Are the Elephanine Papyri Using Egyptian or Babylonian Regnal Years?

Statement of belief: “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” (John 17:17 KJV)

Created 5929± 10 10 2025 [2009-01-08]

Major update 5941(?) 08 08 2027 [2010-10-17] – New discoveries, beginning with my discovery (at the end of the Feast of Ingathering) of my 18 CE crucifixion year error in favor of 19 CE, in this article mostly pertaining to the regnal years of AP 5 & AP 6; and with further clarifications re Horn’s and Wood’s “scribal error” claims. That is, over and above my prior version of this article…

Last edited 5923_[(*??*)] 03 14 2027 [2011-07-16]

Last edited 5928_[(*??*)] 09 02 2032 [2015-12-14] – Adding one bookmark and fixing some bad links.

Last edited 5928_[(*??*)] 09 04 2032 [2015-12-16] – Clarifying unclear language..

Are the Elephantine Papyri Using Egyptian or Babylonian Regnal Years?

(Cf. also the Elephantine papyri portion of this Excel spread sheet:)

Papyrus	Original default		Later default under Artaxerxes I		Used only rarely		For your reference only	Comments
	Egyptian Calendar Year	Difference between Egyptian and papyri	Babylonian Calendar Year	Difference between Babylonian and papyri	Scriptural Calendar Year	Difference between Scriptural and papyri	Julian Calendar date of papyri etc.
AP 5. Elul 18 = Pachons 28, year 15 of Xerxes	15 or 16	0 or 1	15	0	14	-1	Between sunset Sept 12 and sunrise Sept 13, 471 BCE	Notice that “year 15” is in terms of Babylonian regnal years, not Egyptian!!! Please, cf. my analysis of the AP 5 vs. the AP 6 dates as found at this link! It follows from said analysis that Ahasuerus/Xerxes began his reign between Nisan 1, 486 BCE and Nisan 1, 485 BCE. However, for an even more exact placement of Ahasuerus’ accession to the throne, please cf. this link! In his note re AP 5, Horn’s (the author of The Chronology of Ezra 7) basis for reckoning the years of Xerxes is becoming clear! It’s Ptolemy’s Canon of the Kings! Horn is here defining Xerxes’ reign in terms of the Egyptian calendar and based upon Ptolemy’s Almagest! Nothing more besides… Ptolemy’s Canon of Kings can be safely disregarded in favor of more primary evidence! Cf. also my Comments re AP 6. Starry Night Backyard ~~Aug 24, 471 BCE sunset 18:19:40; moonset 18:28:40;~~ ~~lag: 9 min 00 sec; illumination 0.05%~~ - Aug 25, 471 BCE sunset 18:18:38; moonset 18:57:39; lag: 39 min 01 sec; illumination 1.09% èElul 1 = Begin at sunset Aug (25 or) 26, 471 BCE è Elul 18 = Begin at sunset Sep ((11 or)) 12, 471 BCE. è Given that Pachons 28 fell on Sept 12/13 (sr-sr): AP 5 was almost certainly written between sunset Sept 12 and sunrise Sept 13!
AP 6. Kislev 18 = Thoth [17], year 21, the beginning of the reign of Artaxerxes 1	2	2	Artaxerxes’ accession year Xerxes’ 21^st Babylonian(!) year of reign [beginning with Nisan 1, 465 BCE]	0	Accession year	0	Between sunset Jan 2 and sunrise Jan 3, 464 BCE	Provided Artaxerxes began his reign between Aviv 1 (Babylonian calendar,) or Tishri 22 (Scriptural calendar,) 465 BCE and Epagomanea 5, 465 BCE. Notice that “year 21” is in terms of Babylonian regnal years, not Egyptian!!! Cf. this link! “As for the exact date of the beginning of Artaxerxes' reign, the cuneiform evidence for the latest reigning date of Xerxes is a tablet which, although not contemporary, mentions an earlier record that necessitates placing this accession late in 465 BC, evidently in December. Certainly, according to one of the papyri, it took place before Jan. 2, 464 BC.” (Horn, Siegfrid, & Wood, Lynn, The Chronology of Ezra 7, p. 23 of 54) Based upon the later papyri (cf. below) it may be concluded that AP 6 was written in the 2^nd Egyptian regnal years of Artaxerxes. It follows that Artaxerxes’ reign began [thus defining his 1^st Egyptian year of reign (non-accession reckoning!)] before Thoth 1, 465 BCE. In the opinion of Siegfried Horn and Lynn Wood, per the above quote, probably between the beginning of December 1 and the sunrise of December 17 (Thoth 1.) However, adding my findings in the book of Nehemia, I find that Artaxerxes I acceded to the throne prior to Tishri 22, 465 BCE. Cf. this link!
