VAT4956 "errors" coordinated. Support Josephus timeline..
larswilson
see them with a more critical eye because of the responsibility they carry.
For instance reporting effectively on an ancient dig. Once you've dug up
some of these ancient cities it can never be redone in later times. We can
only trust the archaeology is expert and honest because it's a one-time
shot.
The VAT4956 displays another pitfall for archaeologists though and that is
lack of critical expertise across the board when it comes to other related
specialties such as astronomy, it's own special science and ancient
astro-mythology that affects it. Case in point is the VAT4956. The expert
Assyriologists and mathematicians examining it had independently noted that
a Line 3 and 14 reference were not matches for year 568BCE in a text dated
year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. Sachs/Hunger in the original translation noted
for line 3 "an error for the 8th" when the text noted the ninth. Otto
Neugebaur regarding Line 14 though also noted an error stating the reference
was for the previous day. But did these experts ever compare the two
errors?
What was decided by them, and perhaps responsibly so seeing an astronomical
non-match, was these were "scribal errors"!! It was presumed perhaps the
text was broken or the text not clear and the copyist then inserted a guess
into this specialized and specific scientific text and thus there was an
error. That's probably the best logical choice for a single error, but not
when you find two of them which have the precise divergence from the rest of
the dating in the text. That is, the "error" in line 3 a day too early and
in line 14 a day to early are not generally a day to early but they are
specifically the same offset from the rest of the dating in the text.
That's right! When you compare the presumed "errors" in the text in Lines 3
and 14, they are not precisely the same offset. Not only that, they belong
to the same alternative lunar cycle and specifically to another year!
So where these really "errors" in the text? Hardly. The precision of
astronomy eliminates the idea these were two accurate guesses to the
specific lunar locatoins in another year! These references were
intentional!
But why? Again a criticism for the hazardous nature of limited scientific
investigation. The "why" may not have anything to do with astronomy or
archaeology, but ancient politics and sociology! How so? Becaise the text
amd amd of itself has no real astronomical purpose. In fact, it could be
considered as *overkill* with over 100 references from a single year to
forcibly fix a single year of a king. It's overkill since the combination
of plaentary and lunar references can't me matched again in perhaps over
several thousand years!
But it turns out that was *not* the reason for all the references. The
astute reading is that the multiple references was not overkill but instead
*camouflage*! You see, if you want to hide something, hiding it in plain
sight in the middle of a lot of distractions is a good way to do it. Thus
the astronical *diary* had the real purpose of providing distractoin for
those "errors" carefully inserted into the text. Those coordinated "errors"
were thus intentional inclusions in the text and the purpose of the diary in
the first place and that was to safely hide secret references to the
original chronology for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar that had been revised by
the Seleucid Period that offset the Persian Period with 82 faked years. To
pull this off all the Babylonian astronomical texts had to be destroyed.
Likely the panic of losing any archaeological or historical reference to the
original chronology caused some astronomer-historians to panic and they came
up with the only desperate way to possibly keep a few secret references to
the original chronology and that was to create a diary that on the surface
looked like overkill for the revised redating, but within the text,
carefully placed, would be secret references to the original chronology for
the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. That reign might have been chosen since it is
well Biblically documentd. That inference being that it might have been
Jewish astronomers at Babylon who invented the text. But that's another
theory. But still, the convention is quite clever. It takes advantage of
a double coincidence between astronomy and history.
HOW THE VAT4956 DOUBLE-DATING WORKS: Basically, hiding astronomical
references has a limited option. There has to be a close but not precise
coincidence between two chronologies, the revised and the original in both
the dating as well as the astronomy. When that happens you can mix the
references from both years into the same text and it will generally go
unnoticed unless scientifically checked at which point the error would be
seen as only slight, such as in this case, just "a day" off. That was the
general hope of the text, the presumption this might be a scribal error.
This all changes when a comprehensive comparison is done, however, and you
discover more than one error and those errors are precisely astronomically
coordinated. That's what we see in the VAT4956 in Lines 3 and 14 "errors",
two references belongin to another year.
