Hi Gunnar,

Second, as you noted I’ve been using el Bab as the location for the observations before this. The reason for this is that I find good reasons for believing that that city may well be the Babylon of the Scriptures. Yet, I realize that the kingdom of Babylon was comprised of a much larger area and that other cities further east may well be considered in certain settings too, for instance (?) re such as has to do with specific clay tablets such as VAT 4956. If you know specifics re the location where exactly those tablets were found and/or originally written, then I am certainly more than interested in sharing of your insights… It would certainly be most valuable to know the exact point of observation for all that which is recorded on VAT 4956, or don’t you agree?

Al (El) Bab is too far from, well, Babylonia to be a possible location for the ancient site. Too many Babylonian artifacts and documents relating to Babylon have been recovered from the southern Mesopotamian region. Have there been any Babylonian documents recovered from the El Bab region? Additionally, the astronomical diaries show that the scribes were concerned with recording river levels which better makes sense if they were next to one on a flood plain - El Bab is many miles from the Euphrates and has an elevation of about 1500 ft. VAT 4956 documents some news from Borsippa which would have relevance to those living in that general area rather than several hundred miles away.

-          The city I am thinking of is located on the Euphrates River. Its possible I made a mistake somewhere along the line… At this moment I’m not finding a reference book I'm looking for to pursue my own questions…. Anyways, looks like I’ll have to defer this item for a little while, and I don't believe it is crucial at the moment for our present purposes. What I’d like to have is solid information as to where exactly VAT 4956 was first discovered and whatever other information re were the observations of that clay table were being made, and my own surmising re El Bab and its location is by no means at the bottom of that issue.

Third, you’ll notice that I find no good or valid reason for buying into your day of choice for the New Moon crescent of Month II. See details below! I’ll look forwards to your feedback on that!

I take it you've seen my 3rd email to you about Babylonian months never having 31 days?

If you alter the start of Month II without good reason (I've read below) then you make most of the remaining tablet's observations out of sync., for example:

Day 1 = May 23 - moon in Cancer and not below beta Geminorum as stated on the tablet;

Consequently, Month III, Day 1 = June 21 - the moon would be visible behind Regulus in Leo rather than the tablet's 'behind Cancer,' and sunrise to sunset would be an outlandish 38.75 degrees instead of the tablet's '20 degrees.'

But I see that you get around that by just altering the month lengths to suit. Very naughty!

-          Naughty… Perhaps?  :)  Anyways, if I’m not mistaken I’ve addressed most all of that at length in my delayed response to your 3^rd email… (which at the point of this writing you haven’t yet seen... I’m trying to catch up…) And, though I don’t know about you?, I for one am convinced that mine are not “without good reason…” In my book the reasons I am presenting are not quite adequately represented by words such as “get around that by just…” Perhaps you missed some of the weightiness of the points I’ve brought to the surface? Anyways, thus far I don’t see you having shot those foundation stones of mine down…

Fourth, Comparing line 3 obverse and my corresponding footnote re the Akkadian words translated “β Virginia” with line 14 obverse and the words translated “the bright star of the end of the Lion’s foot,” I find that the record on VAT 4956 indicates that the very same star is being referenced, that is, Porrima. Apparently the ancients considered that star the end of the tail of the Lion. Perhaps you’ll see some value in that discovery? Please let me know what you think!

The problem is (as I think you noted on your site) that normally, and according to numerous other texts, beta Virginis was called "GÌR ár šá UR-A" literally meaning 'Rear Foot of the Lion,' while gamma Virginis (Porrima) is called 'DELE šá IGI ABSIN' or 'the single star at the front of the Furrow.'

