Qumran Calendars: A Survey of Scholarship 1980—2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present article surveys the scholarship on the calendars represented in the Qumran texts and the Pseudepigrapha. The survey commences with the influential articles by VanderKam in the late 1970s, while relating also to Jaubert's earlier hypothesis. After a presentation and classification of the relevant texts, we proceed to elucidate the prominent calendrical and historical themes: the calendar in Jubilees and the Temple Scroll; the early history of the 364-day year in Judah; the non-Jewish origins of the 364-day calendar tradition; intercalation and the beginning of the day; and the various accounts of lunar phases in writings from Qumran. Broadly speaking, present-day research tends to emphasize the schematic aspect of the 364-day calendar tradition, renouncing the older view of this system as a `solar' calendar. In addition, Jaubert's hypothesis on the antiquity of the 364-day calendar, although still upheld in significant parts of current scholarship, is seriously challenged when viewed in a broader historical context. Finally, the Jewish astronomical and calendrical lore is increasingly explained on the background of astral sciences in the Hellenistic world—from Mesopotamia to Egypt.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.047 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".