AP 10. Kislev 7 - Thoth 4, year [2]9 [or 5 [Egyptian] (or possibly 3 [Scriptural or Babylonian];) gs edit] of Artaxerxes I	5	-	3	-	3	-	Between sunrise Dec 20 and sunrise Dec 21, 462 BCE	1. The only years in the reign of Artaxerxes I that fits “Kislev 7 – Thoth 4” are 462 BCE and 437 BCE. 2. Thoth 4, 462 BCE began at sunrise Dec 20. 3. Kislev 7, 462 BCE began at sunset Dec 19 or 20 depending only on the weather. 4. Given the above data at AP 6, it follows that this is the 5^th Egyptian year and the 3^rd Babylonian and Scriptural year. 5. Given that a “29^th” year placement, i.e. a placement in 437 BCE, really does not fit the pattern and that “9” must be a scribal error, then the correct year is whatever it really is, not necessarily either one of the "4th [33] and 29th Egyptian years…" (as suggested in Horn's AP 10 note and in his footnote #33.) That is, we are not tied down to either Egyptian reckoning, nor to the Horn’s numbers 4 or 29. That much being given we are now free to choose for AP 10 as to whether Egyptian, Babylonian, or Scriptural regnal year reckoning is being used, and also what the real regnal year was. Which was it? Item #4 above provides that either one of the Egyptian year 5, the Babylonian year 3, or the Scriptural year 3 may be considered the correct candidate. Consider this re the numbers ‘5’ and ‘3:’ [Hebr. ‘chamisha’ or ‘chamesh’ = 5] and [Hebr. ‘shelosha’ or ‘shalosh’ = 3] could be misheard as the Hebrew number 9 [Hebr. ‘tisha’ or ‘tesha’] especially when pronounced together with the Hebrew word “year” [Hebr. ‘shanat’ = ‘year.’] That is, if the scribe heard: “shanat tesha” [=year 9] in place of a correct similar sounding…: 1. “shanat chamisha" [=year 5…] where the sound “‑t chamish‑” is being misunderstood as “‑t tesh‑,” or else in place of… 2. “shanat shelosha” [=year 3…] where the sound ” ‑t shelosh‑” is being misunderstood as “‑t tesh‑.” It seems to me that this idem sonare situation is probably the one correct solution to this dilemma; a reasonable explanation for this real scribal error. (Cf. at year 30 of Artaxerxes below; also comment re AP 10 in my file: 1) adamoh.org/TreeOfLife.wan.io/OTCh/Misc work files/Daniel and more/THE CHRONOLOGY OF EZRA 7 - with GS comments.doc, or else 2) treeoflife.uhostfull.com\TreeOfLife.wan.io\OTCh\Centuries1to7BCE\Misc work files\Daniel and more\THE CHRONOLOGY OF EZRA 7 - with GS comments.doc ) Notice: This is one of the three papyri (AP 8, AP 10, & Kraeling 8) with a problem attributed to “a scribal error” per Horn and Wood, all of which problems, however, have now been resolved: This papyrus, AP 10, is the only one which I find is truly carrying a flawed date due to “a scribal error.” However, I believe I may well have detected the reason for said “scribal error” (cf. above!)
AP 8. Kislev 21 Mesore 1, year 6 of Artaxerxes I	6	0	5	-1	5	-1	Between sunrise Nov 12 and sunrise Nov 13, 460 BCE	1. Mesore 1 is Nov 11/12 (sr-sr) in 459 and Nov 12/13 (sr-sr) in 460 BCE. 2. NASA findings for Kislev 21 are: a. In 460 BCE: Nov 11/12 (ss-ss), or, if bad wheather and not already the 30^th, Nov 12/13 (ss-ss), or else, Dec 10/11 or 11/12. b. In 459 BCE: Nov 30/Dec 1 or Dec 1/2, or else Dec 29/30 or 30/31. 