-          Given that, so far as I can see, the Akkadian words, as reflected on the transliteration of VAT 4956, are not exactly "GÌR ár šá UR-A," the apparent, per the translation, attachment to β Virginis is not much of a problem. What remains then is that which pertain to the association between “gamma Virginis (Porrima…) [and] 'DELE šá IGI ABSIN' .” But, given also the fact that using an erroneous cubit length for identifying those stars will necessarily lead to flawed associations between a real star and any name upon a record such as VAT 4956, I will not be surprised to find, if, in our further pursuit of this particular, the association between “gamma Virginis (Porrima…) [and] 'DELE šá IGI ABSIN' ” is likewise an error… As you may recall, my own prior usage of 1 cubit = 7°, as a consequence of that error of mine, I was led to make a number of obviously flawed conclusions as to which stars were being referenced. That object lesson of mine may be well suited to apply also upon that which I perceive as a likewise flawed definition of the cubit by those of you that are still adhering to a definition such as 1 cubit => 2°. To me, as I pursue my study of an exact definition of the cubit, it is becoming ever more certain that 1 cubit = 1.22° ± 0.25°, or perhaps, as even more narrowly defined, 1 cubit = 1.33° ± 0.15°.

Again, I refer you to my 3rd email where I said,

‘Night of the 9th’ was April 30, 568 BCE. The moon was nearer gamma Virginis (3° or 1.5 cubits in front of it) than beta Virginis (more than 11° or nearly 6 cubits behind it). A poor fit. If beta was mistaken for gamma (Prof. Hunger thought it a possibility*), it would be a very good fit for the 9th.

However, the other possibility is that ‘9th’ is a scribal error for ‘8th’ (April 29). If that assumption is correct, we have an excellent fit. The moon was 1 cubit (2°) in front of beta Virginis.

* See C.B.F. Walker, ‘Babylonian Observations of Saturn During the Reign of Kandalanu’ in Ancient Astronomy and Celestial Divination, ed. Swerdlow, p. 72-3.

-          Please see my comments under my above link to your 3^rd email!

It's worth noting that the tablet Walker discusses is an earlier one than VAT 4956, and given that both that one and VAT 4956 are later copies with some of the terminology changing over time, you have to wonder if that might have contributed to the confusion.

-          It certainly has! Consider, for instance, the effect that the idea that those tablets are mere late copies is having upon the teachings amongst the Jehovah’s Witnesses, which by them is being used for discrediting the association between Nebuchadnezzar’s 37^th year of reign and the celestial observations recorded upon VAT 4956… Closer to home, consider how any of that may cause even you or me to discredit the primary evidence of the best available records we have re these particulars, while in so doing leaning more heavily upon modern scholarship, even the very best of it, yes, even while relying ever too much upon each our selves! Don’t ever forget those three proverbial fingers – not even one of the three, for three is more than one, is it not?!!!

I hope I didn’t offend you before by toying with your name? I certainly did not intend to offend you! I actually thought your name was a pseudonym you’ve created yourself while thinking of some of the anomalies associated with VAT 4956 etc.. Perhaps it still is?

No you didn't offend me :-)

-          Thanks!

I am glad you are “an amateur!” In my experience “the accepted scholarship” cannot ever be blindly relied upon as correct or authoritative, either because of the influence and indoctrination received in our “educational system,” or frequently also for fear of losing their job, their pay check, their status, their position, and/or the securities they’ve learned to build their lives upon…

Thus, as for me, I spend zero energy upon keeping “in line with the accepted scholarship I know of.” Even so, I find such scholarship publications being frequently helpful by providing references to original work – which such “scholarship” frequently is too prejudiced to accept at face value… apparently believing that they, said “scholarship,” know better than the originators of such original work…

Yet, I have to be very careful lest by so doing I commit much the same error, or lest I “throw the baby out with the bath water…” That is, I have to do my best in accepting whatever publication for whatever it might be worth in the light of the best available original sources…

The originators are not around to ask (LOL) so it pays to listen to those who have carefully studied their work on a professional level. That's not to say that others can't question or offer a new angle or alternative, but it has to be well grounded on evidence rather than airy-fairy ideas.

-          Amen! So be it!

