first day of the month. No other reading of these two verses makes logical sense.

• Chumney claims that the ancient and modern Jewish calendar (he conflates the abib barley calendar of ancient Israel with the calculated rabbinic Jewish Hillel 2 calendar of ca. ad 359–360 and refers to both as pagan Babylonian calendars (because they are based on the new moon). It is true that the Hillel 2 calendar is roughly based on the Babylonian calendar, which does not make it an evil calendar if it is accurate. But this is not the case with the visible new moon calendar that the Jews used in the time of Yeshua. Nevertheless, he says that both calendars should be rejected. He fails to consider the idea that perhaps the pagans got their calendar from the same source as the Hebrews—i.e., from YHVH back at the Garden of Eden. 
• Chumney cites numerous extra-biblical scholarly and historical sources that state that the biblical/Jewish calendar came from Babylon. Yet so far, other than a brief (two minute) re-interpretation of Exodus 12:2 (as discussed previously above), he gives no biblical references to back up any of his assertions.
• Chumney states again and again, citing secular scholars, that the Jews were following the Babylonian (and Egyptian, Persian, Syrian, 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, according to some Bible chronologists, 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. Perhaps both the 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. Since no one knows exactly how or when the calendar originated, all we can do is speculate. No one can be dogmatic about things we simply do not have the historical data to prove one way or the other. The Bible is our oldest and most reliable written record for such matters, so as Bible believers it is wise use this as our premise of knowledge and understanding.
• First Chumney claims (citing secular, scholarly sources) that the Jews obtained their current calendar from the Babylonians when they were in exile in the sixth the fifth century BC. Then he claims that they adopted the Babylonian calendar during the time of the Greek Selucids (during the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes) just prior to the Maccabean revolt (in the second century BC). Several hundred years separate these two events. So when did the Jews supposedly obtain their “pagan” calendar? In the sixth century BC or the second century BC? This kind of confusing, incongruous and conflicting information does not help to advance truth. Then, without messing a beat, Chumney goes on to refer to the Babylonian calendar that the Greeks supposedly imposed on the Jews in the second century BC as “the Hillel calendar.” This is clear evidence that Chumney does neither understand the issues about which he is talking, nor the time frames involved. Let me explain. The Jews were taken into captivity by the Babylonians in ca. BC 586. The Greeks took control of the land of Israel and imposed Hellenist paganism on the Jews some 400 years after that. Then about 500 years later, the Hillel 2 calendar came into existence in ca. ad 360 under Roman Emperor Constantine. Between the time of the Babylons and the Hillel 2 calendar is some 900 years. Thus, the Hillel 2 calendar which the religious Jews use to this day cannot be the same calendar that the Jews supposedly obtain during the time they were ruled over by the Babylonians or the Greeks. Moreover, Chumney conflates 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 rabbinic calendar eventually replaced in the forth century ad. 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.
• In assuming that the Jewish lunar-solar calendar of the time of Yeshua was of pagan and not of divine origination he is ignoring the biblical truth about “the month of the Abib” barley, and the biblical mandate to begin each month at the sighting of the visible new moon. Moreover, he is unable to provide any credible biblical or historical evidence for why the lunar-solar calendar is of pagan but divine origination. Then, upon the false premise of assuming that the first century Jewish lunar-solar calendar was pagan, he makes the further claim that the Qumran community was comprised of Zadokite priests who supposedly held to the true, non-pagan solar-based Zadok calendar. The error in this assertion is that, again, Chumney can provide no conclusive evidence that the Qumran community were genealogically descended from Zadok the priest other than citing the DSS which may or may not have been written by the Qumran sectaries. As I have noted multiple times here and elsewhere, DSS scholars, like Robert Eisenman, tell us that the assertion made by the earliest dss scholars that the dss were written by the Qumran inhabitants can no longer be verified, in light of the examination of more recently translated DSS manuscripts. 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 at best a tenuous 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 pseudepigraphal Book of Enoch and the pseudepigraphal Book of Jubilees (both written in the intertestamental period), which state that the 364 day calendar (i.e., the Enoch or Zadok calendar) was of a heavenly origins. 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 book, he asserts is superior to the latter, since it (he assumes) is of divine origination, as opposed to the latter which is based on human observation. This may sound like a convincing argument, but he fails to prove this point from the Scriptures! Furthermore, if both the books of Enoch and Jubilees were of divine origination, then why did the Jews not include the in the canon of the Hebrew (OT) Scriptures? 
• In addition to all of the questionable claims that Chumney makes, he goes on to say that Elohim does not follow Babylonian ways. While this is true at face value, YHVH Elohim is on the side of truth whoever possesses it and wherever it may be found. Remember that the forbidden tree in the Garden of Eden contained both good and evil. Even pagans may possess a little truth mixed in with much evil. How then does the Bible student separate the wheat from the chaff? The precious from the vile? Truth from error? By going back to the Bible and measuring everything against the infallible and immutable Word of Elohim. Because Chumney assumes, falsely, that the visible new moon, abib barley calendar is of pagan originations, he leaps to the conclusion that it must be rejected. He then cites Revelation 18:4 where YHVH commands his end time saints to “come of [Babylon], my people” by rejecting the “Babylonian” Jewish, visible new moon/barley abib calendar and adopting the “true” Enoch or Zadok calendar. The “building” of his argument is built on a foundation of sand, and therefore is unable to stand when examined under the light of truth.
