Without recourse. All Rights Reserved. Tree of Life©
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..
Extensive revision 5928[(*??*)]
11 18 2032 [2016-02-27] – All of the items in the table pertaining to AP 6, AP 10, AP 8, AP 9, and the Cairo Sandstone Stele are extensively revised.[1] An abstract
is added. Cf. my last
prior version of this article!
Extensive revision 5928[(*??*)]
11 21 2032 [2016-03-01] – All of the items in the table pertaining to columns #2 thru #7, as dated within the reign of
Artaxerxes I, which revisions are largely due to my improved (based
on the Book of Nehemiah) understanding of the exact date of Artaxerxes I’s
accession. Cf. my last
prior version of this article, and the one
prior to that! In column #8 dates are added re AP
15, and AP 9 is slightly edited. In consequence of my last prior revision, I have
also made further edits to my column #9 Comments re AP 6, AP 10, and AP 8.
Consequential minor revision 5928[(*??*)]
12 10 2032 [2016-03-19] – Ditto re AP 9, Col #2, 3, 6, &
7.
Are the Elephantine Papyri Using Egyptian or
Babylonian Regnal Years?
As
may be recognized from the green color coding within columns #4 and #5 in the
table below, and from the corresponding Comments in column #9, all of the
Elephantine papyri from the time of Artaxerxes I are using Babylonian/Persian
calendar year reckoning, that is, accession year reckoning based upon that
calendar of theirs. None of those papyri are using the Egyptian non-accession
year reckoning.
(Cf. also the Elephantine papyri portion of this Excel spread sheet:)
|
Papyri identifiers & Date stamp of papyri |
Original default presumption of various scholars. |
|
Default under Xerxes and Artaxerxes I |
|
Used only rarely or by mistake |
|
For your reference only |
Comments |
|
|
Egyptian Calendar Year (beginning with Thoth 1)
regnal year reckoning - Non-accession reckoning |
Difference between Egyptian regnal year reckoning vs papyrus
& astronomy |
Babylonian Calendar Year (beginning with Nisan
1) regnal year reckoning - Accession year reckoning |
Difference between Babylonian / Persian regnal year
reckoning vs papyrus & astronomy |
Scriptural Calendar Year (beginning with Tishri 22)
regnal year reckoning - Accession year reckoning |
Difference between Scriptural regnal year reckoning vs
papyrus & astronomy |
Julian Calendar date of papyri etc. |
|
|
AP 5. Elul 18 = Pachons 28,
year 15 of Xerxes |
14 or 15 |
-1 or 0 |
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 evidence that
is more primary! Cf. also my
Comments re AP 6. Starry Night Backyard |
|
AP 6. Kislev 18 = Thoth [17], year 21, the beginning of
the reign of Artaxerxes 1 |
2 Xerxes’ 21st or 22nd Egyptian
year of reign [beginning with Thoth 1, 465 BCE] |
+2 0 or +1 |
Artaxerxes’ accession year Xerxes’ 21st Babylonian(!) year of reign
[beginning with Nisan 1, 465 BCE] |
0 0 |
1 Xerxes’ 21st Scripture year of reign
[beginning with Tishri 22, 465 BCE] |
+1 0 |
Between sunset Jan 2 and sunrise Jan 3, 464 BCE |
A careful study
of the Book of Nehemiah, with a keen eye to astronomy based reckoning of
time, shows that Artaxerxes I’s reign began between Nisan 1 of the Babylonian/Persian
calendar New year and between Tishri 22 of the default Scripture New Year.
Given that fact please… Notice that “year 21” of AP
6 is in terms of Babylonian regnal years, not Egyptian!!! Cf. this link! Apparently, Siegfried
Horn and Lynn Wood were under the false impression that the regnal years were
being reckoned in terms of the Egyptian calendar year and not under the
Babylonian/Persian calendar year. Thus their assumption that the reign of Artaxerxes
I began in December 465 BCE. That is, between Thoth 1 and the “Thoth [17]” of
AP 6: “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, Siegfried, &
Wood, Lynn, The Chronology of Ezra 7, p.