As you’ve noticed I’ve learned and grown upon the light you’ve previously sent my way, that is, such that you and I are now in agreement re the evening of April 22 being the correct starting point of that particular month.

Good.

-          ;,)   :)

I find the following words of ADT I, p. 7 [of the electronic copy] reassuring, but not necessarily convincing, that is, a relatively ancient reference though certainly several centuries more recent than the original VAT 4956 itself:

“The Akkadian word for them is MUL ŠIDmeš (attested in a diary for SE 175 XII2, and in a procedure text concerning planetary periods16 ), probably to be read kakkab minâti, which seems to mean something like "stars of counting, predictable stars" (see CAD s.v. mintu).”

I find the subsequent sentence on the same page very interesting, that is, in view of Velikovsky’s works and all the extant evidence for interplanetary catastrophes, within the 7^th and 8^th centuries BCE, involving at least Mars and the Earth:

“Note that Mars had the epithet kakkab l minâti (see CAD loc.cit. ), which has been taken to refer to the difficulties in predicting its motion17.”

Well, I don't know about any evidence for interplanetary catastrophes during the 8th-7th centuries BCE. The astronomical records from that period seem to squash that idea. The difficulties in predicting Mars' motion was nothing to do with any celestial chaos but rather the ancients not fully understanding Mars' behavior (Swerdlow's 'Babylonian Theory of the Planets,' p. 86 might provide an insight as to why).

-          What you haven’t studied or pursued you won’t ever know anything of, will you? Thus, if, for instance, you haven’t studied, with a mind set upon finding the real truth about these matters, the life works of Immanuel Velikovsky and/or others with a similar pursuit, there is no way that you’ll ever not fall for the leadership of blind leaders and “authorities” of established thinking and of current traditions, or isn’t that obvious to you too?

-          Which is not to say that Immanuel Velikovsky’s works are in any way perfected, or that Immanuel Velikovsky is to be perceived as yet another authority… It is not, and he is not!

What evidence do you have for identifying “β Berninorum” with “Pollux (beta Gem?)” Isn’t Venus an even better alternative?

As I said in my 3rd email,

Footnote 26  [now footnote 31] - "I have not been able to identify anything named 'Berninorum'" - there's a misprint on your page. It's meant to be Geminorum (the genitive of Gemini) as you'll see when you look at the Translation scan you link to :-D

-          Please see my comments under my above link to your 3^rd email!

I realize you are of the opinion that 1 cubit = ~2 degrees. Well, thanks ever so much for making me thoroughly reconsider the length of a cubit! I used to think that 1 cubit = ~7 degrees before I got this email of yours. Since receiving your last email and up to this point, June 24, 2010, I’ve been thoroughly reevaluating the length of the cubit as used on VAT 2956, and I’ve come to the conclusion thus far that 1 cubit, as used in VAT 4956, = between 1.2 and 1.5 degrees (using the most extreme possibilities.) I’ve noted that the cubit is being used as a fairly rough means of measurement and that very likely the numbers given should be understood as round numbers in many cases. Indeed, per my recent analysis of the length of the cubit as used in VAT 4956, I believe 1 cubit = between 1.2 – 1.5 degrees, when used in a more precise manner, and when this definition does not fit a rounded cubit value as given in VAT 4956, then I believe the difference should be attributed to the cubit being frequently used as a somewhat rough estimate of the observer… That is, after first and always remembering the three proverbial fingers pointing back at myself and my contemporary basis in society...

Please note that it isn't 'my opinion' that 1 cubit = 2 degrees. It is the opinion of scholars who have studied and tested many dozens of these kinds of tablets that 1 cubit ranges between 2 - 2.5 degrees. Prof. Hunger favors 2 degrees as shown by the ADT I Introduction. This cubit conversion applies to the measurements on VAT 4956 too. You are right that there always has to be allowed a small margin of error due to factors like the primitive instruments they were using and our modern Delta-T calculations, etc.

