607 B.C.E.

[Ann O'Maly]

11 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

So a more logical look at this point would be, even with fine horses, the amount of travel would be within a 7-10 mile radius per day. Mainly, not to cause on due attention to themselves from enemy forces.

You think they would have attracted less attention going slower? Hm. Do you have any real reasons why a horse couldn't cover about 30 miles a day? Regarding the water issue, the Ahal Tekke was reported to have covered over 200 miles of desert in 3 days without water in that 1935 race (that's about 70 miles per day!). It's likely the crown prince and his small military escort would have had the best, most suitable horses for so important a journey.

You do make a fair point about traveling from Jerusalem. I only chose Jerusalem because Neb had taken Jewish captives so he must have been in the general area (and there's Dan. 1:1,2 to consider, although this may have been on his return trip after securing the kingship), and Jerusalem is an easy point of reference. However, the Chronicle does not say Neb traveled from Carchemish to Babylon - you are mistaken about that, and the rest of your arguments and non sequitors derive from that misunderstanding. The Chronicle does say Neb had just conquered the "whole area of Hamath" which is about 130 miles further south from Carchemish and less than 500 miles from Babylon in a straight line.

Also Google 'Frank Hopkins.' In summary, back in 1886, Frank Hopkins, a military dispatch rider, rode a Mustang stallion named Joe 1800 miles from Galveston, Texas, to Rutland, Vermont, in 31 days (average 58 miles per day). Joe finished in excellent condition, after traveling no more than 10 hours per day.

Jerusalem (or Hamath) to Babylon - 500 miles divided by 58 miles per day is nearly 9 days.

So, without beating this horse to death (get it?), let's just leave it there by saying it is perfectly feasible for Neb to ride back to Babylon in the time frame the Babylonian Chronicle records. 

 

 

 

 

[Ann O'Maly]

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Remember that the Chronicle says that his father died, Abu 8, and Nebuchadnezzar traveled in the month of Ululu.

It says that he returned to Babylon in Ululu and he sat on the throne (i.e. the coronation) on Ululu 1st.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

At any rate, the only nearby Ululu II that was added was in Nabopolassar's 19th year, not his 21st.

There is no attested Ululu II for the year Nab 21/Neb 0 (605 BCE). There had already been an Addaru II 6 months earlier! No need for another intercalary month.

The one that P&D slots into Nab 19 (607 BCE) is an error. The footnote on P&D p. 4 shows it was questionable as the king's name isn't mentioned on the tablet. There are, however, 4 tablets that clearly attest to a second Ululu in Nabopolassar's 18th year.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

No matter what, though, I can't see that this has any bearing on his accession year. In fact, the Chronicle mentions specifically that he went back to Hatti-land in the accession year, and that he stayed until Sabatu.

Indeed.

So what was Allen's point, again, in bringing up this objection about Neb's travel? I've lost track (pun intended).

 

 

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, Ann O'Maly said:

It says that he returned to Babylon in Ululu and he sat on the throne (i.e. the coronation) on Ululu 1st.

This is funny. I edited my post before reading your posts. I went to bed around 3 am and kept thinking that this idea was just too much of a stretch. In fact, I kept all the links open so that I could check out the possibility more carefully when I got up this morning. I noticed the recent Addaru II and then read the footnotes to the JStor paper (A. Goetze) and P&D itself more carefully. So I edited my post down to almost nothing about the intercalaries. When I saw your post, I realized that I had already removed the lines you critiqued. Sorry to have put you to the trouble over nothing.

In fact, this whole subject of a horse's stamina and speed seems to be trouble over nothing. My original point was only going to be that even if we think it really should have reasonably taken a week or two longer, this isn't enough of a difference for us to claim it was impossible, and that it isn't enough of a difference to change his accession year. We weren't there. We don't know what they knew. We're the ones guessing. Also, to me it really does seem exaggerated by a couple of weeks (my own conjecture). So I give credit to Allen for pointing out a real question that has some evidence and rationale behind it.

I hadn't read anything on this subject for decades, it seems, but I do remember wondering if the three week difference between the death of Nebuchadnezzar's father and the trip back, then were BOTH directions supposed to have taken place during that same 3 week period? This is why, even under the best of circumstances, I would agree with the need for a couple more weeks. If Neb was stationed closer to Carchemish, then Neb could have settled those affairs with the enemies and prisoners and treasure from there, and driven straight home, right? From Carchemish there is no water problem and the roads were likely completely under his control. If Berossus knew that he cut across the desert from farther south, then there must have been some routes that I can't find any history on (yet). Perhaps "desert" could be a word that implies only that it's off the usual inhabited routes wherever he could find shortcuts. Without any evidence I preferred to think that this was a north-easterly shortcut from farther south, just to reach a point on the river routes farther north.

Thanks for the info on the horses.

 

[Ann O'Maly]

44 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

So I edited my post down to almost nothing about the intercalaries. When I saw your post, I realized that I had already removed the lines you critiqued. Sorry to have put you to the trouble over nothing.

Well, it served to refresh my own memory, and in the process I found a couple of very useful articles on Jstor that I hadn't been able to access before, so it's all good.