23 of 54) [Likewise, until
Day Three [2016-02-20] of this week, I too have been under the false
impression (cf. my last
prior version of this article) that AP 10, AP 8, and AP 9, were all dated
in terms of the Egyptian calendar year reckoning (which does not use
accession year reckoning; cf. S. H. Horn and L. H. Wood, The
Fifth Century Jewish Calendar at Elephantine, Journal of Near Eastern
Studies, Vol. XIII, No. 1, January 1954, page 4.) Upon realizing the impossibility of a
March 1 (or 2) Nisan 1, 460 BCE [the spring equinox took place around 10 AM
March 26, 460 BCE, which makes March 1, 460 BCE correspond to a seasonal
February 23 of the 21st century CE!,] I finally realized that AP 8
must be dated to 459 BCE and not to 460 BCE. Seeing that my dating of AP 8 to
460 BCE was heretofore my only reasonably solid basis for dating AP 10, AP 8,
and AP 9 based upon the Egyptian calendar reckoning, when this AP 8 basis was
shown to be flawed, then all of said papyri dates must necessarily be recognized
as using the Babylonian/Persian calendar. Just like most of the remainder of
these Elephantine papyri.] For more re the
beginning of Artaxerxes I’s reign, please cf. this
link! |
|
AP 10. Kislev 7
- Thoth 4, year [2]9 [or 5
[Egyptian] (or 3 [Babylonian];) gs edit] of Artaxerxes I |
5 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
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, 462 BCE. Thoth 4, 437 BCE
began at sunrise Dec 14, 437 BCE. 3.
Kislev 7, 462 BCE began at sunset Dec 19 or 20 depending only on the
weather.[2] Kislev 7, 437 BCE began at sunset Dec 13, 437 BCE.[3] 4.
Kislev 7, 462 BCE corresponds to a Nisan 1, 462 BCE on April 21, 461
BCE, which date [due to the wandering of the ecliptic] corresponds to an
April 14 Nisan 1 in our 21st century CE. Kislev 7, 437 BCE corresponds to a Nisan
1, 437 BCE on April 12, 461 BCE, which date [due to the wandering of the
ecliptic] corresponds to an April 5 Nisan 1 in our 21st century
CE. Both of these Nisan 1 placements are
perfectly normal and acceptable. 5.
Given the above data at AP 6, it follows that Dec
20/21, 462 BCE is the 5th Egyptian year, the 3rd
Babylonian, and the 4th Scriptural year, and that Dec 14, 437 BCE
is the 30th Egyptian year, the 28th Babylonian, and the
29th Scriptural year. (It is clear that Horn and Wood’s reference
to the 4th and 29th year is an error based either upon 1) their assumption that
Artaxerxes I’s accession took place after Thoth 1, 465 BCE [false], and that “year
[2]9” is based upon Egyptian regnal year reckoning[false,] “The
papyrus is perfectly preserved and offers no reading difficulties. However,
its year number 9 seems to be a mistake for 29 since in all the reigning
years of Artaxerxes 1 Kislev 7 agrees with Thoth 4 only in his 4th [33]
and 29th Egyptian years” and, perhaps, 2) that they also
considered Scripture calendar based regnal year reckoning for this papyrus.
However, they are not suggesting that “9” is a mistake for “4.”) 6.
Given that a “4th” or a “29th” year placement,
i.e. as mistakenly associated with Dec 14, 437 BCE (by Horn and Wood,) is, in
fact, possible only by using Scripture calendar regnal year reckoning, and
that “9” must indeed be an error, whether a scribal error or otherwise,[4] then the
correct year is whatever it really is, certainly not 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 (by AP 10) to either
Egyptian year 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 years 5 or 30, the
Babylonian years 3 or 28, or the Scriptural years 4 or 29 may be considered
for the correct date. Consider this re the numbers ‘5’ and ‘3’ versus the
“9” of the papyrus: [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 THE
CHRONOLOGY OF EZRA 7 - with GS comments.doc. 7.
Given that the Scripture calendar based regnal year reckoning is
indeed compatible with the date “Kislev 7 Thoth 4” in either of the 4th
and the 29th years of Artaxerxes I. It follows that another plausible explanation for this
apparent scribal error is this: The scribe was not
only 1) writing “[year] 9” in place of 4 or 29, but also, 2) whether
purposely or by mistake, using a Scripture based calendar in place of the
standard Babylonian/Persian calendar. 8.
