Larsguy47

ECLIPSE TIMES PROBABLY "OPTIONAL" FOR THIS PERIOD


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
-0004 Mar 23 18:20 T+ 61
-0004 Sep 15 20:10 T+ 66
-0003 Mar 13 00:40 P 71
-0003 Sep 05 11:06 P 76
-0002 Jan 31 07:43 N 43
-0002 Mar 02 01:06 N 81
-0002 Jul 27 18:44 N 48
-0002 Aug 26 03:32 N 86
-0001 Jan 20 11:52 P 53
-0001 Jul 17 05:12 P 58
---------------------------------------------------------------------
0000 Jan 09 23:08 Tm 63
0000 Jul 05 08:37 T- 68
0000 Dec 29 14:31 P 73
----------------------------------------------------------------------


The above eclipses are those that occur during the period in question from 4 BC to 1 BC. Please note that the "0000 Dec 29" eclipse would be dated Dec. 29, 1 BC and would be 18 days before Herod's death when his death is dated to Shebat 2, 1 AD (there was no zero year).

However, for those wanting to use the eclipse reference effectively as a match to the Josephus reference, my position is not to be overly strict as far as the timing of the eclipses and what might or might not have been seen in Jerusalem at the time, even though these references are supplied by NASA.

The reason is because eclipse times are quite subjective and the "popular" reference is based upon Seleucid Period astronomical information, which is now under question of having been purposely revised as far as the lunar times.

For instance, two critical astronomical texts, the VAT4956 and the Strm. Kambyses 400 (SK400) vary in lunar times by up to 13.5 hours, suggesting lunar times were revised after the VAT4956 was created.

A further suggestion at an attempt at lunar time revision is also exposed by the VAT4956 in a representation of Line 18 of the text by the original translators, Abraham Sachs and Herman Hunger. Line 18 was broken off so that a plantary or lunar reference position on the 15th of Sivan immediately below the "bright star behind the Lion's Foot" (MUL KUR sa TIL GIR UR-A) was left to calculation. Obviously if the date and position were given in the text it would have been a simple matter to simply identify which planet was in reference, or note a blank. Sachs/Hunger chose to insert "the moon" here, when the moon was no where near this position in Virgo on that date, but clearly 10 days away in the constellation of Capricorn. A lunar position in Virgo on the 5th was also noted in the text. So what gives? What gives is that Venus was in that position on the 15th of Sivan, precisely as described in the text. One wonders how these experts could have missed this one until you realize that Sachs/Hunger was assigning this star and position to one other than is self-indicated by the text. You see, Venus was immediately below beta-Virginis on the 15th, thus identifying beta-Virginis as the VAT4956 reference as the "bright star behind the Lion's Foot." That would not be unusual since the normal "Rear Foot of the Lion" (GIR ar sa UR-A) in earlier texts was always sigma-Leonis. It is at this point, however, we note that Sachs-Hunger had assigned the "Rear Foot of the Lion" in Line 3, not to sigma-Leonis, but to beta-Virginis. Thus they had transferred the assignment of the "bright star behind the Lion's Foot" in Line 18 to the next star the moon would pass in Virgo, eta-Virginis, thus a gross misrepresentation of what stars in this case the text is actually referring to, proven by Line 18, by the specific position of Venus on the 15th of Sivan. One presumption is that if this line reference were left blank, anybody could look it up and see that Venus would belong there and the "error/contradiction" would become apparent and would be the same as putting Venus there which would require an explanation. Inserting "the moon" in that black space, thus seemed the least noticeable red flag for their choice to make these star assignments.

But that brings us to WHY. The reason why is because in later texts the "Rear Foot of the Lion" appears in the position of beta-Virginis rather than the original reference as sigma-Leonis. That NAME CHANGE, subjectively would add 12 hours of lunar time, tending to artificially speed up the planet. So you can see what I'm getting at. Seleucid Period references, particularly lunar references are suspect for revision for some reason but that is the basis for the major canons and lunar times.

Thus the canons, in general, should be used with caution and qualification, effective in establishing whether or not an eclipse event occurred that month or not, or to test the intensity if that is a historical detail, but not the timing when it becomes a crucial issue of exclusion when other historical factors suggest the contrary. Case in point, the December 29 eclipse which would work if Herod's death fell on Shebat 2, 1 AD, which historical indicators point to, but the specific eclipse time doesn't work.

