Posted by Gary on March 15, 1999 at 12:55:51 {MW9hQZt3yw8IU}:
In Reply to: *OK, CARL, YOU WIN....VAT4956 posted by COJ on March 15, 1999 at 02:00:00:
Dear Carl,
Thanks for your note.
But I see you avoided answering my direct question.
What I think is happening is that we are getting off on tangents when we really should set up some foundation.
All I can do is give you my perspective and then you can criticize that. But right now you are criticizing things that we both agree on.
So could you please do me this one favor.
We are going to look at Line 3 and Line 14 for 568BCE and 511BCE.
So please let me know what dates you are assigning in 568BCE to Line 3, Nisan 9, 568; and to Line 14, Sivan 5, 568BCE. If I know what dates you are using in 568BCE and we are in agreement then we can proceed from there. If we are not in agreement, then we can note the discrepancy and still proceed. But unless those dates are understood by both of us, then we're just talking in circles. Particularly, since we might be discussing moving the location of Babylon to Honolulu and thus the timing changes, etc. which could be complex. But it will only be confusing if we don't begin at the same starting point.
Basically, I know you have given April 30th as the 9th of Nisan, which I agree. I'm assuming that for 568BCE you are assigning June 20th to Sivan 1, 568BCE and June 24th to Sivan 5th. Is that correct.
But you're saying that Dobberson is dating 511BCE later on June 21st. I can understand why they would do that. But I'd just caution you, that if you have assigned April 30th to the 9th of Nisan for 511BCE, then you have no choice for the dating of the 1st of Sivan on June 20th. (Gave up the May 22nd dating, did we? :> Progess is being made...).
Basically, you may have a valid
argument about the
normal timing of the month. That is, basically, it has been thought that the "new moon" was not seen until it was at least 18 hours old, so new moons less than 18 hours old were considered as belonging to the
previous month. That's the concept they had.
But my research, and observations, tends to tell me that the Babylonians might have been a bit more specific about it, and the true cut-off was around 10-12 hours. You see, sometimes it was cloudy and thus they could not see the new Moon. So all they did was wait until the next day. But near sunset, the Moon would be a specific distance from the Sun. Thus the measured distance from the sun, on the second day, could be used to determine officially what day of the month it was.
And you yourself has noted, that this was a town-by-town determination. So it could be that some, on the second day, would declare the first of that day the second day of the month if the Moon was more than 36 hours old, but the 1st day of the month if it was less than 36 hours old. Whereas others, might not.
So whether in 511BCE a certain observer decided to date the 1st on June 20th or June 21st, is a matter of observation or record. Thus the true dating would be defaulted by the observation.
That is, if Line 14 is presumed to be an encryption for 511BCE, since it doesn't fit 568BCE, and it describes the Moon as 1 cubit in front of
Beta-Virginis, on the 5th, then since it was in that positiomn on June 24th, we must assume that they declared the first of month on June 20th. Which is not a crime. It's not impossible.
It may stretch Dobberson's general rules a
bit, but those in the know understand this is not a turning point. In fact, it is a "learning point."
That is, we learn that the 1st was declared with new moons that may have been as young as 10-12 hours old.
And don't forget, like the Jews, there may have been other reasons for manipulating the first of the month on certain occasions. This was very subjective. So Dobberson wouldn't preempt an "exception" when we have the confirmed observation.
So if I can get you to give me your date for 568BCE for Sivan 5, then we can discuss any differences for 511BCE, and weight the arguments if you think it has been dated incorrectly.
Of course, my criteria for dating the 5th on June 24th is because it fits the description of the Moon's location on that date. Thus my criteria is text-confirmed, and that preempts Duberson's theories about what is commonly done in Babylon, though I'm sure he qualifies his observations and doesn't apply it to every single year. Of course, the VAT4956 encryption would indicate he was wrong about the dating of this month in 511BCE, which shows you how reliable he is...
Anway, please get back to me. I think if we get a few things understood, then I can finally get a clear opinion as to my actual position on these issues:
SUMMARY:
METON:
We totally agree. It wasn't standard during these years, the setting up the years were haphazard. So we don't have to
bring it up again.
1ST OF SIVAN, 511BCE:
I guess we're seriously considering dates in June now, June 20th or 21st. It doesn't bother me that Dobberson dates it a day after I do. I have no choice because of the text match-up for
the date given. Thus Dobberson would be out-of-sync and not my dating, and thus they may need to revise their general rule on this. I consider it optional.
Thanks for the note. I'm going to write you some information in general about Skymap, so we can get in sync. Since it doesn't seem you're going to drop astronomy topics, I'll just have to "get you up to speed" on a few things I've had to learn the hard way. Actually, my pleasure!
Cheers,
Gary