Based upon the above said, AP 10 was written:
ii. Between sunrise and sunset on
Dec 14, 437 BCE. 9.
Item 7i above could
be based upon either: a.
One idem sonare based scribal error (cf. item #5 above,) or else upon one scribal error by omission
of one letter, the ‘2’ in “[2]9,” in addition to his use of a Scripture
calendar for his regnal year reckoning; or… Item
7ii above could be based upon the same as item 8b. 10.
Recognizing that AP 8 (below) may likewise represent a scribal error
based upon a confusion between two different calendars, I find no reason to
give preference to one of the above suggested errors. Nor do I find a reason
to give preference to a placement of AP 10 in either one of 462 BCE or 437
BCE, both of which I find equally plausible. 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 or somehow explained: This
papyrus, AP 10, and AP 8 below are the only ones that I find are truly
carrying a flawed date apparently due to “a scribal error.” However, I
believe I may well have detected the reason for said “scribal errors” (cf. above and below!) |
|
AP 8. Kislev 21 Mesore 1, year 6 of Artaxerxes I |
[6] 7 |
[0] +1 |
6 |
0 |
[6] 7 |
[0] +1 |
Between
sunset Nov 30 and sunset Dec 1, 459 BCE |
1.
Mesore 1 is Nov 11/12 (sr-sr) in 459 BCE and Nov 11/12 (sr-sr) in
460 BCE. (Mesore 20 is Nov
30/Dec 1 (sr-sr) in 459 BCE; and Mesore 21 is Dec 1/2 (sr-sr) in 459
BCE. 2.
NASA based findings for Kislev 21 are: a.
In 460 BCE:
Nov 11/12 (ss-ss), or, if bad wheather and not already the 30th,
Nov 12/13 (ss-ss,) [or else, Dec 10/11 or 11/12, 460 BCE.] Problem: This Nov 460 BCE placement
implies a March 1 (or 2)[5] Nisan 1, 460
BCE beginning, which is much too early and not likely, not realistic! b.
In 459 BCE:
Nov 30/Dec 1 or Dec 1/2 [corresponding to Mesore 20/21/22; (or else Dec 29/30 or 30/31 corresponding to Thoth
14/15/16.)] This Nov 30/Dec 1 (or Dec 1/2)
placement implies a March 19 (or 20) Nisan 1, 459 BCE beginning, which is
early (the spring equinox occurred around 7 PM on March 26, 459 BCE, which is
6 or 7 days after said Nisan 1!,) yet much more acceptable than the March 1
Nisan 1 required for a 460 BCE placement! Problem: This implies the scribal error
pointed out by Horn & Wood, whose #2 suggestion for a solution to this
dilemma is compatible with this placement. My suggestion towards an understanding of
the cause of such a scribal error: This scribal error could? be understood in
terms of the scribe having mistakenly consulted the prior year’s Scripture
fall-to-fall calendar, or the Egyptian calendar, (460 BCE = Scripture year
6, and Egyptian year 6) instead of the Scripture, or Egyptian,
year 7 calendar corresponding to Persian year 6. In so doing he could
have found Kislev 21 = [Nov 11/12 =] Mesore 1. Conclusion: Recognizing the prohibitive problem of beginning
Nisan 1 as early as March 1 (or 2,) 460 BCE, a 460 BCE placement of this
papyrus must be rejected in favor of a 459 BCE placement. Having found a
possible explanation for the apparent scribal error associated with a 459 BCE
placement makes a 459 BCE more acceptable. 3. It follows from
#1 & #2 above that the AP 8 papyrus was
dated between sunset Nov 30 and sunset Dec 1, 459 BCE. 4.
Nov 30/Dec 1, 459 BCE fell in the 6th Babylonian year, in
the 7th Scripture year, and in the 7th Egyptian year of
Artaxerxes I’s reign. [If Artaxerxes I had begun his reign between Thoth 1
and Nisan 1, then this papyrus would have been dateable in the 6th
Egyptian year (cf. AP 6 & AP 10 above,) but this option can be eliminated based upon the
dates gives in the Book of Nehemiah (cf. this
link.)] 5.