3. It follows from #‎1 & #‎2 above that the document was dated between sunrise Nov 12 and sunrise Nov 13, 460 BCE. 4. Nov 12/13, 460 BCE fell in the 5^th Babylonian year and in the 6^th Egyptian year of Artaxerxes I’s reign, or else, provided that Artaxerxes began his reign between Thoth 1 and Nisan 1, in the 5^th Egyptian year (cf. AP 6 & AP 10 above.) 5. Given that the date written upon this papyrus is “year 6” and not “year 5” it is obvious that: a. It follows from #‎4 above and the date of this papyrus, that this regnal year is based upon Egyptian year reckoning and not upon Babylonian. b. If follows from #3 above (Nov 12/13, 460 BCE;) from #‎a above, “Egyptian year reckoning;” from #‎4 above (6^th or 5^th year;) and from the date of this papyrus, “Mesore 1, year 6,” that Artaxerxes I began his reign between Nisan 1 and Thoth 1, 466 BCE. 6. Based upon the above, it is certain that the date upon this papyrus is using Egyptian regnal year reckoning, and given the uncertainties of the dates provided upon AP 9 and AP 10, it may be concluded that: a. AP 8 is the only Elephantine papyrus prior to 420 BCE that is certainly using Egyptian regnal year reckoning. b. This papyrus, AP 8, is the only firm basis upon which the more exact beginning of Artaxerxes I’s reign may be established, that is, as per #‎5.b above. However, for an even more exact beginning of his reign, please cf. this link! Notice: This is one of the three papyri (AP 8, AP 10, & Kraeling 8) with a problem attributed to “a scribal error” per Horn and Wood, all of which problems, however, have now been resolved: Given that Egyptian year 2 of Artaxerxes I began before the end of the Babylonian and Scriptural accession year ended (cf. #‎5.b above; a fact which was apparently overlooked by Horn and Wood) the apparent prior problems previously attributed “to scribal error” (by Horn and Wood) are now resolved in favor of the scribe and there is no need to further consider any alternatives due to presumed errors of the scribe!
AP 9. Year 6 of Artaxerxes I	6	0	5	-1	5	-1	Ditto, more or less, confirming the year of the above!
Cairo Sandstone Stele. Sivan = Mechir, year 7 of Artaxerxes 1	8	1	7	0	6	-1	Between sunrise May 15 and sunrise June 14, 458 BCE	As seen from this table it appears as though beginning with the Cairo Sandstone the regnal year reckoning was changed from Egyptian to Babylonian at or before the erection of this Stele.
Kraeling 1. Phamenoth 25 = Sivan 20, year 14 of Artaxerxes 1	15	1	14	0	13	-1	Between sunset July 6 and sunrise July 7, 451 BCE
Kraeling 2. [Tammuz [(or Av) / GS edit]] 18 = Pharmuthi [2], year 16 of Artaxerxes 1	17	1	16	0	15	-1	Between sunset July 11 (Pharmuti 1) and sunset July 13 (Pharmuti 3,) 449 BCE.
AP 15. [Tishri 25] = Epiphi 6, year [30 [or 16; GS edit]] of [Artaxerx]es I	17	1	16	0	16	0		Cf. AP 15 at Egyptian year 31 below! AP 15 is a badly broken papyrus and not much weigh can be placed on it for any purpose!
AP 13. Kislev 2 = Mesore 11 ~~(?)~~, year 19 of Artaxerxes I	20	1	19	0	19	0	Between sunset Nov 18 and sunrise Nov 19, 446 BCE, Mesore 11 and Kislev 2, 446 BCE
AP 14. Ab 14 = Pachons 19, year 25 of Artaxerxes I	26	1	25	0	24	-1	Between sunrise August 26 and sunrise Aug 27, 440 BCE
Kraeling 3. Elul 7 = Payni 9, year 28 of Artaxerxes I	29	1	28	0	27	-1	Between sunset Sept 14 and sunrise Sept 15, 437 BCE
AP 10. Kislev 7 - Thoth 4, year ~~[2]9~~ of Artaxerxes I	30	1	28	-1	28	-1		Cf. AP 10 at Egyptian year 5 of Artaxerxes I above! Problem solved! Notice: This is one of the three papyri (AP 8, AP 10, & Kraeling 8) with a problem attributed to “a scribal error” per Horn and Wood, all of which problems, however, have now been resolved.
AP 15. [Tishri 25] = Epiphi 6, year [30] of [Artaxerx]es I	31	1	30	0	30	0		Cf. AP 15 at Egyptian year 17 above! AP 15 is a badly broken papyrus and not much weigh can be placed on it for any purpose!
