spin

Although I haven't been following this thread (as it's another one of these Larsguy47 attempts to make himself feel comfortable about his religion by shifting things around), the subject of the calendar is of interest to me, so let me be tangential!

From the literary evidence we have, the Assyrian-Babylonian calendar as you call it is only in the latest layers of biblical literature. The exodus tradition is prior to the A-B calendar, as it uses the month name Abib, not one of those from A-B. The usual means of referring to months was however by number, not name, which certainly does not suggest the A-B calendar. It must be noted though that the Elephantine Jewish colony used the A-B months in the 5th c. BCE; it could be that it was imposed by the Persians who used Aramaic as the lingua franca along with the Babylonian calendar for administrative purposes.

When the Astronomical Book, the earliest part of the book of Enoch, was written, its aim was to state the superiority of the 364-day calendar over 360-days, ie it showed no interest in the lunar calendar of 354-days. The AB was written in the late 3rd c. BCE and it suggests that it was the 360-day calendar that had been in place, not 354-days, and that 364-days was what should be used because of its perfection.

The A-B calendar only manifests itself in very late books, mainly Esther, but also the current version of Nehemiah (which was not available to Josephus), and perhaps one other. It would seem that there is an order in the literature of 360-days, then 364-days and finally 354-days in the Hebrew tradition.

It should also be noted that the Seleucids used a form of the A-B calendar when dealing with the Semitic speaking part of the empire and that there were communications with Mesopotamia throughout the second temple and post-second temple. This means that the basics of the A-B calendar could have been introduced into Hebrew literature very late.


spin

Larsguy47

Wow 3D! THANK YOU SOO MUCH FOR THIS! I love ancient astronomy so this is just wonderful to read. And, if that were really true, of course I was glued to every word. So not to contradict the above references, I did find this early in the article about how the Babylonians set up their year:

In Mesopotamia, the New Year began on the first of Nisan (Month I)—according to Babylonian convention, the day of the first new moon after the Spring Equinox, which was ideally meant to occur on the 15th of Adar (Month XII).4

If the above was in practice in 763BCE-709BCE for that particular reference, then it would match the 709BCE eclipse but not the 763BCE eclipse. More as I read on. But certainly reading this direct and simple statement might explain reflection of this concept in some of the later references, such as Wikipedia. Obviously, where we don't see any direct contradiction there is certainly "exception" and that's why I'm glad you have this reference here to establish exactly what's what. Thanks, again.

More after I read the entire article.

ADDENDUM:

Another quote from the source: Page 3:

"In lunar calendars without intercalation, such as the modern Islamic calendar,
this shortfall of approximately 11!-4 days per year is ignored, so the lunar months fall
back through the seasons of the solar year over a 32!-2 year cycle. As a result, in
Islam for instance, holidays such as Ramadan occur in diˆerent seasons in diˆerent
years. Ancient Mesopotamians, like the Jews, celebrated seasonal-agricultural holidays,
and so could not allow the dates of their holidays to wander over the seasons
the year.5 Thus, ancient Mesopotamians declared a leap-year approximately every
third year to keep the lunar months in their proper seasons. In leap-years, an extra
lunar month was added, almost always as intercalary months XII2 or VI2 (Second
Adar or Second Elul), allowing for the 1st of Nisan and Tishre (Months I, VII) to
return to the eve of the 1st new moon after the equinoxes (according to the Babylonian
system).6 Thus, the ancient Mesopotamian civil and religious calendar was
built, in principle at least, around an ideal three year cycle of 37 lunar months consisting
of two regular years of 12 lunar-months (approximately 354 days) and a leapyear
of 13 lunar-months (approximately 384 days).7"


WOW! What a great article. Here's something else, from the reign of Ashurbanipal:

Ancient Mesopotamian astronomers used such astronomical observations as an
aid in determining the appropriate time to declare leap-years and intercalate leapmonths.
This is demonstrated, for example, on a theoretical level in “Astrolabes,”
where each month of the year is marked by the rising of three stars; one star each in
the central, northern, and southern portions of the sky,9 and in practice by a seventh
century letter from a court astronomer to the court of Assurbanipal:


Let them intercalate a month. All the stars of heaven are late.
Let Adar not pass unluckily. Let them intercalate it.10