-          Given all the proof provided each and all of us of the unreliability of any and all men, even the very best of scholars, you and me not excluded, each of us owe it to ourselves to test each and every item when finding reason for so doing, and for throwing out each our tendency to perceive any of those, most of whom are no doubt honest and sincere seekers of the truth, scholars as authorities for us to blindly rely upon!!!!!!!

-          As to your words “it isn't 'my opinion' that 1 cubit = 2 degrees…”  Well, to the extent that you allow your opinion to be swayed by the opinions and teachings of others, and to the degree that you identify with such opinions, you are in effect one with them, and thus, I for one cannot agree with you that your opinion isn’t yours and yours to keep!  ;,)   :)

-          Until I have proof or sufficient evidence to the contrary, I have no reason not to believe that “many dozens of these kinds of tablets…” isn’t an overstatement and an assumption of some of the followers who blindly follow the leaders of their own making… No doubt there are more than many dozens of tablets, but how many of them are truly dealing with exactly the specifics we are dealing with in each case???????

I should add that the translator’s parenthetical words “(of which followed the 30^th of the preceding month)” represents his own presumption only. 

No, it's so that it makes sense to the reader of the translation. The astronomer scribes had their own particular shorthand and this is standard format for their showing whether the month had been a 'full' (or 'perfect') one of 30 days, where day 1 followed day 30, or a 'hollow' one of 29 days, where day 1 was the same as day 30. Again, there are numerous other examples of this format on numerous other tablets.

-          Yes, I believe that I understand and have no problem with that… Yet, that’s not to say that there isn’t more to it, perhaps even much more…

[Ann formerly] Therefore Ayyaru 3 would be May 24/25, -567, when Mars was approaching the misty-looking Beehive Cluster or Praesepe. Two evenings later, on May 26/27 (Ayy. 5), Mars was in the center of this hazy patch. As far as I can see, the tablet is a day out with my (other) astro-program (Alcyone Ephemeris), which has Mars entering its clearly defined Praesepe on May 25 (Ayy. 4) and leaving it on May 27 (Ayy. 6). A day’s difference seems like a lot, but in degree terms the difference is negligible. Mars traveled a little less than 1° per day, so we are talking about less than 1° discrepancy with the tablet’s statement. Additionally, given the hazy nature of Praesepe and that the ancients relied on their naked eyes, I think it would be unreasonable to expect more precision than they gave. Alternatively there might also be a very slight difference in the Delta-T values applied to the modern astronomy program and the historical sky.

Well, I am not buying that kind of argument…

You'd rather change the cubit length or use grand conspiracy theories and interplanetary catastrophism as explanations for anomalies instead? Hm. OK. :-)

-          No, I am not doing that! If you and/or others fail to perceive certain realities that you may perceive as such, that is, as fearful, and to label them as such, while I and others do perceive at least a potential reality in such considerations, that in no way authorizes you or anyone to smear me or any other with libel such as that! Yet, public media and public opinion is very quick in doing exactly that, and the “authorities” of our society tend to follow suit, thus abusing their enormous and much excessive powers… to the destruction of all of us, and to the detriment of the pursuit of an ever more correct understanding of the realities behind records such as VAT 4956.

-          I have no doubt but that you too are well aware of the realities behind my comment immediately above, aren’t you?!

Indeed, I do not believe that, as you say, “the ancients relied [exclusively] on their naked eyes!”

You don't mean you think magnifying technology was available to them, do you?

-          I’d be mighty surprised if they didn’t!!!

-          Allow me to translate parts of a section out of a book written in the Swedish language:

“Mirrors

“Considering the studies of ancient researchers of the stars and astronomers, one is forced to consider also that the detailed and comprehensive studies of theirs cannot have been a result of mere naked eye observations. Certainly one is forced to presume certain the existence of certain technical tools.