As far as the astronomy goes, some patterns of eclipses or planetary
phenomen repeat themselves over and over at certain intervals. Thus if a
revised date and an original date fall in line with a certain planetary or
lunar interval, the observations for that year will be closely matched.
That's the case here. The original chronology for Nebuchadnezzar based
upon independent Biblical reference that dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455BCE
and per Josephus dates the 23rd of Nebuchadnezzar 70 years earlier (Ant.
11.1.1) which matches the last deportation, would date the 23rd of Cyrus in
511BCE. This is the Biblically accurate dating for the reign of
Nebuchadnezzar. If this were the case and there was revisionism of many
later astronomical texts with the destruction of original texts, if there
was an incidence of double-dating as we see here, then one would expect that
it would match some theory of an alternative timeline that includes the
theory of revisionism of the Greco-Persian Period chronology.
That is, if dating the 1st of Cyrus in 455BCE and following Josephus'
reference for 70 years back to the 23rd of Nebuchadnezzar to 525BCE is
thought to be our best best to the original chronology, then year 37 of
Nebuchadnezzar would have to fall in 511BCE. If there was a cryptic
double-dated text that sought to hide a reference to the original chronology
for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, then the references would have to be for
511BCE. Of course, they are. But the astro-coincidence has to do with the
differences in chronology between 511BCE and 568BCE, that is, 57 years,
which is the LUNI-SOLAR CYCLE. Every 19 years, the solar year and lunar
year realign essentially. Thus every 19 years you see the position of the
moon and the phase of the moon near the same place. Near the same place,
but not exactly the same place. In this case, as noted, the 511BCE lunar
positions were about a day earlier than for 568BCE. That's close enough to
be thought of as an "error" but not so close to be considered a "match".
But getting back to limitations of archaeology. If an archaeologist is not
into "conspiracy theories" or thinks that Ptolemy's canon is infallible and
trustworthy, then he would decide that what he was seeing were "errors" and
look no farther. Others knowing the precision of astronomy and suspecting
the astute revisionism of the times including the need for redating and
destroying astronomical records would test any apparent pattern for any
"errors" for a reference to any presumed original prechronology.
The irony of this, though, is that the VAT4956 is a broken text, it's
basically broken in half with only one half available to us. Had there been
only one "error" found it would have been reasonable to think it was a
scribal slip. But because two have survived that are coordinated, it
explains the purpose of this text and confirms not only critically astute
manipulation by the Seleucids of the astronomical texts, but gives
supportive reference from the pagan records that the Jewish chronology
references generally were not altered and are accurate.
Again, that only works if whatever double-date is pointed to under the
presumption of a reference to an original chronology can be matched into the
context of another alternative timeline. In tihs case, the Biblical
timeline, as best can be reconstructed with the help of Josephus has
developed the timeline that dates the 1st of Nebuchadnezzar to 547BCE and
his 37th year in 511BCE. This timeline was already in place before the
matched double-dating to 511BCE in the VAT4956 was discovered only recently.
OUT-OF-FIELD SKEPTICS EXERCISE: Now, of course, this is all very new for
some and it is acknowledged if the skilled archaeologists didn't observe
this one would not expect others to. Besides that, scientists are trained
to be skeptical of conspiracy theories, and they should be. On the other
hand, we all very well know there were many motives for trying to revise the
history books in favor of one political or religious interest or another.
That's the reality. But science has a very profound way of clarifying
things.
Thus I suggest if one is skeptical about the conclusion or application of
any double-dating in the VAT4956, that one downloads a free copy of "Skymap"
and actually look at the references in Lines 3 and 14 for themselves to
experience the "text match" for 511BCE.
In other words, Line 3 says that the moon was 1 cubit in front of the "Rear
Foot of the Lion" (GIR ar sa UR-A = sigma Leonis) on the 9th of the first
month of Nisan. You simply go to 511BCE (-510BCE) and plot out the 9th
lunar day and check the location of the moon to if it matches that location.