The lunar times are so out of whack, in fact, a device called the "delta-T" was invented to try and better align the times. This extra timing is decreased over 2500 years a few seconds per year down to our day so that there is alignment with the current eclipse times. But it's meaningless.

For example. Likely the best ever chance at harmony for an exact eclipse time is a matchup of the SK400 reference to one of two eclipses mentioned for the same year occurring on Tammuz 14 and Tebet 14, two eclipses six months apart. Ptolemy's canon mentions this first eclipse and gives the precise time for this eclipse as "one hour before midnight." This is precisely the timing match up given in the text which is 3 hours 20 minutes "before night", a division of the night 32 minutes after sunset. Sunset was at 7:09 p.m. "night" began 32 minutes later at 7:41 p.m. 3 hrs 20 minutes later would begin the eclipse at 10:61, that is, 11:01 p.m., which is "one hour before midnight." But if you check the timing for this eclipse for Babylon in the canon, it's 57 minutes too early.

Thus, on the outside back over of their book, Canon of LUNAR ECLIPSES, 1500 B.C.-A.D. 3000 it is interesting the authors Bao-Lin Liu and Alan D. Fiala note: "Because the rate of rotation of the Earth is not wall known for the distant past, nor is the motion of the Moon or the Sun well connected to observation the authors present the data in UT instead of TDT. Since delta-T at distanct epochs is of the order of hours they have not applied a gross correction--when required, the user may make any desired differential correction."

As I noted briefly above, these times can vary between 13.5 to up to 16:14 hours per comparisons made for lunar times or lunar positions. Case in point, in Line 8 of the VAT4956 another amazing chance at lunar-solar-earth coordination is referenced where on the first day of the month the new moon crescent's position in relation to beta-Geminorum (a prominent star in Gemini) is given at the time of sunset which was 4 cubits below the star. But per modern astronomical programs, from the location of Babylon at the time of sunset, the moon is slightly over 1 cubit below beta-Geminorium, a discrepancy of approximately 13.5 hours.

For the above reason, therefore, I don't believe when visibility or nonvisibility for a certain eclipse event becomes a preemptive issue, probably just determining that ane eclipse did or did not occur for that month is the best we can hope for. For that reason a more pertinent question as far as the dating for Herod's death on Shebat 2, 1 AD would not be whether an eclipse was visible or not on Tebet 14, but simply whether or not one occurred that year in that month.

When astronomy doesn't have to depend upon ancient text references, which could be inaccurate or fraudulent, then perhaps a more scientific rule can be applied, but that's not an option at this point.

Again emphasizing the subjectivity of specific lunar times I'll quote again from Bao and Fiala from the same book, page 6 regarding how eclipse times are determined:

Page 11: "No matter what form the theory takes, its accuracy is known only for the span of time which contains comparison observations. Outside that range, the divergence of the theory from reality is a serious concern, and must not be ignored. Observations which might be considered precise enough to use in shaping modern theories go back no more than 200 years at most; to make matters worse, the precision and reliability decrease as the time elapsed from the modern era increases."

Shy of throwing out all relevant eclipse times, just personally, my best correction/option was 16:14 for 531BCE; that is, 16 hours 14 minutes earlier than given by the canon by direct reapplication of the SK400 eclipses since the specific times are provided in this rare eclipse text. If that were applied to the December 29, 1 BC eclipse, adjusting the delta-T which decreases right at 2 hours between 531BC and 1BC, that eclipse would occur 14:14 minutes earlier than indicated -- potentially, theoretically.

THE CALCULATION: Per the NASA timing of 14:31, which is maximum intensity, London time, Jerusalem time would be 2 hours later at 16:31 (4:31 p.m.) The delta T offset for 540 BC is 4:42 and for 0 BC is 2:34, a difference of 2:08. The implied variance adjustment I got from the SK400 for 541BCE is 16:14 minutes which for 0 BC would be reduced by 2:08 giving us 14:06. Thus I could presumably adjust the Dec. 29 BCE eclipse based upon that adjustment back in time by 14 hours 6 minutes, which would be 2:25 a.m. for maximum intensity. The actual eclipse would have begun 1:17 earlier at around 1:08 a.m.

