Hi CF,
Okay, I finally looked up the VAT4956 reference at this site. This site DOES NOT do any calculations. All they do (which is good) is posts the Sachs/Hunger outdated reference. A scan of the actual text. Thus you have Sachs/Hunger's "moon" reference in line 18 which is an ERROR.
So this is nothing more than a great place to get the transliteration and the translation from Sachs/Hunger, which is not questioned.
Thus here's your opportunity.
GO TO LINE THREE and observe that what Sachs/Hunger calls the "Rear Foot of the Lion" (GIR ar sa UR-A) is different from what they call the "Bright star behind the Lion's Foot" in Lines 14 and 18! These are two different stars. The Moon was long gone out of Virgo by the 15th so the "moon" is not accurate but nor is it noted to be an error. If you remove the moon from there and look on that date, you should see Venus directly below beta-Virginis. If beta-Virginis is thus by the text identified as the "bright star behind the Lion's Foot" then the Lion's Foot (Rear Foot of the Lion) must be the star in front of it which is sigma-Leonis. Thus calling the RFL in Line 3 "beta-Virginis" is incorrect.
Note that Sachs Hunger did not assign the stars vs transliteration evenly. That is, for Lines 3, 14 and 18 they could have said, beta-Virginis, eta-Virginis and eta-Virginis, which would have shown the difference. OR, they could have done both transliterations which is "Rear Foot of the Lion" and "Bright Star Behind the Lion's Foot"; again, you would have noticed two different stars. But instead, they mix it up so that only if you have the transliteration would you know the difference. Line 3 is given a star assignment but lines 14 and 18 the transliateration. Thus Line 3 is "beta-Virginis" and most casual researchers (i.e. Neugebaur) think that the BSBLF is also beta-Virginis! But they are two different star references! Venus below beta-Virginis on the 15th proves that the reference to the BSBLF is beta-Virginis and that the Rear Foot of the Lion must be sigma-Leonis, which is not what Sachs/Hunger is representing, nor correcting even with this reference you found. It remains on the books as an error and a deception.
Aren't you even a least bit curious why two professors would "miss this"? Not just miss Venus being there but think the moon was still in Virgo and not note an "error" as they did in Line 3? And mixing star assignment with transliteration worked! Neugebaur never caught on that line 3 was not a beta-Virginis reference but a sigma-Leonis reference nor apparently was he corrected by Sachs/Hunger on this point. But WHY?
Anyway, thanks for the reference. I thought it was something "new" and newly researched but it's just a "copy" of Sachs/Hunger's errors and misrepresentations.
But at least you have your own program and you're checking this out for yourself.
Thanks, though, for the reference. This is a great resource for the transliteration and translation.
Finally, once Neugebaur understood that Line 14 and 18 were "beta-Virginis" they did note that Line 14 was an "error" for the day before as line 3 was an "error for th 8th" when the text said 9th. The error is the same when compared thus both lunar positions belong to the same lunar cycle. It does not match up to 511BCE specifically though, until you adjust line 8 to 4 cubits below beta-Geminorum which I found to be 13.5 hours too early or 10.5 hours to late since the moon adjusted to 4 cubits below beta-G when I was at the longitude of Hawaii. Discovering a text match for the moon 1 cubit before sigma-Leonis on the 9th of Nisan and 1 cubit in front of beta-Virginis (BSBLF) on the 5th of Sivan was by incidental discovery. So it sort of makes sense.
I've got to look at my computer again. I don't have all my references otherwise this would be easier but somewhere I'm sure there is an explanation.
Thanks, again for this reference. I'm glad I checked it out and can DISMISS it as nothing new. All they do is quote Sachs/Hunger's work, uncorrected.
JC