Given that the date written upon this papyrus is “year 6” and not
“year 7” it is obvious that: a.
It follows from #4 above and the date of this papyrus, that this regnal
year – “year 6” - is based upon Babylonian/Persian regnal year reckoning. b.
It follows from #3 above (Nov 30/Dec 1, 459 BCE;) from #a above, “Babylonian/Persian regnal year reckoning;”
and from the date of this AP 8 papyrus, “Kislev 21 [Mesore 1,] year 6,”
that Artaxerxes I began his reign between Nisan 1, 465 BCE and Nisan 1, 464
BCE. That is, Kislev 21, year 6
implies accession year = Nisan 1, 465 BCE until Nisan 1, 464 BCE. 6.
Based upon the above, the date upon this papyrus is certainly using
Babylonian/Persian 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 could even
be considered for using Egyptian regnal year reckoning. That is, provided 460
BCE was a viable option for AP 8, and provided March 1 or March 2 was
acceptable for a Nisan 1 beginning. But, March 1/2, 460 BCE corresponds to a February 22 or 23 beginning
in the 21st century CE [due to the wandering of the equinox,]
which early Nisan 1 placement is not happening or heard of! b.
Having thus (cf. a. above!) ruled out the existence of a double regnal
year reckoning [Egyptian vs Babylonian/Persian (i.e. as used within the
several Elephantine papyri during the reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes I,] this
papyrus, AP 8, can no longer be used
as a basis for a more exact beginning of Artaxerxes I’s reign, which is how I
have used it before now. However, for an even more exact beginning of Artaxerxes
I’s 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 either resolved or found a
plausible explanation: 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 somewhat
resolved, or better understood, in favor of the scribe! |
|
AP 9. Year 6 of Artaxerxes I |
[6] 7 |
[0] +1 |
6 |
0 |
[6] 7 |
[0] +1 |
Ditto, more or less, confirming the year of AP 8 above! |
|
|
Cairo Sandstone Stele. Sivan = Mechir, year 7 of Artaxerxes 1 |
8 |
+1 |
7 |
0 |
7 |
0 |
Between sunset June 5 and sunset June 6, 458 BCE |
Seeing that all of the
Artaxerxes I Elephantine papyri are dated in terms primarily related to
Babylonian/Persian calendar reckoning, and recognizing also that the Bible is
frequently omitting the number ‘1’ of the month whenever the date given is a
reference to the first day of the month, I conclude that the date of the
Cairo Sandstone Stele should be understood in terms of “Sivan [1] = Mechir [23],
year 7 of Artaxerxes 1.” “Mechir [22/23]”
is derived from Sivan 1, 458 BCE as dated (beginning at sunset Monday
June 5, 458 BCE) using my SNB astronomical software vs the Egyptian calendar
date found in my Excel file ScriptureCronology.xls. Recognizing the force
inherent in this Scriptural convention of always giving prime recognition to
the beginning of things, it would naturally follow that whenever the Hebrew
‘1’ is omitted while only understood by default, it would only serve to
confuse this convention if only the “[22/23]” of Mechir was provided while
the “[1]” of Sivan was omitted. Thus the absence of both numbers. |
|
Kraeling 1. Phamenoth 25 =
Sivan 20, year 14 of Artaxerxes 1 |
15 |
+1 |
14 |
0 |
14 |
0 |
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 |
16 |
0 |
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 |
17 |
+1 |
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 |
20 |
+1 |
19 |
0 |
20 |
+1 |
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 |
25 |
0 |
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 |
28 |
0 |
Between sunset Sept 14 and sunrise Sept 15, 437 BCE |
|
|
AP 10. Kislev 7 - Thoth 4, year [2]9 of Artaxerxes I |
+1 |
28 |
-1 |
29 |
0 |
Between sunrise and sunset Dec 14, 437 BCE |
Cf. AP 10 at Babylonian/Persian
year 3 of Artaxerxes I above! 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 or plausibly explained. |
|
|
AP 15. [Tishri 25] = Epiphi
6, year [30] of [Artaxerx]es I |
31 |
+1 |
30 |
0 |
31 |
+1 |
Between sunrise Oct 11 and sunrise Oct 12, 435 BCE |
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 |
32 |
+1 |
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 |
38 |
0 |
Between sunset June 12 and sunrise June 13, 427 BCE |
|
|
Totals for Artaxerxes’ reign |
|
Total errors = [12] 14
(Total years in error: [13] 15 [cf. AP 6, AP 8, & AP 9!]) |
|
Total errors = ‑1
(re the 2nd, alternate, AP
10 placement & due to “scribal error”) Errors
after identifying and correcting for the AP 10 “scribal error :” 0 |
|
Total errors = [5] 7 That is, 7 errors in total,
but, after identifying and correcting for the AP 8 and AP 9 “scribal
error(s)” mistake: 5 |
|
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. [However, cf. my discussion
re the plausible reasons behind the apparent “scribal errors” of AP
8, AP
10, & Kraeling
8.] |
|
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 7th
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]
eMail: TreeOfLifeTime@gmail.com
…
The GateWays into Tree of Life
Chronology Studies©
The GateWays
of Entry into the Tree of Life Time Chronology Touching upon the Book of Daniel©
Pearls & Mannah – “I found
it!”