CONVERSELY, though, applying the same timing to the 4 BC eclipse (-003) which is maximal intensity at 0:40 a.m. London time, would be maximal at 2:40a.m. in Jerusalem. If we back up 14 hours 6 minutes, this lunar eclipse would occur at around 12:36 p.m. and thus would not have been seen in Jerusalem, it being seen clear around the other side of the planet.

Thus we deal with another potential issue. The Dec 29, 1 BC eclipse and the March 13, 4 BC eclipse are about 13 hours apart, virtually guaranteeing that if one were seen anything during the night same from midnight to 4 a.m. the other wouldn't be.

I know the above is a rather profound theory for those not that familiar with astronomy but suffice to say, it's rather interesting, in the least, that indeed an eclipse did occur 18 days before Shebat 2, 1 AD.

As a final note, another eclipse also occurs earlier on January 9, which would have still fallen on Tebet 14, 4 days after the Tebet 10 fast. However, this eclipse is eliminated as a potential because it falls on a sabbath day, aside from any other timing issues applied.

Larsguy47

The Fast day of Tebet 10 is easily confirmed as a well-established Jewish Feast day, mourning the date of the seige of Jerusalem. Shebat 2 is the established day and month of Herod's death shortly after an annual Jewish Fast followed by an eclipse. This fast and eclipse combination on the 10th and 14th of Tebet would precede Herod's death by 18 days, which fits this reference.


Yes, except you missed a significant important second eclipse occurring on 1BC DEC 29, presuming eclipses occurring before his death if it were dated on Shebat 2, 1 AD. The timing of eclipses, though are up for grabs as per my later post explaining why. Because there is some "question" in this regard, I don't deal with the timing issues as a preemptive but simply on whether an eclipse occurred or not that could have been potentially seen.


Correct. But we have the date of his death: Shebat 2. There are four national Jewish fasts, one in the fourth, fifth, seventh and tenth months. Herod died early in the 11th month, Shebat. The fast of the tenth month was on the 10th day. Thus Herod eclipse would have occurred just four nights later. Herod was already barely alive at the time, Josephus noting that the anger of this incident seemed to bring him back some energy for the occasion but he soon relapsed and was dead within 18 days of the entire incident and execution.


Besides the fact that the Fast on Tebet 10 is a better choice since it is just 22 days before Herod's death and just 4 days before an eclipse on the 14th, the Fast day in the seventh month for Gedaliah is celebrated 1 to 4 days after the first of the month. That introduces more time between the fast event and the eclipse. Furthermore, dating this event in the seventh month means the time period from this date until his death is approaching 5 months vs just 18 days.

Here's some information on the Fast of Gedaliah custom:

The surviving remnant of Jews was thus dispersed and the land remained desolate. In remembrance of these tribulations, Jewish sages instituted the 'Fast of the Seventh' (see Zechariah 8:19) on the day of Gedaliah's assassination in the seventh month.

There is some suggestion that Gedaliah was slain on the first day of Tishri, but the fast was postponed till after Rosh Hashanah, since fasting is prohibited during a festival. Concerning this fast day, the Rabbis have said that its aim is to establish that the death of the righteous is likened to the burning of the house of God. Just as they ordained a fast upon the destruction of the Jewish Temple, likewise they ordained a fast upon the death of Gedaliah.


The Jews would often break the customs when the situation demanded it as in the case with Jesus. But I think if this was a critical exception it would have been mentioned by Josephus, not that other problems as above would have already precluded a Tishri event versus as a Tebet event.

Larsguy47

gregor

irony is dead.

squiz

I am having trouble following these dates and what you are referring to. It would help novices such as myself if you supplied approx. modern calendar references.

I think I left it out because of the time of day. Looking closer at the delta-T references, it appears that it might be possible for that eclipse to have been visible. Not sure yet though.

How do we know when Herod's death was and with what certainty?
Was 18 days enough time for the recorded travels and healing attempts to have taken place?

Which eclipse are you talking about here?

Sorry, I have no idea what this is all about.