Kraeling 4. Tishri 25 = Epiphi 25, year 31 of Artaxerxes 1	32	1	31	0	31	0	Between sunrise Oct 30 and sunrise Oct 31, 434 BCE
Kraeling 5. Sivan 20 = Phamenoth 7, year 38 of Artaxerxes 1	39	1	38	0	37	-1	Between sunset June 12 and sunrise June 13, 427 BCE
Totals for Artaxerxes’ reign		Total errors (raw count) = 13 Total w no change of regnal year reckoning = 13 After identifying and correcting the AP 10 mistake: 12		Total errors (raw count) = ‑3 Total w changed regnal year reckoning to Babylonian = ‑1 Errors after identifying and correcting the AP 10 mistake: 0		Total errors (raw count) = ‑9 Total w changed regnal year reckoning to Scriptural = ‑9 After identifying and correcting the AP 10 mistake: -8		This row is for purposes of evaluating the pattern of dating the many papyri during the reign of Artaxerxes.
Kraeling 6. Pharmuthi 8 = Tammuz 8, year 3 of Darius II	4		4		3		Between sunrise and sunset on June 11, 420 BCE	“Year 3” is an exception using Scriptural/Jewish fall-to-fall reckoning.
AP 20. Elul = Payni, year 4 of Darius II	4		4		3		Between sunrise and sunset Sept 2, 420 BCE	“Year 4… 8…” etc. (adjacent & below) are Babylonian reckoning, which is apparently being used by default, a conclusion extrapolated from the pattern of scribal policy noticeable during the reign of Artaxerxes. (Cf. above the green columns above!) Notice the difference in regnal years between Babylonian vs. Scriptural regnal years in AP 20, Kraeling 7 & 8!
Kraeling 7. Tishri = Epiphi, year 4 of Darius II	4		4		3 (or possibly 4?, but probably not.)		More than likely this papyrus was dated between sunrise and sunset October 2, 420 BCE, i.e. on Epiphi 1 and Tishri 1.	Notice: Kraeling 7 “was written in the month following the one recorded in AP 20.” (Siegfried H. Horn & Lynn H. Wood, The Chronology of Ezra Seven.) From this table it is clear that both these papyri were dated using the spring-spring calendar. (Had both been dated using a fall-fall calendar, these papyri would be evidence for the Elephantine papyri using a fall-fall calendar beginning the year on Tishri 22, but even if this was indeed the case, it cannot be proven by these papyri.) Cf. notice at Kraeling 8.
Kraeling 8. Tishri 6 = Payni 22, year 8 of Darius II	8		8		7		Between sunrise and sunset Sept 22, 416 BCE.	Notice 1: This is one of the three papyri (AP 8, AP 10, & Kraeling 8) with a problem attributed to “a scribal error” per Horn and Wood, all of which problems, however, have now been resolved: Re this papyrus, Kraeling 8, Horn & Wood made a false claim of “a scribal error” based upon nothing but a false assumption that, per their own words: "Inasmuch as the Egyptian month Payni synchronized with the month Elul in the 4th Egyptian year of Darius (AP 20) [Elul = Sept 1-Oct 1, 420 BCE /ToL©,] it is impossible for the same month [Payni /Tol©] to coincide with Tishri four years later [Tishri = Sept 16-Oct 15, 416 BCE /Tol©.]" Their error is only too obvious, that is, considering the variability of the beginning of the year depending on the aviv ripening of the barley and the intercalated months in consequence thereof… Notice 2:Had this papyrus been using Scriptural reckoning it would have been proof of the scribe honoring Tishri 22 as the beginning of the year, but because either Egyptian or Babylonian reckoning is being used for all except one of the Elephantine papyri we have no such proof at this time. Cf. notice at Kraeling 7.
AP 25. Kislev 3, year 8 = Thoth 12, year 9 of Darius II	9		8		8		Between sunset Nov 16 and sunrise Nov 17, 416 BCE	At this point (before AP 25 & AP 28, and perhaps even from a time after Kraeling 5 (or even 6) and the reign of Artaxerxes and before AP 20 and the reign of Darius II) a scribal policy seems to have been introduced to the effect that when the Egyptian and Babylonian regnal years differ, both are being specified. Notice the absence of double regnal year specification when the numbers are the same (AP 20, Kraeling 7 & 8, vs. Kraeling 7, 8, and AP 20!)
