Posted by CORRECTIONS [Bibleman] on November 28, 1999 at 12:11:53 {hcnmikA.FkMRXA6xmpscslyACFuF8c}:
In Reply to: *Q for Bibleman posted by Dismiss on November 28, 1999 at 08:40:38:
This article was written a long time ago and there are some critical corrections that have to be made based upon recent research. Below the corrections to this article are in red and this should update this article, though it is good to see what used to be believed and what further research has turned up.
ASTROCHRONOLOGY:
THE SCIENCE OF ECLIPSE DATING AND
ESTABLISHING "HISTORICAL CORRECTNESS"
(EDITED)
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:
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?
(This is an error of the researcher who presumed this is a reference to a SOLAR rather than a lunar eclipse. So the above comment dismissing this based upon its comparison with a solar eclipse is inapplicable and in error. )
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!
(CRITICAL UPDATE: The document called the "Nabon NO. 18" now confirms that Nabonidus began his rule in 480 BCE and thus, did indeed, rule for 19 years instead of 17 which was just an observed presumption when the article was written. So that is an interesting update. We now have direct dating for Nabonidus, specifically, an eclipse occurring in his second year in the fall of 479BCE. So it is no longer a presumption he ruled for 19 years, we have a confirmation by astronomical text.)
THE LAST TWO ECLIPSES:
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.
(MAJOR UPDATE! This is the VAT4956 reference which was not available at the time of this article. The eclipse herein mentioned, though, has been confirmed to have occurred and be a reference for 568BCE as the text indicates. Furthermore, this text is not in the British Museum but in the Berlin Museum. But as a side note, though the eclipse was lost to 568BCE, two other references in the text to 511BCE make this document the most incredibly confirming documentation of not only the conspiracy but dating the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar in 511BCE. That's because at least two critically matched observations belong to 511BCE which have been found in the text. This proves the original dating was 511BCE for Year 37 and thus agrees with the 541BCE dating for "Year 7" found in the "SK400" text, making two texts now confirming the fall of Jerusalem in 529BCE.)
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."
(This presumed text was not the VAT4956 and thus nothing came of any match for this suspected text. So that supposition was a dead end, even though later the actual VAT4956, as noted, did show up and the eclipse was confirmed for 568BCE, only it was the "REVISED DATING" for Year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, whereas additional dating to 511BCE confirmed the original dating of Year 37 in 511BCE. So finally examining this text was a MAJOR CONFIRMATION of the 529BCE dating!!! Thus this eclipse also bites the dust, not because of a mis-match to 568BCE but because the VAT4956 has been proven to be a revised document which confirms the 568BCE dating was fabricated.
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!
(The score is now NINE TO ZERO! There is now more astronomical evidence than ever before directly confirming the fall of Jerusalem in 529BCE. But still the Bible remains the best reference for historical accuracy that we have and it certainly does date the fall of Jerusalem in 529BCE based upon Jesus' baptism in 29CE. So the research on the above eclipses is considered closed and final, all of them being DISMISSED!)
Prepared by:
Biblical Astrochronology Research Service
(BARS)