Here, the court astronomer advises the intercalation of a second Adar so as to bring
the sequence of stars into agreement with the lunar calendar in order to allow New
Year’s Day (the 1st of Nisan) to fall on an appropriate, and therefore favorable, day.11

Ashurbanial ruled per current chronology beginning in 685BCE (adjusted to 631BCE) which was not that long after 709BCE. This would suggest/confirm, though, that the Assyrians were keen on adjusting the intercalation by stellar observation and were intercalating appropriately, that is, introducing a 13th month to make sure that the new year began before the first month was called. This reference gives us a more proximal reference than even the later Babylonians as to what the Assyrian practice was and how advanced it was! If they used the stellar year to establish the true beginning of the year and then intercalated in accordance with that, so that the equinox always fell in ADAR, month 12, meaning Nisan (month 1) would always follow the equinox month, then 763 BCE is absolutely misdated by our closest responsible reference to the wrong month. For 763BCE eclipse to occur in month 3, the Assyrians would have had to have had the equinox occurring in Nisan instead of the desired 12th and/or 13th months of Adar or Adar II.

DID YOU READ THIS, 3D? Great stuff! Wikipedia is preempted totally by this better, closer reference! But it means 763BCE is misdated more than ever. Sorry.

LG47

3DJay

So...you didn't separate what was stated about Babylonians, from what was stated about neo-Babylonians/neo-Assyrians?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon...ylonian_period
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon...haldean_Era.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria...s_and_kingdoms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyria...ssyrian_Empire

1. It relates to the earlier, equinox falling in the last month, Babylonian version of the calendar, not stated as the one used during neo-Babylonian/neo-Assyrian times.

2. Even if it were...the key words you might want to highlight are "to return". In the 354 day year, the equinox would fall behind the start of the year, by about 10 days, each normal year. It would only fall on the equinox, every thrid year. Only the 364 day calendar, started in the later half of the 6th century, was able to keep the beginning of every year close to the vernal equinox.


Peace

3DJay

Sorry....

"Thus, ancient Mesopotamians declared a leap-year approximately every third year to keep the lunar months in their proper seasons. In leap-years, an extra lunar month was added, almost always as intercalary months XII2 or VI2 (Second Adar or Second Elul), allowing for the ˜rst of Nisan and Tishre (Months I, VII) to return to the eve of the ˜rst new moon after the equinoxes (according to the Babylonian system).6"

= Equinox in Nisan system, instead of earlier equinox in Adar system, but still using the 354 day normal year system. = during the second normal year the equinox would fall about Nisan 20.

You seem to have a strange interpretation.....nothing new.


Peace

Larsguy47

Thanks, sincerely, again for this great reference 3DJay!!

I read the entire article. Did you? It turns out the article uses specific references for the change in the system from the older Babylonian method of intercalating to keep the equinox in Adar or Adar II. That is, they note only 7 instances of the equinox falling in Nisan during this period between 624-600 BCE:

"According to the tables of R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.–A.D. 75 (Providence, 1956), 27–29,31 the Spring Equinox (March 20/21) occurs in either Adar or second Adar (Month XII, XII2) in every year in the Neo-Babylonian period (Nabopolassar to Nabonidus) [U]after 595 B.C.E. except 564. In contrast, the Spring Equinox occurs in Nisan at least seven times between 626 and 600."

This means that even out of 27 years between 626BCE to 600BCE only 7 out of 20 years fell in Nisan, showing that the greater majority of the equinoxes continued to fall in Adar I or II.

These seven years are listed here:

Footnote 33. 624, 621, 619, 616, 608–607, 600 B.C.E. (611, March 21 = Nisan 1). Likewise, the Spring Equinox falls in either Nisan or Adar in Neo-Assyrian documents from the reigns of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal.

So besides these specific seven references, which are the exception of nearly 1:4, the rules of Esarhaddon (681-669) and Assurbanipal (639-661BCE) are mentioned as having evidence of dating in Nisan. But note that the beginning of the rule of Esarhaddon in 681BCE would be the earliest reference to the above statement about this exception to the pattern of dating the equinox consistently in Adar I or II. Both 763BCE and 709BCE occur before this earliest dating. Thus the exceptional period in question in regards to Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian dating to Nisan would not include the Assyrian eclipses in 763 or 709BCE. That period is quite specific, in fact, being from 681-669BCE, then skipping to 639-661BCE, then seven from 625-600BCE, and never again after 595BCE for the latter Neo-Babylonian Period.

