587/607 Question...

by deaconbluez 129 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  AnnOMaly

  Hi 1914etc.

  Ann, did you check the links I gave?

  Yep.

  All those converters show that 15 July from 588 BC and 4 July from 568 BC correspond to the same day (13 or 19) and the same month (Tammuz, the 4th) in the Jewish calendar, which from what I know is similar to the Babylonian calendar.

  And did you read that I used to make the same mistake in thinking the Hebrew and Babylonian calendars correspond exactly? It turns out they don't.

  In 588, Nisan 1 began on the evening of April 3 (according to Parker & Dubberstein's well-researched tables). Therefore, July 15, 588 = month IV (Du'zu or Tammuz), day 15, 588.

  In 568, Nisan 1 began on the evening of April 22 - a little late due to an extra month XII immediately before. Therefore, July 4, 568 = month III (Simanu or Sivan), day 15, 568.

  Your Julian dates are referring to the lunar eclipses in those years. Since the Babylonian and Hebrew calendars were based on lunar phases, it would be impossible for an eclipse to occur on day 13 or 19 of a lunar month. They would have to occur on day 14 or 15 when the moon was full.
• 

  Leolaia

  Yeah, those calendar converters utilize the modern system of Jewish calendar reckoning and retroject it into the past; the Babylonians didn't have the identical system of intercalation and it is doubtful that the Jews did it the same way back then as well.
• 

  191419251975

  Hi AnnOMaly,
  
  I think those converters have a bad algorithm for the phases of the moon (or maybe they don't have one at all ), so you're right about their erroneous results. Though I still don't know what's the difference between the Jewish and Babylonian calendars. BTW, is it possible for 1 Nisan to have been on 23/24 March in 568 BC? Here is from where I've got that date:
  http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/phase/phases-0599.html
• 

  Leolaia

  191419251975.....See, for example, this webpage: http://www.polysyllabic.com/?q=calhistory/earlier/jewish
• 

  191419251975

  Thank you Leolaia for that link. I think that from the point of view of making an algorithm for conversions between lunar calendars the only meaningful difference between those calendars would have been the calculation / observation of the new moon. That would probably give a difference of maximum 2 days between those calendars.
• 

  Leolaia

  No, because it also affects which years get intercalated, whether a "metonic" cycle is followed or whether a different system is used. That is what AnnOMaly is getting at, 569/568 was an intercalated year in the Babylonian calendar whereas 589/588 was not. The algorithm for intercalation in those programs differs from what Babylonians themselves followed, meanwhile we know that the Jews followed a different ad hoc system ("The decision to insert an extra month was made by the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem on rather vague criteria such as the appearance of new plants") that cannot be reconstructed post facto.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  BTW, is it possible for 1 Nisan to have been on 23/24 March in 568 BC? Here is from where I've got that date:
  http://sunearth.gsfc.nasa.gov/eclipse/phase/phases-0599.html

  That was a good summary on the site Leolaia linked to.

  The year ending in Spring 568 (569/8) was a leap year, so the intercalary month XII began on 23/24 March 568. VAT 4956 attests to that, as well as business tablets from Nebuchadnezzar's 36th year.
• 

  AnnOMaly

  I need to make a correction. I had said:

  Your Julian dates are referring to the lunar eclipses in those years. Since the Babylonian and Hebrew calendars were based on lunar phases, it would be impossible for an eclipse to occur on day 13 or 19 of a lunar month. They would have to occur on day 14 or 15 when the moon was full.

  That was an inaccurate statement. Due to the moon's elliptical orbit, a full moon can sometimes occur on day 13 or day 16.

  (I should have remembered VAT 4956's line 16', where the moon was almost full on day 12 and therefore full on day 13.)
• 

  191419251975

  The beginning of the years in the Babylonian calendar was chaotic in the Neo-Babylonian period (no metonic cycle was followed), just like in the Jewish calendar. That means there can't be an accurate conversion algorithm between those calendars, covering that period. Well, at least I've learned something ...
  
  http://www.louisg.net/cycle_meton.htm
  http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/johncharlesverbeek/paper/BabylonianCalendar80000.html
• 

  Londo111

  marked for later reading