• Chumney claims, without substantiating evidence, that the Zadok priests 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 duuring their Babylonian exile. Yet he gives no biblical proof for either of these claims. Moreover, many DSS scholars are currently debating how, why and when the Qumran community was formed and whether it did so out of an animus for the ruling Jerusalem priesthood or not. Thus, this point is inconclusive and is still open to debate. Chumney fails to mention this point, since it would undermine his pro-Zadok calendar claims.
• 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 Eisenman, the DSS 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). Thus and again, Chumney’s claims do not match the facts on the ground, or in this case, in the caves!
• Again, Chumney claims, without either biblical or secular proof, 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. Undoubtedly, during this time period, there were theological and political disputes between the competing religious factions, but it is not always clear from the historical records where these lines fell exactly or to what degree they involved calendrical debates, or which calendars or who believed what. Thus it is difficult if not impossible to draw definitive conclusions in such matters. To do so crosses the line from the factual into the realm of speculation if not outright fantasy. Much of Chumney’s claims about the Zadok calendar are, regrettably, in the realm the latter 
• Ezekiel 44:15 and 23–24 states that in the future 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 prophetic temple is yet to be built and is likely a millennial one. 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. Third, Chumney’s claim assumes that the inhabitants of Qumran were the literal biological descendants of Zadok the priest, which, despite the claims of the DSS, 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 easily be taken as a metaphorical designation as a literal one. That is to say, they may have been literal “sons of Zadok”, or they may simply be “sons of righteousness”, or merely people who are walking in righteousness though not actual descendants of Zadok (Eisenman, pp. 15–22).
• According to Chumney, the essence of the Zadok calendar primarily comes from a couple of passages the Book of Jubilees—an extra-biblical source. Who and what are we going to trust? The Bible or the apocryphal Book of Jubilees.
• On the Zadok “Priestly” calendar, all of the biblical 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. This demonstrates his lack of understanding of either calendars and the differences between them.
• 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. Thus, when one rejects the Zadok calendar, one is supposedly rejecting YHVH’s true priesthood. Again, the fundamental flaw in this argument is that it cannot be proven that the Qumran community was genealogically descended from Pinchas (or Phinehas) and then from Zadok the high pries. Thus, Chumney’s is proffering yet another specious argument that is not validated by facts. 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 since he believes that the Qumran sectarians were the direct descendants of Aaron through Zadok, we should listen to them in the matters of calendar controversies. Again, this argument is foundationally flawed for the numerous reasons already stated above. 
• The non-canonical, pseudepigraphal Book 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, and this is Chumney’s curious if not twisted explanation of Exodus 12:2–3. By the way, the Book of Jubilees nowhere mentions the word Zadok.
• Chumney 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 without biblical evidence. The Jews, it is alleged, followed the Zadok calendar down to their Babylonian captivity at which time they adopted their captors’ lunar calendar. Again, no biblical evidence is cited to substantiate this claim.
• Daniel 7:25 discusses the changing of times and seasons. According to Chumney this is supposedly a prophecy speaking about the lunar-solar calendar Zadok 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. It must be noted that like the Book of Jubilees, in the First and Second Book of Maccabees the name Zadok cannot be found. To assume that when these book mention the priesthood they are referring to the biological descendants of Zadok is a gross assumption and shows a lack of scholarly integrity.
• Chumney claims that the Zadok calendar goes back to Enoch because it is mentioned in the pseudepigraphal Book of Enoch which was written sometime in the second century BC. He goes on to claim that if pre-flood 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 (more than 2,000 years earlier), 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, even unbiblical statement.
• 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 that Chumney is so intent on proving the validity of the Zadok calendar that he would infer that Enoch may be worthy of canonical status contrary more than 2,000 years of Jewish history that says otherwise. As proof that Enoch merits canonical status, he cites Jude 1:14, who quotes a passage from the Book of Enoch. Just because a Scripture writer quotes a passage from a non-biblical source, this doe not mean it merits canonical status. For example, Paul quoted a Greek poet on Mars Hill in Athens when he was debating the Greek philosophers (Acts 17:28). This is not justification for including this poet’s writings in the Bible. Other books mentioned in the Bible that are not part of the canon of Scripture include the books of Jasher (Josh 10:13; 2 Sam 1:18), Wars (Num 21:14), the Acts of Solomon (1 Kgs 11:41), Gad the Seer (1 Chron 29:29), the Chronicles of King David (1 Chron 27:24) and so on. More importantly, Paul tells us that YHVH commissioned the Jews to preserve his the Bible.

