Venus Moves Irregularly
Worlds in Collision, 1950
p.198-200
In the library of Assurbanipal in Nineveh were stored astronomical books of his and of previous ages; in the ruins of this library Sir Henry Layard found the Venus tablets.
There arose the question: From what period do the observations of these tablets date? Schiaparelli investigated this problem and "as an example of method his work is excellent." He decided that "the inquiry could be limited to the seventh and eighth centuries."
The year-formula of an early king, Ammizaduga, was discovered on one of the tablets, and since then the tablets are usually ascribed to the first Babylonian dynasty; however, a scholar has offered evidence to the effect that the year-formula of Ammizaduga was inserted by a scribe in the seventh century. (If the tablets originated in the beginning of the second millennium, they would prove only that Venus was even then an errant comet.)
Following are a few excerpts from the Venus tablets:
- "On the 11th of Sivan, Venus disappeared in the west, remaining absent in the sky for 9 months and 4 days, and on the 15th of Adar she was seen in the east."
The next year,
- "On the 10th of Arahsamna, Venus disappeared in the east, remaining absent 2 months and 6 days in the sky, and was seen on the 16th of Tebit in the west."
The following year Venus disappeared in the west on the 26th of Ulul (Elul), remaining absent from the sky for eleven days, and was seen on the 7th of intercalary Ulul in the east.
The year thereafter Venus disappeared in the east on the 9th of Nisan, remaining absent for 5 months and 16 days, and was seen the 25th of Ulul in the west.
In the fifth year of the observations, Venus disappeared in the west on the 5th of Ayar (Ijar), remaining absent from the sky for seven days, and reappeared in the east on the 12th of Ayar; the same year it disappeared on the 20th of Tebit in the east, remaining absent from the sky one month, and on the 21st day of Sabat (Shevat) it appeared in the west, and so on.
How explain these observations of the ancient astronomers, modern astronomers and historians have asked. Were they written in a conditional form ("If Venus disappeared on the 11th of Sivan...")? No, they were expressed categorically.
The observations were "inaccurately" registered, decided some authors. However, inaccuracy may account for a few days' difference but not for a difference of months.
"The invisibility of Venus at superior conjunction is given as 5 moths 16 days instead of the correct difference of 2 months 6 days," noted the translators of the text, wonderingly.
"The period between the heliacal setting of Venus and its rise is 72 days. But in the Babylonian-Assyrian astrological texts, the period varies from one month to five months -- too long and too short: the observations were defective," wrote another scholar.
"The impossible interval shows that the data are not trustworthy." "Obviously, the days of the month have been mixed up. As the impossible intervals show, the months are also wrong," wrote still another author.
It is difficult to imagine how such obvious errors could have been committed. The dates are written in a contemporary document; they are not a poetical composition but a dry record, and each item in the record is stated in dates as well as in the number of days between the dates.
Similar difficulties are encountered by the scholars who try to understand the Hindu tables of the movements of the planets. The only explanation proposed is: "All the manuscripts are completely corrupted....The details referring to Venus...are very difficult to unriddle." "No attention at all was paid to the actual movements in the sky."
~Immanuel Velikovsky, 1950