Posted by Gary #2 on March 14, 1999 at 11:46:35 {MW9hQZt3yw8IU}:
In Reply to: 511 BC, DATUM LINE, & METON posted by COJ on March 14, 1999 at 03:51:17:
Hello Carl,
I hope you don't mind if my comments are brief. I posted a note already regarding the dating of Simanu which I think is self explanatory.
You bring out some interesting comments, but they are all "straw arguments" so I can't address them directly:
Here's a quick run-through:
>>The right day must have been April
30, as the new moon, and therefore the 1st
of Nisan, appeared in the evening of
April 22, at the earliest.
I AGREE. For both 511 and 568BCE.
>>After sunset on April 30, 511 BC, the moon
was about 6 deg. (c. 3 cubits) in front of
Beta Virginis, to be compared with the
"1 cubit" mentioned in the text.
Please note you did not make the HONOLULU
adjustment, so I'm just ignoring everything from
here on as pertinent to MY argument.
>>THE �"9TH OF NISAN" ERROR:
That Nisan 9 is a copying error for Nisan
8 is confirmed by the text itself....
This argument is totally
wrong and is
being ignored since the text says nothing
about "Beta-Virginis" but "the rear foot of
the Lion" which is Sigma-Leonis. SACHS/HUNGER
made an error in claiming the "rear foot of
the Lion" was Beta-Virginis here.
Line 18 of
the text proves that Beta-Virginis, instead,
is the "bright star at the end of the Lion's
foot." So your arguments from here on in are
meaningless until we resolve exactly what
the "rear foot of the Lion is",
Beta-Virginis
or Sigma-Leonis.
>>THE JUNE 24, 511 BC DATE IS IMPOSSIBLE:
Your alternative date for Simanu (Sivan) 5 of
line 14--June 24th, 511 BC--is as impossible as
was your April 29, 511 BC date for line 3.
Again, Carl, if April 22 was the 1st of the first month Nisan in 511 and I agree the 9th was April 30th, then obviously the first of the second month Yyar would fall around May 22 and the 1st of the third month, Simanu around June 20-22. So June 24th is the appropriate date.
This can all be resolved by your giving us the date for the 5th of Simanu in 568BCE. Whatever date that is, it applies to 511BCE. So I'm just ignoring your error here if you don't mind.
>>THE DATE LINE PROBLEM:>>
The date line problem is no longer a problem. So don't worry about it. All my dates for 568BCE and 511BCE are all the same now since I'm using universal time.
>>THE METON CYCLE:
The Meton
cycle discussion is interesting, but it is irrelevant to this discussion AFTER you had determined that Nisan 1, 511BCE fell on April 22 and the 9th of Nisan fell on April 30th. Once you made that decision, then you set the calendar of
months for that year. So you're stuck with that from this point.
The Meton cycle should have come up BEFORE you accepted the placement of Nisan 1 on April 22, 511BCE. That's because after you began the year on April 22nd, all the months after that follow every 29-30 days for the full year. That is, you can't start the year of with month one, Nisan, on April 22, then when you get to Simanu, month 3, decide whether or not the Metonic cycle applies to decide how you're going to date month 3, on June 20th or May 22nd. If month 1 fell on April 22, then month 2 falls on May 22 and month 3 on June 20-22, etc.
So the discussion of the Metonic cycle should have come up BEFORE you made your first comparison of the year. But since you already made your choice to date the 1st of Nisan on May 22, you have no choice but to date the 1st of Sminau, 60 days later on June 20th and the 5th of June 24th as I have outlined.
So I don't object to any of your arguments about the Metonic cycle other than you should have thought about that for determining the beginning of the year and not trying to introduce it at the third month, obviously incorrectly.
So thanks for the information about the Metonic cycle, but it doesn't affect my dating in the least.
MY OBSERVATIONS:
Below are the astrographs for my observations and dates based upon universal time.
It compares similar dates in 568BCE with
511BCE
with the corrected assignment of the "rear foot of the Lion" to Sigma-Leonis (which you can debate if
you like). All observations are from the Honolulu longitude which does make a difference in the observation. You can
check out these observations if you wish.
Thanks for giving me a further explanation of where you're coming from with these lines, and thanks for you post.
Gary