What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. (Rom 3:1–2)

Either we believe what the Bible tells us about the Jews preserving the canon of Scripture or we do not. No one can add or subtract therefrom without incurring the wrath and curses of Elohim (Rev 22:18–19 cp. Deut 4:2, 12:32)!

• 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 BC and all the way until Yeshua’s day. Thus the Book of Enoch, according to Chumney, could just as well have been part of the unofficial canon of Scripture. This is giant, speculative a leap, and a highly debatable one too. He quotes a scholar who claims that there was no official OT 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 Book of 1 Enoch could or should have been part of the OT, since this book is the origination of the 364-day calendar also known as the Enoch or Zadok calendar. Chumney goes on to question the OT canon suggesting, again without evidence, claiming that the Pharisees canonized the OT after ad 70 and excluded from it some 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. More speculation added on mountains of previous speculation.

In the final analysis, what really matters to YHVH Elohim?

[B]ut to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word. (Isa 66:2b)

Summary and Conclusions

The following bullet points are the main objections that I have with the so-called Enoch or Zadok calendar. 

• The proponents of the Zadok 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. For example, they reinterpret Exodus 12:2–3 to mean the opposite of what it is actually saying. They also question the legitimacy 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 that have no basis in linguistics or biblical context.
• They make the assumption that the inhabitants of Qumran and the authors of the DSS were genealogical descendants of Zadok and Pinchas the priests, but offer no proof of this except for the claims that the DSS authors make about themselves. Anyone can claim to be anything, but that does not necessarily make it so. At the same time, there are other DSS experts who say that there is no proof that the Qumran priests were biological descendants of Zadok. 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 priests”.
• If the occupants of Qumran were biological descendants of Zadok, where is the biblical or historical proof that they remained faithful to the truth that they initially possessed when Zadok was the high priest during the reigns of David and Solomon? To say that these priest had remained 100 percent faithful including maintains an accurate biblical calendar is a gross assumption. More importantly, to believe that the Zadok priesthood remained pure, one has to ignore the biblical Book of Malachi which declares that the priesthood was corrupt in his day and that there would be no singularly pure priesthood until the coming of Messiah who be “like a refiner’s fire and like launder’s soap” would “purify the sons of Levi” (Mal 3:2–3).
• They fail to mention, much less explain, the biblical designation and importance of “the month of the Abib” and the meaning thereof in its larger context as it relates to the biblical calendar.
• 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. Moreover, historians and Bible scholars admit that the precise timing of the vernal equinox was unknown to the ancients until more modern times, so using the vernal equinox as a calendrical calculations was a guesstimate at best.
• They blithely assume that using the moon as a calendrical indicator is of pagan origination simply because most ancient cultures used it and that the Israelites must have gotten it from the pagans. They fail to realize that from the beginning, YHVH ordained both the sun and the moon to be signs in the heavens upon which to base calendrical calculations (Gen 1:14).
• The claim that the term rosh chodesh is found only three times in the Bible and is therefor not sufficient proof that the new month begins at the sighting of the new moon. This proves nothing. The prohibition against bestiality is stated only three times in the Bible, yet this does not invalidate the command to abstain therefrom. This argument is neither valid proof for nor 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 279 times!
• One Zadok calendar proponent claims, without scriptural support, 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 they claim is synonymous with the Zadokite inhabitants of Qumran. The implication is that we should all now become Zadokits as well. There is no biblical support for any of this.
• Let’s never forget an important historical fact: the Qumran community ceased to exist in ad 70 with the destruction of the Jerusalem temple by the Romans. How is it that these so-called Zadokite priests, who supposedly had “the true way,” were largely lost to history until 1947 when the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered? Was their demise and extinction happenstance or was it the judgment of YHVH? Who are their spiritual descendants today? No one knows who they were then (without resorting to much speculations and guesswork), much less who their physical or spiritual descendants are today. If they were the true remnant guarding the Truth of the Bible, then 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 20th century? Why did YHVH leave his saints for so long in the spiritual dark without the true biblical calendar? This begs many questions about the inability of YHVH to preserve his truth for his saints. In the Bible, he commands us to keep his feasts, and yet for thousands of years, supposedly he leaves his people in the dark about when to keep them? Something is wrong with the picture, and the problem is not with YHVH Elohim or the Bible. It is with men and their false teachings! Selah.