# *Q for Bibleman

[ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by Dismiss [Bibleman] on November 28, 1999 at 08:40:38 {hcnmikA.FkMSSTtTA17sslyACFuF8c}:

In Reply to: Q for Bibleman posted by IBelieve on November 27, 1999 at 17:16:29:

Here is the original "DISMISS" text which needs to be updated, but it has the full text of the SK400 on it.

You have your work cut out for you:

[Deja News][Home]
Quick Power Search Interest Browse Post
Search Search Filter Finder Groups Message
--------------------------------------------------------------
[Image]

Article 12 of 32 Text Only Help[?]
[Previous Article]
Previous
Article
[Next Article]
Next
Article
[Current Results]
Current
Results
[View Thread]
View
Thread
[Post Message]
Post
Message

Subject: Dismissing "Historically Incorrect" ancient Eclipses
From: kayjail@aol.com
Date: 1996/11/11
Message-Id: <19961111044800.XAA22030@ladder01.news.aol.com>
Newsgroups: alt.archaeology
[More Headers]

ASTROCHRONOLOGY:
THE SCIENCE OF ECLIPSE DATING AND
ESTABLISHING "HISTORICAL CORRECTNESS"

The recent advent of electronic eclipse canons has led to
some interesting discoveries with regard to many of the
eclipses currently used to help establish important
ancient Biblical historical dates. The book "Aid to
Bible Understanding" (WBTS, 1971, p. 330) under the
subheading "ASTRONOMICAL CALCULATIONS" summarizes the
significance of accurately identified eclipses for the
purpose of what is commonly referred to as "absolute
dating." It says:

"The claim is made that "astronomical confirmations
can convert a relative chronology [one that merely
establishes the sequence of events] into an
absolute chronology, specifically, a system of
dates related to our calendar." (*The Old Testament
World* by Martin Noth, p. 272). While the
celestial bodies are the means provided by man's
Creator for human astronomical data with human
measurement of time, nevertheless the correlation
of astronomical data with human events in the past
is subject to various factors and human
interpretations allowing for error."

But just how much ERROR are we talking about? Well, the
following is a list of eleven eclipses used to date the
Assyrian, Neo-Babylonian and Greco-Persian periods and
one eclipse commonly used to date Herod's death.

How many of them do you think are HISTORICALLY CORRECT?

That is, how many can be dismissed just based upon
historical mismatch or contradiction? The following
review demonstrates that nine out of eleven are
"historically incorrect." That is, incorrect based upon
the specific historical information provided in the
actual historical document or record that recorded the
eclipse event.

Here are the eclipses. The first nine are taken
directly from the list provided in "The Mysterious
Numbers of the Hebrew Kings" by E.R. Thiele under
Appendix II: ECLIPSES ESTABLISHING THE CHRONOLOGY OF THE
ANCIENT NEAR EAST. To this are added two additional
well-known historical eclipses.

DATE OF ECLIPSE(BCE) YEAR OF KING

1. 15 June 763 10th year of Ashur-dan III
2. 19 March 721 1st year of Mardokempados
3. 8 March 720 2nd year of Mardokempados
4. 1 Sept 720 2nd year of Mardokempados
5. 22 April 621 5th year of Nabopolassar
6. 4 July 568 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar
7. 16 July 523 7th year of Cambyses
8. 19 Nov. 502 20th year of Darius
9. 25 April 491 31st year of Darius

ADDITIONAL ECLIPSES

10. 28 May 585 BCE Lydian-Median Truce (Herodotus)
11. 13 March 4 BCE Date of Herod's death

DISMISSING PTOLEMY'S ECLIPSES:
The "Aid Book" again notes under the sub-heading
"Ptolemy's Canon" on page 327:

"Due to the lack of information from Babylonian
sources, modern historians base their chronology
for the Neo-Babylonian Empire largely upon what is
known as the canon of Ptolemy. Claudius Ptolemy
lived in Egypt during the second century C.E. or
over 600 years after the close of the Neo-
Babylonian period... Ptolemy was not a historian
and is known primarily for his works on astronomy
and geography. As E.R. Thiele states: "Ptolemy's
canon was prepared primarily for astronomical, not
historical, purposes. It did not pretend to give a
complete list of all the rulers of either Babylon
or Persia, nor the exact month or day of the
beginning of their reigns, but it was a device
which made possible the correct allocation into a
broad chronological scheme of certain astronomical
data which were then available." --*The Mysterious
Numbers of the Hebrew Kings*, 1951, p. 293, ftn."