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!
Without recourse. All Rights Reserved. Tree of Life©
[1] This rcvision was incited by John Zachary’s interest in the date of the Cairo Sandstone Stele, which led to my discovery re the impossibility of the AP 8 March 1 (or 2,) 460 BCE Nisan 1 dating necessary for finding Kislev 21 = Mechir 1. That is, other than as the scribe’s mistaken reference to an Egyptian reference calendar of the prior year (Mechir of the Egyptian year 6 in 460 BCE.) Thank you John!
[2] SNB Jerusalem horizon on Dec
13, 462 BCE: Sunset: 16:41:28; Moonset: 17:45:28; lag: 63 min 0 sec; illum.: 1.34%. Thus, that New Moon first became visible on Dec 13,
(or else, in case of bad weather, on Dec 14,) 462 BCE.
Accordingly, Kislev 7 began at
sunset on Dec 19 (or 20,) 462 BCE. This corresponds to an April 21, 462 BCE
Nisan New Moon. Note: Not March 22, 462 BCE (the vernal equinox occurred
shortly after midnight on March 27, 462 BCE.)
[3] SNB Jerusalem horizon on Dec
6, 437 BCE: Sunset: 16:40:54; Moonset: 17:16:40; lag: 35 min 46 sec; illum.: 0.98%. Thus, that New Moon first became visible on Dec (6
or,) 7, (or else, in case of bad weather, on Dec 7,) 437 BCE.
Accordingly, Kislev 7 began at
sunset on Dec (12 or) 13, 437 BCE. This corresponds to an April 13, 437 BCE
Nisan New Moon.
[4] Thoth 4, year 9 (Egyptian year
reckoning) began at sunrise on Dec 19, 458
BCE, and Thoth 4, year 9 (Babylonian/Persian/Scriptural year reckoning) began
at sunrise Dec
18, 456 BCE.
Kislev 7, year 9 (Egyptian year reckoning) began at
sunset on Dec
5, 458 BCE, and Kislev
7, year 9 (Babylonian/Persian/Scriptural year reckoning) began at sunrise Dec 13, 456 BCE.
SNB Jerusalem horizon on Dec
6, 456 BCE: Sunset: 16:40:58; Moonset: 17:12:39; lag: 31 min 41 sec; illum.:
0.71% (= not visible!) Thus, that New Moon first became visible on Dec 7, 456
BCE (or else on Dec 8 if bad weather.) Corresponding to Kislev 7 beginning at
sunset on Dec 13, 456 BCE, and Nisan 1 beginning on April 14, 456 BCE.
Accordingly, it is clear that
year 9 must indeed be a scribal error.
[5] SNB Jerusalem horizon on Feb
28, 460 BCE: Sunset: 17:35:36; Moonset: 18:20:45; lag: 45 min 9 sec; illum.:
0.77% (= not visible!.) Thus, that New Moon first became visible on March 1,
(or else on March 2.) So, at least we are in fact not dealing with a February
Nissan New Moon!