Posted by Gary #1 on March 22, 1999 at 14:30:16 {MWI..8PVPLcMY}:
In Reply to: ANSTEY'S CHRONOLOGY DEAD posted by COJ on March 22, 1999 at 03:11:25:
Hi CARL!
I am absolutely delighted to hear from you! How are you doing? Sorry you had computer problems. It's time for me to get a new model or an upgrade this year as well. Hope everything works out.
For the sake of readers, I hope you don't mind if I comment briefly on each of your comments:
>>ANSTEY�S CHRONOLOGY DEAD AND BURIED
Anstey's chronology is not dead and buried
because it's a version of the Biblical
interpretation of the "70 weeks"
prophecy as
fulfilled by Cyrus. And guess what some expert
says about that prophecy? According to an
imminent expert by the name of Carl Olof
Jonsson (any relation?), he says on page 192
of his book, GTR3, "....different
views are
held regarding when and by whome the "word"
was sent forth. If we "just stick to the
Bible," it seems to point to the Persian king
Cyrus..."
So some do intend to "just stick to the Bible"
in which case we are
forced, as Anstey to
date the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE. So it may
remain controversial, unproven, or whatever,
but it certainly is not dead since it is
Biblical.
Of note, the rebuilding began in the 7th month,
the exact
time of the year when the "Festival
of Booths" was celebrated and that's when the
Messiah was supposed to first appear for his
3-1/2 year ministry. So I agree with COJ that
this would be the correct fulfillment of that
prophecy. Which works out great except for
the revised chronology.
>>THE CALENDAR IN THE NEO-BABYLONIAN ERA
>>You do not seem to have realized the problems
created by the Neo-Babylonian calendar for your
revised
chronology. Let me first summarize some
points that I believe we can agree upon:
Okay.
>>The Babylonian calendar was a lunar calendar,
and we agree that in the Neo-Babylonian era,
the 1st day of each month was
determined by
direct observation of the new moon.
I don't agree. Specifically, the Babylonians
had a lunisolar calendar. They thus determined
their NEW YEAR, not with whenever they designated
Nisan 1, but when the spring
equinox occurred.
This is different than the Jews would were on
a more lunar-based calendar when their official
year began with their designation of the first
month; however, they too adjusted their calendar
rather
sporadically to keep the general months
in line with the tropical year. So technically,
the Babylonian calendar was determined by the
tropical year and they adjusted the lunar
months according to various parameters.
Their
calendar, was less of a "lunar" calendar than
even the Jews. You can label it whatever you
want, but "lunar" calendar is somehow inaccurate.
>>The days
began in the evening after sunset, and the first
day of each
month, therefore, began in the
evening when the new crescent for the first time
became visible shortly after sunset.
This is probably not true, in fact it isn't.
The Babylonians changed their DATE at Midnight
just like we
do today and as the Egyptians did,
for obvious reasons....it made each day exactly
the same length and they didn't have to worry
about seasons. The Jews, likewise, began their
new DATE at Midnight and not at sunset as
some
think. Specifically, the Jews regular weekdays
did end at NIGHTFALL, but their SABBATH days
were a little longer than the usual weekday and
that's because it included the evening meal of
the previous day. Thus
preparation was shorter
than the usual weekday and Sabbath was an evening
longer. But even though their "ceremonial"
days began at nightfall or at sunset, the
actual calendar DATE was not changed until
Midnight. Which
makes perfect sense. This
allowed the DATES, no matter during what season,
to all be of the same length. So they were
doing the same identical thing as we do, simply
change the date at Midnight.
I can't tell if you're
actually contradicting
this point here or not...
>>This also
fixed the length of the previous month, whether
it had 29 or 30 days. If the new crescent appeared
after sunset on day 30, this determined that the
previous
month had 29 days, and that the "30th"
day actually was the 1st of the new month. This
way of fixing the length of the months is clearly
reflected in VAT 4956.
This may be generally true, COJ. But as you have
said, many
times the determination of the first
of the month varied from town to town and
village to village. So there was more than one
"system" in play. Furthermore, they Babylonians
were not stupid. They knew how many days
they
had to deal with and they could count. Generally,
if one month had 30 days, the next month likely
would have 29. I believe that some consistently
in the pattern of which months had 30 or 29 days
prevailed sometimes
over other criteria,
especially since sometimes it was cloudy and
you couldn't really observe the new crescent
when it was expected. So what did they do?
They just waited for the next day, at which
time they could
determine by the distance
between the Moon and the setting Sun how far
they were into day #2 or day #1. So there
were many things they could do to determine
the first of the month besides simply observing
the new moon
crescent. So we have to be students
of the Babylonians and not make assumptions.
>>If the new moon could
not be observed due to bad weather, the 1st of
the new month could still be determined on the
basis of the
fact the the previous month could
not have more than 30 days.
Yes, and as I stated before, on the second day
you could tell exactly where the Moon was the
previous night, whether you saw it or not.
And of note, even the
Jews manipulated the days
of the month to make certain events fall on
certain dates. So it was by no means cut and
dried.
>Similarly, the insertion of the intercalary months
�a 2nd Ululu or a 2nd Addaru�was determined
by
direct observation.
Not necessarily.
>>During the Neo-Babylonian
era, therefore, the insertion of intercalary months
and the lengths of the months did not follow any
regular pattern. You seem to accept these facts.
I
have generally come to accept this based upon
the records that survive. But we must be
sensitive to any implied patterns based upon
the actual observations.
>>These matters are clearly brought out by the
tens of thousands
of dated contract tablets from
the Neo-Babylonian era. They show, for example,
in which years the Babylonians inserted the 2nd
Ululus or 2nd Addarus. An almost complete table
of these intercalary months was published
already
back in 1956 by Parker and Dubberstein (p. 6).
Only a couple of improvements have been added
since. And here is one of your problems:
Very interesting... Of course, we will have to
see specifically if year 37 is
affected.
Obviously, though in 568BCE there was an
intercalary month inserted since Nisan 1 is
dated on April 22, which means Adaru II started
on March 23, Julian. The equinox during this
time would thus have been dated
around the 27th
of March, thus this 13th month was introduced
about four days before the equinox.
Since in 511BCE the months fell on the same
solar dates as in 568BCE, there is no reason to
think that the Bablyonians would
not have
introduced an intercalary month on the 23rd
since these were similar circumstances in 568BCE,
especially if they didn't have a specific pattern
to contradict this.
So let's look closely at the intercalations
to
see if there is any conflict with the records
and that of 511BCE.
Continued on part 2.
Gary