In other words, what Ptolemy did was to superimpose the
best history he had available six centuries later over
his canon of eclipses thus using kings to date his
eclipses instead of eclipses to date his kings.

Out of the first nine eclipses listed only #1, #6 and #7
can be excluded as not belonging exclusively to Ptolemy
and thus we can dismiss the other six eclipses right of
the bat. Why?

Because these are not "observed eclipses" from the Neo-
Babylonian or Assyrian periods, they are just predicted
eclipses matched with the contemporary secular dating
available, revised or otherwise.

To emphasize how ridiculous it is to consider Ptolemy for
"absolute dating" purposes, you need only check on the
one solar eclipse he reports on: April 22, 621 B.C. in
the 5th year of Nabopolassar. If you run this eclipse
through your electronic eclipse canon you'll discover
that it is a total solar eclipse that began near Hong
Kong and crossed over the Pacific ending around Chicago
(USA). That's right. It didn't even occur in Babylonia!
So why is it even in this list?

A review of historical astronomy will reveal further that
even though the time of solar eclipses could be
predicted, where they would occur (on the earth) could
not, as this obviously shows. So what does the eclipse
of 621 B.C. occurring over Hawaii have to do with
Nabopolasser? Absolutely nothing; which is the whole
point. Ptolemy can thus be dismissed as generally
"historically incorrect" for any serious absolute dating,
along with six of the above eclipses (#'s 2, 3, 4, 5, 8,
9).

Six down: Five to go.

ECLIPSE #10:
DISMISSING THE ECLIPSE OF MAY 28, 585 B.C.
This is an easy one. This is the common dating for the
eclipse which is mentioned in Herodotus which caused a
peace negotiation between the Lydians and the Medes.
However, it is HISTORICALLY INCORRECT in 585 B.C. because
Herodotus reports that this peace agreement was
negotiated by none other than Nabonidus, the last Neo-
Babylonian king to rule before Cyrus conquered Babylon
(Herodotus: "Persian Wars," Book I, 74). Of course, 585
B.C. is just two years after the destruction of Jerusalem
currently datd in 587 B.C., which would be in the middle
of the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar II. A clear
historical mismatch. So this eclipse can be dismissed as
HISTORICALLY INCORRECT.

Of note, however, is that the Bible suggests a much
longer period for the Neo-Babylonian period following the
destruction of Jerusalem, that is 70-74 years including
a 70-year exile of the Jews. Since Nabonidus is reported
to have only ruled for 17 years, the historical
information in association with this eclipse would tend
to agree with the Bible that this period was longer and
that some years have been cut from the Neo-Babylonian
period. That's because the rulership of Cyrus began with
the overthrow of Astyages some twenty years before he
became king in Babylon (current dating: 559-539 BCE),
which exceeds Nabonidus' 17 years. However, reliable
Biblical chronology inserts a 6-year reign of "Darius,
the Mede" immediately after the overthrow of Babylon, but
before the beginning Cyrus' reign in Babylon. This would
thus push the 17-year rule of Nabonidus back far enough
to have negotiated this truce between the Medes and the
Lydians before Cyrus conquered the Medes (Astyages) since
it allows for a three year margin prior to this event.
(17+6=23; 23-20=3). Not to say that all of this history
isn't quite controversial anyway.

Furthermore, archaeological records indicate that
Nabonidus did not appoint his son Belshazzar to the
throne until his third year, and most chronologists
assign these last 17 years of the Neo-Babylonian empire
interchangeably to Belshazzar or Nabonidus. Thus if the
17 years specifically were the actual years Belshazzar
reigned, then we can add at least two additional years to
the sole rulership of Nabonidus which would now give us
a potential 5-year window during which he could have
negotiated this truce before Cyrus overthrew Astyages,
and 20 years before he became king of Babylon after
conquering it six years earlier. But regardless of these
assumptions, I'm afraid that this eclipse also bites the
dust as far as HISTORICAL CORRECTNESS. OUT!

Seven down: Four to go.

----------------------------------

CONTINUED - PART 2

ECLIPSE #10:
DISMISSING THE ECLIPSE OF MARCH 13, 4 B.C.
This eclipse is widely used to establish Herod's death in
4 B.C. which conflicts with the Bible's dating for the
birth of Jesus in 2 B.C. But this eclipse is easily
dismissed as HISTORICALLY INCORRECT since Josephus
indicates that a FAST occurred during the month of this
eclipse. (*Antiquities of the Jews* Book 17, 164). The
Jews only had four annual fasts. They were in the
fourth, fifth, seventh and tenth months. March 13, 4
B.C. would have fallen in the 12th month, thus dating
this event in that month makes it HISTORICALLY INCORRECT.
(Well, that was quick!)