“A case in point is the great lighthouse of Alexandria, which had a large mirror with which it was possible to study objects at great distances. This is evidence of their abilities within the art of building a mirror telescope. Said lighthouse was built in historical times, that is, about 250 BCE, but this fact in should in no way diminish its value as a sign of the technical skills of the ancients. That lighthouse was a 180 meters tall building and it had a complicated system for generation of light on top… An enormous mirror was placed at its peak, through which it was possible to observe details of things that happened in distant locations… The mirror could also be adjusted for purposes of setting fire to ships [far out] upon the sea…

“…at the time of about 600 BCE a lighthouse is described at the ‘Sigeum in Troa’ peninsula…”

(from Kjellson, Harry, and Mattsson, Carl-Anton, Teknik i Forntiden, pp.28-29 (Valentin Förlag AB, Stockholm, 1990. ISBN 91-87686-19-8. Freely translated by Gunnar Anders Smårs Jr ©)

-          No doubt you can find much more evidence for such if only you pursue it! Never forget the words of the one being referenced in Revelation 3:20!

[Gunnar formerly] You’ll notice too, that, albeit I agree with you that in this instance, of the Akkadian word behind the translator’s word, “thick” may well be referencing, as you say the “illuminated fraction of 3.1%,” yet, in the remainder of VAT 4956 it seems to me that that interpretation is inconsistent with the facts and that the word translated “thick” is more likely a reference to the overall size of the Moon, that is, to its nearness to the Earth. Would you agree with that?

[Ann formerly] Not really. According to the Chigago Assyrian Dictionary (Vol. 8, p. 4-5, definition 2.f), the word kabar (kabaru) – as is used on the tablet - has the sense of ‘fat, thick, heavy.’ Theoretically, naked eye first crescent visibility could easily occur at 1% illuminated fraction (as long as other criteria were favourable), so 3.1% for a Day 1 is quite substantial.

I am not questioning the very potential visibility of the New Moon crescent on May 22, nor am I questioning that crescent being well characterized by the words “fat, thick, heavy.” If there was inclement weather on May 22, then, on the next day, May 23, the New Moon crescent would have been even more so, i.e. even more “fat, thick, heavy…” While also large and near! Accordingly, I do not find that argument very helpful for distinguishing between May 22 and May 23. You see that, don’t you?

These are the reasons why the evening of May 23 as Day 1, Month II is impossible:

-          Yes, I understand and agree with you that, as you say, “These are the [apparent] reasons why…”

- You agree that April 22 was Day 1 of Month I, right? Line 8 tells us this month was 30 days long. Counting the days we find that the 30th day was May 21, therefore Day 1 which followed Day 30 could only be May 22.

-          Yes, I agree with you that, as you say, “April 22 was Day 1 of Month I…”

-          “…therefore Day 1 which followed Day 30 could only be May 22…” No doubt that may seem reasonable at first sight, yes. Yet, there is more to be discovered as we pursue these things in more detail…

 

- As mentioned above, if Day 1 = May 23 - the moon was in Cancer and not below beta Geminorum as stated on the tablet. On May 22 the moon was at the position the tablet states.

-          Cf. my pursuit of this consideration of yours under this link!

- There is no indication on line 8 of any inclement weather preventing observation that day. As I've said before, the observer usually wrote down when observation was hampered by bad weather and even jotted down what kind of weather it was!

-          Yes, I agree, quite to the contrary, considering the details of the observations made and recorded for that day! Yet, the VAT 4956 record is not giving us any information in terms of our modern calendars. That part is of our own making… If we, for some reason or other build upon a flawed understanding, of whatever source, we are bound to make errors accordingly. So also re May 22 vs. May 23…

I hope this is of help. 

-          Most certainly so! Thanks for standing up solidly for your convictions while pursuing this dialog of ours! To me this is a tremendous experience, a most valuable one!

-          Thanks again!

Blessings,
Ann

May the Lord of Hosts, the Lord of Truth, bless each our families and homes as we continue pursuing these important realities,

Gunnar ©