Are you saying that the executions would not have taken place 3 days after Yom Kippur (in 5 BC) due to some custom? I thought the argument was that it would have caused a riot among the fanatical pilgrims. Is this a different argument or did I misunderstand it.

JoeWallack

The Wonder Of The Year


JW:
Everyone agrees that there is an extant coin of Herod Antipas with regnal year 45. It's generally agreed that he reigned until 39/40 CE. Do the Matthew. Even Finegan, who is Beyer's priMary source, accepts the consensus view of Authority that if you accept the evidence of extant coins here at face value, so to speak, than Herod the Great died 4 BCE.

Here's where Carrier points this out:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ius.html#alive

"And then there is Antipas, whose dates are confirmed in extant coinage, according to Finegan himself."

To get around this problem Finegan argues that the Three Tetrarchs were all co-regents with Herod the Great in 4 BCE. This is the type of nonsense you run into.

The only Apologetic defense I've dealt with in detail in this Thread is the Textual variation in Josephus regarding the date of Philip's death:

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/t...hus/ant18.html

"6. About this time it was that Philip, Herod's ' brother, departed this life, in the twentieth year of the reign of Tiberius, (14) after he had been tetrarch of Trachonitis and Gaulanitis, and of the nation of the Bataneans also, thirty-seven years."

Because it looks to me to be the only one of any substance as it involves a recognized and significant Textual variation that directly supports Herod the Great dying in 2 BCE.

After looking at Beyer's argument in detail (as Carrier did before me) it's clear to me that Josephus Likely wrote "twentieth" supporting a date of Herod the Great's death of 4 BCE and less importantly that Beyer is either a Truth-Challenged Advocate for Jesus or simply Intelligence-Challenged. I find it hard to believe that someone who presumably knows Latin and Greek would be the latter but perhaps Jeffrey and Roger are the ones to ask on that subject. Alternatively, maybe Beyer only learned the Greek and Latin words for "twentieth" and "twenty-second" or even just "twenty-second" which would explain a lot.

I think Richard Carrier has already adequately explained Why "twentieth" is likely original:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...ius.html#alive

"What about that obscure textual variant? Finegan's only source for this claim is a mysterious, unpublished speech given by David Beyer.[17.3] In Finegan's summary, he never identifies any actual manuscripts, and though Beyer names them he does not identify their relationship to other manuscripts or their known quality or origins. All Finegan (and Beyer) does is "count manuscripts" and argue that older manuscripts are the most reliable. But neither is true, as any palaeographer knows. We have no way of knowing which of the manuscripts Beyer counted were copies of other extant manuscripts (and thus completely irrelevant to the question), and we have no idea whether the manuscripts he looked at are known to be reliable or unreliable or to what degree or in what ways. Older manuscripts can sometimes be poorer than new manuscripts, since newer ones can be based on even older but more reliable archetypes (see "On Calvinist Scorn of Textual Criticism" for more about textual analysis), and older ones may stem from especially faulty textual traditions. Moreover, Beyer examined only manuscripts in the British Museum and the Library of Congress--yet the best manuscripts are in France and Italy--one of which is the oldest, Codex Ambrosianae F 128, inscribed in the 11th century (the oldest manuscript Beyer examined was 12th century); and another is the most reliable: Codex Vaticanus Graecus 984, transcribed in 1354; both confirming a reading of "twentieth," and thus invalidating all his conclusions from the start. Finegan and Beyer seem ignorant of all of these issues. Consequently, we cannot trust them here.