Needless to say, there was an eclipse (Tebet 14) and a
Fast (Tebet 10) in 1 B.C. which, if applied to this
event, could date Herod's death in 1 A.D. The Bible
indicates that Jesus was about 30 in 29 C.E. and thus
would have been born in 2 B.C.E. Thus Jesus would have
been over one year old at the time of the eclipse and
fast in Tebet, 1 B.C. This is consistent with the
context of the events immediately surrounding Herod's
death, that is, that he first attempted to kill babies in
Bethlehem 2 years or younger before dying a quick death.

But whether or not anyone sees clear to confirm this
historical eclipse event as effective in dating Herod's
death in 1 A.D., which is the date most consistent with
Biblical chronology, this eclipse event remains
HISTORICALLY INCORRECT in 4 B.C.

Eight down: Three to go.

ECLIPSE #7:
DISMISSING THE ECLIPSE OF JULY 16, 523 B.C.
This is a VERY CRITICAL ECLIPSE since it is one of the
few cuneiform eclipse documents that have come down to us
from the Neo-Babylonian period that contains enough
information to exclude all but one absolute date in a
200-year period from 500 to 700 BCE. (To be discussed in
another scientific article).

In "A History of Astronomy" by A. Pannekoek (1961), he
says of this cuneiform text: "The OLDEST document of such
scientific astronomy is the later copy of a text dated
year 7 of Cambyses (523 B.C.)." This is also an
important eclipse record because it is matches with the
eclipse for this same date and year mentioned in
Ptolemy's canon and is generally believed to quite
conclusively matched in 523 B.C.

HOWEVER...when this eclipse was researched by the
Biblical Astrochronology Research Service, it was
discovered that though reviewed by Neugebauer (historical
eclipse expert) and mentioned as a positive reference for
the dating of Cambyses 7th year in 523 BCE by Jehovah's
witnesses in their comprehensive reference volumes
("Insight Volumes, Vol. 1, under "Chronology"),
apparently neither of these chronologists saw the entire
document. Certainly Professor Neugebauer did not because
he only reviewed the first eclipse, when in fact there
are two recorded in this document. As an astronomer, he
certainly would have attempted to match the "pair" of
eclipses to 523 B.C. and discovered they are inconsistent
with the eclipses of 523 B.C. but easily matched to
almost identical eclipses of 541 B.C.

The Witnesses reported on the second eclipse in their
research ("Insight Book", WBTS) but also likely didn't
see the entire document either; otherwise, they could
have dismissed this sighting, not on astronomical
criteria, but on historical inconsistency, as you will
see.

The following demonstrates just how comprehensive the
astronomical information was provided in this very
important ancient document. The following is the entire
document as reported by Pannekoek:

"Year 7, V 22 Jupiter in W. of Virgin hel. setting;
VI 22 in E. of Virgin hel. rising; X 27 in W. of
Balance, station; Year 8, II 25 in the midst of
Virgin station; VI 4 in E. of Balance hel. setting.
Year 7, III 10 Venus in head of Lion evening-
setting; III 27 in Cancer morning-rising; XII 7 in
the midst of Fishes morning-setting; Year 8, I 13
in the Chariot [the Bull's horns] evening-rising.
Year 7, VI 3 Saturn in midst of Virgin hel.
setting; VII 13 in E. of Virgin hel. rising; Year
8, V 29 setting. Year 7, II 28 Mars in W. of Twins
hel. setting; VI 13 in feet of Lion hel. rising;
Year 8, V 12 station; Year 9, II 9 in e. of Lion
hel. setting... Year 7, VI 24 Venus greatest
elongation; VII 23 at dawn Jupiter 3 *ammat* E. of
Moon; VII 29 at dawn Venus 2 *ub* N. of Jupiter;
VII 12 Saturn I *ammat* W. of Jupiter... Year 7, IV
14, 14 1-2/3 *beru* after beginning of night lunar
eclipse, extended over N. half; X 14 2-1/2 *beru*
toward morning Moon eclipsed, entirely visible,
extended over N. and S. part..."