Therefore, intentional or not your statement: "In between, during the neo-Babylonian and neo-Assyrian times, the equinox fell around the middle of Nisan," is not accurate for three reasons:

1) Because the practice of the equinox falling during Nisan wasn't for every single year in those periods, but only for years in a ratio of about 1 in 4 (7:28), per the records. So 3 out of 4 equinoxes still fell in either Adar I or Adar II, per the old custom.

2) There is no way that the equinoxes could be made to always fall around the "middle of Nisan". It would was varied. (As you can see above, in 611 BCE it actually fell on the very 1st of Nisan.) That's just a technical note for you, that is not stated in the article nor would it be. The equinox when it did fall in Nisan would fall sporadically sometime during that month.

3) Finally, you suggest this exceptional pattern was employed, without being more specific, for the entire Neo-Assyrian Period and early Neo-Babylonian Period. That is not the case. Those periods are included for those instances found in the records, but the details in the article is quite specific about what those references are based upon and they do not reach back earlier than the rule of Esarhaddon whose rule is dated begining in 681BCE, 82 years after the 763BCE eclipse. Thus, specifically the old practice of always dating the equinox to fall in Adar I or II would still apply during both 763 and 709BCE, the eclipse reference we have in mind.

SO WHAT DOES THIS MEAN? (Besides I'm definitely taking you out to Starbucks! for a double-latte and a do-nut for giving me this article?) It means this article didn't help your cause, my son. tsk! tsk! tsk!

But that's okay. If I can read between the lines, which I do quite well, in fact, I read between lines that weren't even there at first! (And I'm an expert cloud reader too!) I figure you felt bad for me that some people were telling me to try Prozac for a change and get off those vitamin supplements (and whatever I'm smoking they wish they had) and you wanted to help me prove by any shred of doubt that 763BCE is misdated to month three, instead of month two. So you searched and searched until you found this wonderful article and gave it to me. You did a brilliant job! How SWEET of you!! Anyway, it's nice to know you're "in my corner" but (HUSH! HUSH!), it'll be our little secret! Promise. Just keep those pro-Biblical articls coming in, pal!!! :notworthy: :notworthy: :notworthy:

LG47

Larsguy47

No, no, my friend. You misunderstood. Let me break it down for you. It's all in this sentence here:

"..allowing for the 1st of Nisan and Tishre (Months I, VII) to return to the eve of the 1st new moon AFTER the equinoxes (according to the Babylonian system)."

Now this entire passage is talking about WHY an intercalary month is introduced. Now what happens is that normally the equinox is going to fall in month 12, all by itself. But 12 lunar months fall behind the solar year by about 11 days every year. So that in three years it's falling a month behind which means the equinox would end up falling in Nisan rather than Adar. You see? Adar I would start so early that it was over before the equinox and thus Nisan, month 1, would end up with the equinox.

So what they do is introduce a second Adar, Adar II. So even though the equinox that year didn't fall in Adar I, and would have fallen in Nisan, they make the next month the 13th month, Adar II, which is then followed by Nisan. So in this way, the normal "Babylonian system" of always having the new moon of Nisan fall AFTER the equinox is reinstituted.

This is a general reference to the Babylonian system and does not specifically reference those exceptional times during the Neo-Assyrian and early Neo-Babylonian Period where they did find some evidence of a few years where the equinox did occur in Nisan. But this is rare.

Further, it would be interesting to see if those very years where the equinoxes fell in Nisan if it was permitted to do so because the following intercalation was going to occur in the Elul (month VI) for that year. But that's another research item.

In summary, the above statement is a general reference as to the basis of the "Babylonian system" which introduces an intercalary 13th month, and the stated purpose of that that was to keep the spring equinox in Adar or Adar II. That way the first of the year on Nisan 1 always followed the equinox which fell near the end of the previous year.

So that statement alone redeems Wikipaedia now, whose general statement about the Babylonians never dating the equinox in Nisan is consistent with the actual findings, or at least as generally quoted. Archaeologists are always finding new things and things have to be updated.

Just as a historical context, the eclipse occurs during the reign of Assurdan III (771-754 BCE per current dating).

Still, great reference! Thanks!

How great a reference? Definitely will be quoting from this rather than Wikipedia on this!!! That's how good this is. Thanks!