When, instead, we examine all existing critical editions of Josephus, composed by scholars (Niese, Naber, and Thackeray) who themselves looked at the manuscripts, and properly, identifying relationships among them and assessing their reliability, we find a very different story. First of all, little more than a handful of manuscripts are worth even examining for this passage--yet Beyer is counting dozens (none of which are even among the best), proving that his investigation is completely disregarding the proper criteria of textual analysis. Second, all scholarly editions agree: the word for "twentieth" (eikostô) exists in all extant Greek manuscripts worth considering. Where does the reading "twenty-second" come from? A single manuscript tradition of a Latin translation (which reads vicesimo secundo). Beyer's case completely falls apart here. The Latin translations of Josephus are notoriously inferior, and are never held to be more accurate than extant Greek manuscripts, much less all of them. Indeed, this is well proven here: whereas the Latin has 22 for the year of Tiberius, it also has 32, or even in some editions 35, as the year of Philip, not the 37 that Finegan's argument requires. Thus, clearly the Latin translator has botched all the numbers in this passage. Any manuscripts that Beyer examined were no doubt either from these inferior Latin manuscripts, or Greek translations from these Latin manuscripts. Therefore, there is no basis whatever for adopting "twenty second" as the correct reading. Philip was crowned in 4 B.C. exactly as Josephus says, and just as all the other tetrarchs were who inherited portions of Herod's kingdom. This means Herod died in 4 B.C., exactly as Josephus claims."

Specifically, Carrier describes who has determined that "twentieth" is likely original (Niese, Naber, and Thackeray) and why ("who themselves looked at the manuscripts, and properly, identifying relationships among them and assessing their reliability"). So I see no need to request that Carrier expand his explanation in his detailed article.

Judge, you seem to be the most Objective here of Carrier's detractors on the subject of the Birth Dating error. I don't see any of the other issues brought up in this Thread as worthy of much discussion. What do you now see as the best potential evidence of Herod the Great dying in 2 BCE?



Joseph

"Remember Jerry, it's not a lie if you really believe it's true." - George Costanza

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Johann_Kaspar

You got it wrong. The fast is not linked to the eclipse. All we know about the fast is that it was one fast during the high priesthood of this Matthias.

The high priest was sacked , that is the eagle case.

Johann_Kaspar

In Josephus, the fast day is not linked to the eclipse. See above. 13 March stands.

Steven Avery

A point of note. I went to see if aspiring professional historian Richard Carrier agrees with Johann on this (see bold part below) and bumped into something curious and strange, through the Looking Glass.

Apparently Richard Carrier in an exercise of "1984 professional historicity" has one summary of his 5th Edition (2006) article that has an important reference and blunder that is not in the primary public article. (Removed ? .. omitted .. hard to say.)

The Richard Carrier text on the Megillath Ta’anith that we have been working with (emphasis added)-

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...58#post4201258
Josephus also mentions a lunar eclipse soon before Herod's death, and astronomers note there was such an eclipse in 5 B.C.E. and 1 B.C.E. Inerrantists therefore want Herod to have died in or shortly after 1 B.C.E. However, not only is all evidence against such a notion, but the Jewish Scroll of Fasting records the calendar day of Herod's death, and it preceded that of the eclipse of 1 B.C.E, but not that of 5 B.C.E. Since Josephus says his death followed (not preceeded) an eclipse, the eclipse Josephus mentions was probably that of the year 5.

This was taken from the following page, so far unchanged ..

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php...ier_.282006.29
I thoroughly document all the arguments and evidence relating to this discrepancy in an extensive article at the Secular Web, The Date of the Nativity in Luke (http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...quirinius.html) (5th ed., 2006). I will provide here only a summary of the major conclusions of that article, along with some of the most relevant evidence.

Now we have to go back and do some Carrier Apologetics. Did Richard have the Jewish Scroll of Fasting reference in the article originally and then realized that it actually was against his position ?

So since it didn't support his attempted apologetics case against Luke and Matthew harmony (worse, it appears to be a major counterpoint mentioned by some folks writing for a later Herod death, one about which Richard Carrier has given neither mention or response) .. as an aspiring "professional historian" Richard Carrier simply removed the reference entirely (without creating a new edition) .. zap ? Yet he failed to remove it in the secondary '5th Edition-2006' article ?

Does an aspiring professional historian simply excise discussion points that he himself raises when they are found lacking or refuted and turn out to be a strong argument against his own skeptic apologetic position ?

Very strange.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

judge

Wouldn't this place the death of Herod the great in 5 or 6BCE or earlier?

Well I dont know how objective I am, I would like to be, but probably have to sit with these things for a while. Thats usually how I change my mind on things.

I am going away for the weekend (its Fri morning here) so I'll try to get back on this next week. Have a good one.

spin

At the time of Quirinius's census, Galilee and Judea were two separate political entities.


spin