AP 28. Shebat 24, year 13 = Athyr 9, year 14 of Darius II	14		13		13		Between sunset Feb 10 and sunrise Feb 11, 410 BCE
Cowley's ed. No. 30							“Nov. 25, 407 B.C. (according to the Persian calendar)”
Kraeling 9. Marcheshvan 24 = Mesore 29, year 1 of Artaxerxes II	1		Accession year or year 1		Accession year or year 1		Between sunset Nov 25 and sunrise Nov 26, 404 BCE	Based upon the relative dates of Kraeling 9 & 10, “year 3” of Kraeling 10 is necessarily Egyptian reckoning. It follows that the Egyptian year reckoning for Kraeling 9 is year 1 whether or not that was intended by the scribe or not. Considering this change in dating, i.e. the absence of specification for obviously differing years, and the prior change of ruler one cannot be certain re the numbering of the Babylonian and Scriptural year reckoning, though it may be that the Babylonian reckoning is being referenced in Kraeling 9?
Kraeling 10. Adar 20 = Choiak 8, year 3 of Artaxerxes II	3		1 or 2		1 or 2		Between sunrise March 9 and sunrise March 10, 402 BCE
	5		4 or 5		3 or 4		“June 19, 400 B.C.”	"The last known dated Jewish document from that [Elephantine] island was written on June 19, 400 B.C. Then a curtain of silence fell over this interesting community. The temple was probably again destroyed, and the Jews either killed or driven out. Nothing further is known of their fate." (SDA Bible Commentary, Vol. 3, p.83:6.) Isn't it quite likely that this Jewish community joined Ezra in Jerusalem when in the seventh year of Artaxerxes II (in the spring of 397 BCE; the 7^th year referenced by Ezra beginning either Aviv 1, 397 BCE (Babylonian calendar) or else, not likely, Tishri 22, 398 BCE (Scriptural calendar)) Ezra and his people received the king's encouragement for moving back to Palestine?!!! Possibly, a certain portion of this Jewish community decided to move to Ethiopia bringing with them (?) the Ark of the Covenant, that is, in recognition of God's calling His people out from under any and all human hierarchies, that is, recognizing that Ezra was acting under the authority of Artaxerxes II while acknowledging also that Judah, Jerusalem, and the Temple were within the jurisdiction of Artaxerxes II. Cf. this video interview with Graham Hancock (at 0:13:13 or about 0:11:30-0:13:30.) Please cf. also Hancock, Graham, The Sign and the Seal, pp. 212-213 (800 yrs at Tana Kirkos, then 1,600 yrs (before 1989) at Axum [altitude 7,000 ft.,]) 219 (800 yrs at Tana Kirkos,) 226 (959 to Zwai,) 228 (72 yrs at Zwai,) 252-267 (the Gondar Timkat tradition,) 287-292 (remnants in Egypt,) 402 (modified dates 470 BCE & 330 CE,) 412-424 (re Uzziah’s & Hezekiah’s encounters in the temple,) 424-446 (re the Elephantine temple and its destruction,) 252, 427, 446, 448-9 (re Meroe.) Cf. these links: 72MB, 40MB, or 30MB-text only.

Comments and donations freely accepted at:

Tree of Life^©

c/o General Delivery

Nora [near SE-713 01]

Sweden Republic^© in Adamah Republic^©

eMail: TreeOfLifeTime@gmail.com

…

^...

Pearls & Mannah – “I found it!”

Home

Feel free to use, and for sharing freely with others, any of the truth and blessings belonging to God alone. I retain all the copyrights to the within, such that no one may lawfully restrain my use and my sharing of it with others. Including also all the errors that remain. Please let only me know about those. I need to know in order to correct them. Others don’t need to be focused upon the errors that belong to me alone. Please respect that, and please do not hesitate to let me know of any certain error that you find!