The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

Furuli’s Second Book 491
(4) Obv.´ line 12: “Month III, (the first of which was identical with) the 30 th (of the
preceding month), the moon became visible behind Cancer; it was thick; sunset to moonset:
20 o [= 80 minutes]”.
Simanu 1 = 20/21 June 568 BCE:
In 568 BCE the 1 st day of Month III (Simanu) fell on 20/21 June. Day 1 began in the
evening after sunset on June 20. At that time the new moon became visible behind (= east
of) Cancer, exactly as the tablet says. According to my astro-program the distance from
sunset to moonset was c. 23 o (= 92 minutes; from sunset c. 19:06 to moonset c. 20:38). This
is not very far from the measurement of the Babylonian astronomers. The discrepancy of 3 o
is acceptable in view of the primitive instruments they seem to have used. As N. M.
Swerdlow has suggested, “the measurements could have been made with something as
simple as a graduated rod held at arm’s length.” (N. M. Swerdlow, The Babylonian Theory of the
Planets, Princeton University Press, 1998, pp. 40, 187)
Furuli’s date: Simanu 1 = 30 June 588 BCE:
As Furuli dated the 1 st of Ayyaru to June 1, and as the tablet shows that Ayyaru had 29 days,
he should date the 1 st of Simanu to June 30, which he does. And it is true that we do find
the moon behind Cancer on this date. Furuli states that “it was 6 o to the left (behind) the
center of Cancer, so the fit is excellent.” But he has to add immediately that “it was so close to
the sun that it was not visible.” (Furuli, p. 315. Emphasis added.)
The reason is that the conjunction had occurred earlier on the very same day, at about 03:30.
(H. H. Goldstine, op. cit., p. 35) In the evening the time distance between sunset (at c. 19:09)
and moonset (at c. 19:32) was still no more than 23 minutes, i.e., less than 6 o , so the moon
was too close to the sun to be visible. Furuli does not comment on the fact that the tablet
gives the distance between sunset and moonset as much as 20 o (80 minutes), showing that
the moon on Simanu 1 was far enough from the sun during the observation to be visible,
contrary to the situation in the evening of June 30 in 588. For this reason alone Furuli’s date
is disqualified.
(5) Obv.´ line 14: “Night of the 5 th , beginning of the night, the moon passed towards the
east 1 cubit [2 o ] the bright star at the end of the Lion’s foot [= β Virginis].”
Simanu 5 = 24/25 June 568 BCE:
In 568 BCE the 5 th of Simanu fell on 24/25 June according to the tables of R. A. Parker &
W. H. Dubberstein (Babylonian Chronology, 1956, p. 28). In the evening of the 24th, the moon
passed towards the east c. 2 o north of γ Virginis, not of β Virginis. So here is a problem.
Either the Babylonian scholar misnamed the star, or he misdated the observation by one
day. In the previous evening (on the 23 rd ), the moon passed c. 4 o above (north of) β
Virginis. Thus Johannes Koch translates the 5 th of Simanu into June 23 of the Julian
calendar and calculates that in the evening that day at 22:36 the moon was 4 o 17´ above and
0 o 55´ behind β Virginis. (See J. K och, “Zur Bedeutung von LÁL in den ‘Astronomical
Diaries’ und in der Plejaden-Schaltregel,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 49, 1997, p. 88.)
Furuli’s date: Simanu 5 = 4 July 588 BCE:
Furuli dates the 5 th of Simanu to 4 July 588 BCE. He claims (p. 315) that on this date “the
fit is excellent: the moon passed 1 cubit (2 o ) above β Virginis.” Unfortunately, it did not.
When the Babylonian day began (at sunset, c. 19:10) the moon was already c. 2 ½ cubits (5 o )
behind (east of) β Virginis. It had passed above β Virginis about 12 hours earlier, in the
morning before moonrise, but that would have been on Simanu 4, not on Simanu 5. So the
fit is far from “excellent.”
(6) Obv.´ line 15: “Night of the 8 th , first part of the night, the moon stood 2 ½ cubits [= 5 o ]
below β Librae.”