Do the same for Line 14. The moon is 1 cubit NIM DIB (above-right) of the
"bright star behind the Lion's Foot" (MUL KUR sa TIL GIR UR-A =
beta-Virginis). You'll see that it is in that position in this year.
Then you can check for the lunar position in 568BCE, the year for all the
other references and will note as Sachs and Neugebaur did, respectively,
that the moon seems to be a day later than the text is claiming.
The double-dating is quite specific as well since they anti-revisionists who
invented the text made sure to establish the first day of the lunar month so
that there was no question about that since the first day of the month can
be optional sometimes. Thus after establishing it's own first day of the
month, it inserted the mis-matched double reference to 511BCE later in the
month so that the "error" was inescapable.
The result is extremely brilliant ancient counter-intelligence. The text
served quite well as a means to preserve and "hide in plain sight" an
original lunar observation to the original true year of Nebuchadnezzar
without compromising too obviously the new chronology. Trying to include
references on a separate text and hiding it would simply have resulted in
the text being dismissed as erroneous. But by combining the two into one,
that is, the original chronology and the revised chronology, it establishes
clearly which is which. The suppressed 511BCE dating, obviously must have
been the original chronology.
INCOMPETENT DATING TO 568BCE: The other thing that this wonderful text does
is that it tconfirms the incompetence of dating year 37 of Nebuchadnezzzar
to 568BCE. Thus the popular timelines using that dating are not simply
learned opinions anymore, but incompetence based upon revised records. But
in that regard, if 511BCE truly was the original chronology, what general
affect does that have on the overall complete timeline? Obviously, it would
have a positive effect since the revised chronology always has more problems
than the original chronology.
But in general redating year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar to 511BCE reduces the
dating of the NB Period by 57 years. The Assyrian eclipse in the 10th of
Bar-Sagale has been better dated from 563BCE to 709BCE, which is a 54-year
reduction. That reduction in relation to the Biblical timeline which dates
Solomon's buildings at Jerusalem 363 years earlier now places him where he
archaeologically should be, from 910-870BCE rather than 60 years earlier
(970-930BCE) Archaeology using pottery dating date the buildings claimed by
Solomon to precisely this period, only they say it is the time of Omri whom
they date ending his rule in 870BCE instead of Solomon. So downdating
Solomon for instance, this precise interval makes him a non-historical issue
as far as archaeological dating. He appears in the right place, an argument
in itself that the timeline was the problem.
But what about the Persian Period reduction. No problem there either. The
Persian records are so scant and sketchy this period has been labeled the
"darkest period in human history" anyway. Dark due to revisionism and no
other reason. But the issues would only be the reduction of the kingships
between Cyrus and Artaxerxes III. That is, by 358BCE the chronology is in
sync again. 30 years are removed from Darius I (Ezra 6:14,15 allows only a
6-year rule for Darius I and Persepolis confirms he died in his sixth year
after beginning Persepolis in his 4th!). Since Xerxes claimed to be
Artaxerxes and were the same king, his 21-year rule is eliminated being
paralleled by Artaxerxes. And finally the overly long 47-year rule of
Artaxerxes II gets reduced down to 17 years, which is more in line with the
other kingships following Artaxerxes I who had the longest reign. Thus the
82 years quickly evaporate when one knows where to make the reductions. At
any rate, it's interesting that downdating Solomon 54 years was the smart
archaeological thing to do in the first place.
Still skeptical? Well guess what? The VAT4956 is not the only astronomical
"diary" found that has double dating in it. That's right. Another
"coincidence" was found and another text created that can be used to date
back to the same dating for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.
Obviously, this information is too hard to accept for some, but it is
interesting that 511BCE for the 37th of Nebuchadnezzar shows up in two
different "theoretical" alternative dating timelines. The coincidence of
that, I find to be rather (excuse the pun?)...astronomical? (smile)
Have a nice day everyone! Enjoy the old timeline for as long as you can
stand it; it's confirmed to be incorrect thanks for modern science,
computers and the VAT4956!
L. Wilson