Posted by COJ not lying [GLamotta] on April 03, 1999 at 18:31:23 {Ed9c7782HMbfhNhPm81IboLUiPtahc}:
In Reply to: *IS WTS LYING ABOUT VAT4956? posted by Satire warning! on April 03, 1999 at 18:12:46:
I SHOULD EXPLAIN..
I should explain the reference about "yet another lie" by COJ. In fact, those words are too harsh.
The background on that is this:
There was a post about all the "Dismissible Eclipses" from the Neo-Babylonian
Period posted years ago on USENET. It clearly pointed out why the Society's references to the SK400 which mentions two eclipses dated to 523BCE, the "7th of Kambyses" was a totally fake document, since the text had a reference to "Year 9"
of Kambyses. This proved the argument that the document was fake.
But then an article appeared by Carl Olof Jonsson rebutting this and the main rebuttal was that, in fact, there was no "Year 9" reference in the text.
So the original author was appauled and presumed that this Carl Olof Jonsson was just a big liar and would do anything to distract from the truth and so a very bad original impression of him was formed.
But then later, it was found out that he was just mistaken and he apologized for the error. And we all make errors. So it really wasn't a lie, it was just a mistake even though it was a very effective argument.
Then there was the Nabon 18 issue wherein it was claimed that an eclipse dated in 554BCE for the 2nd year of Nabonidus actually "set while eclipsed" and thus proved the dating. Only problem is, when you use the current delta-T and the canon by Liu-Fiala it establishes that the eclipse was completely over 4 minutes before moonset. So it was presumed COJ was again, misrepresenting the facts.
But it was shown that, in fact, based upon the variations in astro programs that it was possible that the last 4 minutes of this eclipse was not seen before the moon actually set and therefore, COJ did not misrepresent the "moon set while eclipsed" and thus another presumption of a false misrepresentation by him was corrected.
So now, it seems he is claiming along with A.J. Sachs that the VAT4956 is the second oldest datable document that is available for dating the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian Period and is clearly dating it as extant in 568BCE.
But of course, as the WTS is pointing out, this document is not an extant document from 568BCE but is from the Seleucid Period. This, of course, is true since the conspiracy to restructure the chronology wasn't even fixed until after the reign of Artaxerxes III. Yet COJ in his book is still claiming this document is old and not from the Seleucid Period.
So it looks like he is lying "again", but really, it hasn't been proven he had lied before, and even now it might be that he was just quoting from a bad source and it wouldn't be fair to say he was actually "lying" or misrepresenting the facts.
In fact, I'm sure he himself will admit that perhaps in the rush of getting out his book he simply failed to make a qualification on this mistake by A.J. Sachs. As well, Sachs may have not actualy wished to imply that this document itself was old, but just that it referred to some old dating, though that is not clear from the chart.
So, in all fairness to Carl, it would not be fair to accuse him of deliberately lying about the age of the VAT4956 in his book, when, in fact, it could have been a simple oversight.
So I'm sure Carl will help us out by clarifying that he agrees this document is not old, but is a "copy" from the Seleucid Period and not from 568/67BCE as seems to be implied by his reference in his book.
So one must not say, "caught in another lie" or "yet another misreprentation" but merely "another misunderstanding" or "another oversight."
Everyone should be given the benefit of the doubt. Everyone makes mistakes.
Poster "anonymous" above