Scholar: You mention recent research that you believe supports current dating of the data for Vat 4956. I cheked Furuli's bibliography and it appears that John Steele is cited but not the others. If you believe that these articles are important then why not forward or convey this information to Furuli for comment. It is probably the case that this recent research is simply based upon older or recent translations of VAT 4956. Furuli based his new research on his own independent transalation of the document hence the data is shown to different.
See my post: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/145519/2656255/post.ashx#2656255
Neil,
The authors I cited "confidently" confirm the accepted date of 568/567 BCE for the astronomical data in VAT 4956.
In addition to the article "The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis," by Dr. Richard Stephenson and Dr. David M. Willis, pp. 421-428, in Under One Sky: Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East (Band 297 in the series Alter Orient und Altes Testament), edited by John M. Steele and Annette Imahusen, published in 2002 by Ugarit-Verlag, Munster, the information has also been published in several different professional journals since 1999 (including the Journal for the History of Astronomy and Astronomy and Geophysics.) It has been reviewed by scholars from a number of disciplines, including physicists, Assyriologists, and archeo-astronomers.
FWIW, I also verified the authors' results myself by inputting them into an astronomy software program.
As you know, Furuli has a lengthy discussion of the lines of text in VAT 4956 which give various planetary, stellar, and lunar positions for different months and days and of a certain Babylonian year.
What you are probably NOT aware of is that Furuli deliberately chose to completely ignore an entire series of highly important data in VAT 4956, data which pinpoints the exact day on which the observations were made.
You may recall that Furuli discusses line after line of the text of VAT 4956, even going into great detail about how clearly each cuneiform sign was written, and whether it might be read another way.
However, he just skips over the places in the text where the Babylonian astronomers give very precise measurements for a set of time-intervals called "the Lunar Three."
The Babylonians kept careful track of sunrise, sunset, moonrise, and moonset. Then they recorded time intervals between these occurrences. (For instance, they recorded the time interval between moonrise and sunrise on day 26 of Month 2. )
These time intervals can be calculated using modern astronomy programs. It is actually very easy to do. All you have to do is find what time the sun rose and set and what time the moon rose and set, and then subtract to find out how many hours and minutes passed between these events.
One time-degree equals 4 minutes. So if 92 minutes, for example, passed between moonrise and sunrise, you divide by 4 and convert 92 minutes to 23 degrees.
Scientists have computed and verified the Lunar Three measurements in VAT 4956. They are extremely accurate, on the order of 1 time-degree ( = 4 minutes), for the year 568/567 BCE.
Even thought he goes into a lengthy discussion of a myriad of tiny details from the the text of VAT 4956, Furuli does not even mention the significance of the Lunar Three observations.
He does not discuss them or calculate them or print them in his charts.
He passes over them in complete silence.
I have done the calculations for the year he favors, 588/587 BCE. The numbers are not even close.
The "Lunar Three" observations recorded in VAT 4956 totally demolish his argument in favor of the year 588 BCE.
Regards,
Marjorie