LG47

3DJay

4.ÙFor the two Mesopotamian systems for equinoxes and solstices: A Babylonian system where the equinoxes and solstices fall in Months XII, III, VI, IX, and a Neo-Assyrian period system where the date for equinoxes and solstices occurred one month later in Months I, IV, VII, X, see Excursus II below (42–44). According to both systems Nisan was the ˜rst month of the year (cf. Cohen, The Cultic Calendars, 14–20, for the almost universal spring New Year in ancient Mesopotamia).


6.ÙThe last new moon before the equinox according to the Neo-Assyrian period system. For months other than Adar and Elul as intercalary months, see Cohen, The Cultic Calendars, 5 no. 2. For intercalary Nisan (Month I2), see CAD N/2 266b).


Previous discussions of the two systems, with further bibliography, include F. Al-Rawi and A. George, AfO 38/39, 60–61; A. George, ZA 81 (1991), 301–3 (review of Hunger-Pingree Mul-Apin) and, earlier, B. L. van der Waerden, “Babylonian Astronomy. III. The Earliest Astronomical Computations,” JNES 10 (1951), 20–27. For the return to the “Babylonian” ‘XII, III, VI, IX’-system in the Late Babylonian period after 502 B.C.E. see J. Britton, “Scienti˜c Astronomy in Pre-Seleucid Babylon,” in H. Galter, ed., Grazer Morgenländische Studien 3 (1993), 66–68.


32.ÙCf. n. 33 below, and note that according to Parker and Dubberstein (1956), 27, March 20–21 fell in the month of Shevat (Month XI)! in 595 B.C.E. The spring equinox must fall in Nisan in years when the ˜rst of Adar (or second Adar in leap-years) occurs on or before February 18th. In such years, the ˜rst of Nisan would occur no later than March 19th (or in the case of Gregorian leap-years, with an extrapolated Feb. 29th, March 18th).


33.Ù624, 621, 619, 616, 608–607, 600 B.C.E. (611, March 21 = Nisan 1). Likewise, the Spring Equinox falls in either Nisan or Adar in Neo-Assyrian documents from the reigns of Esarhaddon and Assurbanipal; see Parpola, Letters from Assyrian Scholars, 2:360–61, and 382–83, Appendix A 2. For what may be a modern parallel to the possible Neo-Babylonian calendrical reform, compare the early Soviet Union’s adoption of a modi˜ed Gregorian calendar in preference to the Julian calendar, which was used during the Czarist period. The apparent Neo-Babylonian return to the older Babylonian system following the fall of the Assyrian empire might re˘ect political-ideological, as well as astronomical-calendrical, considerations.


Peace

Larsguy47

The POINT here is that the article gives the basis for the exceptional references during "parts of" the Neo-Babylonian and Neo-Assyrian Period. The earliest practice noted would be during the reign of Essarhaddon who doesn't date past 685BCE. Now that is Neo-Assyrian, of course. The Neo-Babylonian Period where the equinox occurs sometimes in Nisan is only between 625BCE to 595BCE, since after 595BCE it consistently never occurs in Nisan apparently (except for one year mentioned).

Thus it is not ALL the "Neo-Babylonian" period, and not ALL the Neo-Assyrian Period, but just during the reign of those two kings and from 625-600BCE.

Plus even during that period we have a quote from some text where they confirm that based upon stelar observation, with the stellar year not having started yet, thus potentially missing the end of Adar I that they should introduce an intercalary month, which would cause the new year to begin in Adar II. This is consistent with a "rule" generally of at least preferring in normal years, where perhaps an Elul II (intercalation in month 6) wasn't planned, to have the equinox always fall in the latter part of the previous year and before the beginning of the new year.

LG47

Larsguy47

This reference, by far, is the greatest argument yet for redating the 763 BCE eclipse to 709BCE.

This shows that the Assyrians were quite advanced in determining the new year but that it was their preference to have the new year, the equinox, fall during Adar. If it was too late for Adar, then Adar II with an intercalation.

See, they considered it "bad luck" if Adar passed without a new year occurring.

LG47

3DJay

Here....let's just try some simple math, Lars.

Year 1, Nisan 1 = vernal equinox (lets say, Gregorian, March 20).

You show me how any year, with 354, 360, or even 364, days, can land year 2, Nisan 1, right on, or after, the next vernal equinox (Gregorian, March 20), when a full year is about 365 1/4 days.

Show me your creative math skills.


Peace