The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

490 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED
In conclusion, the two dates for 1 Nisannu (1 st and 2 nd May) that Furuli actually uses in his
computations are impossible. And should he have used May 3 as the date for 1 Nisannu,
this would not have been of much help to him, as all the three dates are unacceptably late as
the beginning of the Babylonian year.
(2) Obv.´ line 3 says: “Night of the 9 th (error for: 8 th ), the beginning of the night, the moon
stood 1 cubit [= 2 o ] in front of [= west of] β Virginis.”
Nisannu 8 = 29/30 April 568 BCE:
In 568 BCE the 8th of Nisannu fell on 29/30 April. In the beginning of the night on April
29 the moon stood about 3.6 o northwest of β Virginis, or about 2 o to the west (in front of)
and 3 o to the north of (above) the star. This agrees quite well with the Babylonian
measurement of 2 o , which, of course, is a rather rough and rounded-off figure.
Furuli’s date: Nisannu 9 = 11 May 588 BCE:
As Furuli (incorrectly) dates 1 Nisannu to 2 May in 588, he should have dated the 8 th and 9 th
of Nisannu to May 9 and 10, respectively. However, he moves the dates another day
forward, to May 10 and 11, respectively, as is shown in his table at the bottom of page 313.
Based on this error, he claims that, “On Nisanu 9 [May 11], the moon stood 1 cubit (2 o ) in
front of β Virginis, exactly what the tablet says.” (Furuli, p. 313)
But this is wrong, too. In the “beginning of the night” of 11 May 588 the moon stood, not
to the west of (in front of), but far to the east of (behind) β Virginis (about 13 o to the east of
this star at 20:00). To add to the mess, the altitude/azimuth position of the moon in Furuli’s
two columns to the right in his table is wrong, too, as it shows the position near midnight,
not at “the beginning of the night” as the tablet says.
(3) Obv.´ line 8: “Month II, the 1 st (of which followed the 30 th of the preceding month), the
moon became visible while the sun stood there, 4 cubits [= 8 o ] below β Geminorum.”
Ayyaru 1 = 22/23 May 568 BCE:
In 568 BCE the 1 st day of Month II (Ayyaru) fell on 22/23 May. The distance between
sunset this evening (at c. 18:49) and moonset (at c. 20:46) was c. 117 minutes. This distance
between the moon and the sun was long enough for the new moon to become visible while
the sun still “stood there,” i.e., just above the horizon. At its appearance the new moon
stood about 7.3 o south of (below) β Geminorum, which is very close to the position given
on the tablet.
Furuli’s date: Ayyaru 1 = 1 June 588 BCE:
As Furuli has dated Nisannu 1 to 1 May, and later to 2 May, the 1 st of Ayyaru should fall one
lunar month later. Furuli (p. 314) dates it to June 1. This, however, conflicts with his earlier
dates, because if Nisannu 1 began in the evening of 1 May as he holds at first (p. 296), and if
Nisannu had 30 days as the tablet says, he should have dated the 1 st of Ayyaru to May 31.
But because he later on redates the beginning of Nisannu 1 to the evening of 2 May (p. 312),
he is now able to date the 1 st of Ayyaru to 1 June. But as was pointed out earlier, the 2 May
date for Nisannu 1 is unacceptable, too, as the moon did not become visible until 3 May.
Furuli’s choice of 1 June seems to be due to the fact that the new moon could not be
sighted until that day. It became visible at sunset (c. 18:56) about 9.7 o below β Geminorum.
This is not “exactly 4 cubits below” this star, as Furuli states (p. 314), but close to 5 cubits
below it. Yet this would have been an acceptable approximation, had the date been right.
But it does not only conflict with Furuli’s dating of Nisannu 1 to 1 May; the month of
Ayyaru never began as late as in June. In addition, the altitude/azimuth position Furuli gives
in his table (+ 54 and 256) is also wrong, as it does not show the position of the moon at
sunset, but at c. 15:16, when it was still invisible. Actually, Furuli’s figures for the
altitude/azimuth position at the time of observation are so often erroneous that they will
henceforth be ignored. The only detail that fairly corresponds to the statement on the tablet,
then, is the position of the moon. Everything else is wrong.