If you will note, the lunar eclipses just compose the
last four lines. But we are not comparing the
astronomical accuracy of this information (at this time),
just the "historical" information. Thus, you will note
quite plainly that there are calculations in both the 8th
and 9th years of this unnamed Neo-Babylonian (Persian?)
king's reign. Cambyses only reigned for 7 years. Thus
these calculations don't belong to his reign but to
another king's. Therefore, we must dismiss this eclipse
record as HISTORICALLY INCORRECT. Of course, as
mentioned, it is "astronomically incorrect" as well. Be
that as it may.....

Nine down: Two to go.

THE LAST TWO ECLIPSES:

Eclipse #1: The solar eclipse of 15 JUNE 763 B.C.E.
mentioned in the Assyrian eponym list and used to date
the entire Assyrian period remains for the moment but
does not specifically describe the eclipse observed, thus
alternative dating for this eclipse has a few potential
variables. But it doesn't make the historically
incorrect list, so it remains a viable dating event for
the moment.

Eclipse #6: 4 JULY 568 B.C.E.
This eclipse is apparently based upon an astronomical
text in the British Museum. The actual translation was
not available to this researcher at the time of this
writing for a comprehensive historical or astronomical
comparison, but unlike Eclipse #1, apparently this is a
single LUNAR eclipse, which means it can fit practically
anywhere historically.

The closest this researcher came to confirming or
dismissing the accuracy of this eclipse was an
untranslated book of cuneiform texts from the British
Museum which in it's Table of Contents listed four
"astronomical texts" reporting lunar eclipses; three in
the month of "Sivan" and one in the month of "Iyyar."

One of the eclipses in Sivan repeats the cuneiform
equivalent of the number "37" several times, but this is
an amateur reading and cannot be confirmed to relate to
"Year 37". If this is the same British Museum document
used to date the above eclipse, however, then this
eclipse as well can be dismissed for 568 B.C. since July
4th is too late in the year to fall in Sivan or Iyyar
(the month preceding Sivan), as July 4th falls only on
the 14th of the following month, Tammuz. (Note: Lunar
eclipses only occur on the 14th of the month: the 14th of
Tammuz can fall generally anywhere from June 23 to July
23; the 14th of Sivan falls from May 23 to June 23, etc.
Compare eclipse #7 above of July 16, 523 on Tammuz 14th).

Thus this eclipse as well is potentially dismissible
pending further research. Furthermore, single lunar
eclipses are quite frequent in any given month and though
this document likely certainly belongs to the reign of
Nebuchadnezzar II, it can fit practically anywhere. For
instance, for the 68-year period from 568 B.C. to 500
B.C. there were thirty eclipses occurring in either June
or July, and it was common knowledge even in ancient
times that similar eclipses repeat themselves about every
18 years.

Thus the "historical" dating of this particular eclipse
document to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar likely had
more to do with the historical reference in the eclipse
to "Year 37" than to any specific astronomical
correlation to 563 BCE. That's because no other Neo-
Babylonian king reigned that long, and thus it cannot be
arbitrarily assigned to another Neo-Babylonian or Persian
king. (Note: It was not the custom to actually name the
kings in ancient astronomical texts from Babylon, only to
give the year of the king's reign.)

THE FINAL SCORE:
So the final score for HISTORICAL CORRECTNESS for eleven
eclipses listed as supporting current Biblical chronology
is that nine were found to be absolutely HISTORICALLY
INCORRECT! Only two remain to be investigated further.
Thus the current score:

NINE DOWN: TWO TO GO.......and counting!

That is, we can effectively rule out nine of the above
eleven eclipses as HISTORICALLY INCORRECT for purposes of
any absolute dating of the events or periods they are
currently assigned to. This is more of a reflection on
developing "field" of astrochronology and relative
inexperience of amateur astrochronologists than the
applied science itself, which, when competently applied,
has proven very effective in establishing a few
significant "absolute dates."

Prepared by:

Biblical Astrochronology Research Service
(BARS)

-----------------------------------------------------------
[Image]
-----------------------------------------------------------
Previous | Next | Results | View Thread | Author Profile | Post Message | Post Reply | Send Email
-----------------------------------------------------------
Copyright © 1995-97 Deja News, Inc. All rights reserved.

Follow Ups:

- **Q for Bibleman CORRECTIONS 12:11:53 11/28/99 (0)

Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:

Subject: **Q for Bibleman

Comments:

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ HOURGLASS2 OUTPOST ] [ FAQ ]