[JW Insider]

On 4/23/2016 at 0:54 PM, Allen Smith said:

Now if he backed tracked his steps, then extreme historians would estimate it would have taken him at the very least January/February of 604BC. Now did, NEB NOT have an accession year? That would make his accession year 603BC as some historians attest to.

Well it’s a matter of interpretation. And since you people continue to fall for the same FALLACY of accepting secular chronology just because it looks good on paper? Those of us understand the following, by seeing it differently.

An accession year is merely the year that was already named for the predecessor as of the new year (Nisannu). So aren't these ideas conflicting when you indicate that Neb might not have had an accession year and that this would make his accession year 603 BCE. Also when you say "603 BC as some historians attest to" is this for real?

Can you name some historians that attest to this date as an accession year? If you are serious here, then I would be happy to learn something else about the time period. But I've also learned not to be surprised when you make claims that you won't even try to back up with evidence. Anyway, I couldn't find any, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. (For now.)

You also got something else wrong here. I don't know which secular historians you are relying on to claim that it took him an estimated 2.5 months to get back, but even if he got back by January/February of 604, this is still the same "605" accession year that goes from Nisannu 1, 605 to Addaru 30, 604 because they ran their year count from Spring to Spring.

 

The Months of the Babylonian Calendar
1. Nisannu		30	7. Tashritu		30
2. Aiyaru		29	8. Arakhsamna		29
3. Simannu		30	9. Kislimu		30
4. Du'uzu		29	10. D.abitu		29
5. Abu		30	11. Sabad.u		30
6. Ululu I		29	12. Addaru I		29
6. Ululu II		29	12. Addaru II		30

[Ann O'Maly]

On 4/23/2016 at 5:54 PM, Allen Smith said:

That would make his accession year 603BC as some historians attest to.

I also would like Allen to name these historians who attest to Neb's accession year as being 603 BCE.

[Guest Allen Smith]

12 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

is an easy point of reference. However, the Chronicle does not say Neb traveled from Carchemish to Babylon - you are mistaken about that

I didn't imply it, you did.

Yes, I know the Chronicles don’t say that verbatim. The exaggeration of the chronicles is the given implicative point I was making.

So far, your hypotheticals went from 16 days to 9 days. Let me know when you decided upon Nebuchadnezzar taking the flying carpet from Aladdin?

[Guest Allen Smith]

Quote

JWinsuider: Interesting that Berossus adds details about Nebuchadnezzar taking some time to settle some affairs with the enemies and manage the separate escort of some prisoners from Judea and elsewhere -- likely including Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who would have arrived during 605 BCE. So I had the idea he didn't travel straight back from Carchemish, but continued to tramp around, perhaps even in Hatti-Land again, to take care of some necessary business, although he would have done this quickly. I had the feeling that if the Babylonian Chronicles were inaccurate, it was only to the extent that they exaggerated the speed at which he had been able to return by a week or two.

Unfortunately, this of course could not possibly be since you keep insisting that the Babylonian Chronicles are not flawed.

Have you bothered to read what you wrote? Nebuchadnezzar couldn’t possibly have taken care of Egyptian affairs within the time frame you’re relating to. Carchemish battle (605BC) Nebuchadnezzar returning home (605BC) Taking control of thorn and returning to Hatiland.

It amazes me that Nebuchadnezzar could defeat King Nech II in Carchemish in 605BC, take his entire mobilized army and chase King Necho II through enemy territory. That’s a bitter pill to shallow. Since Secular history suggest the Babylonians had NO control over the WESTERN KINGDOMS, in 605BC.

Then one would have to admit, there was something going on between 609BC to 605BC within that territory that could explain that.

I’m not suggesting the chronicles are wrong given face value, but flawed with its timing of events. However, historians contradict ancient works due to not understanding the content their reading all the time.

So if you understand this:

Quote

 

JWinsider: i. Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem because the Pharaoh of Egypt invaded Babylon. In response the young prince Nebuchadnezzar defeated the Egyptians at Charchemish, and then he pursued their fleeing army all the way down to the Sinai. Along the way (or on the way back), he subdued Jerusalem, who had been loyal to the Pharaoh of Egypt.

 

ii. This happened in 605 b.c. and it was the first (but not the last) encounter between Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiakim. There would be two later invasions (597 and 587 b.c.).

 

Then the WTS is correct in suggesting 607BC to be a viable date. So the contradiction is in your own interpretation of events.

Therefore, you are describing 3 events instead of 2. Now you have, 605BC (starting point), 597BC, 587BC. Now you state that timing is nothing. Will I defer on that. A Military strategist, would find a lot of exaggerated accounts in the chronicles, and secular history.

Did the WTS emphatically state that 607BC was fool proof? No, they have stated it many times, they arrived at that date by back tracking 539BC and giving leeway for the Judeans to return home at 537BC. They never stated it was an infallible date. It is BASED on FAITH.

The other thing you’re not seeing, I’m switching between “standard chronology”, and the “Oslo chronology” which differ by 20 years.

So the hypotheticals would range from:

1.       607BC, 597BC, 587BC, and 537BC.

2.       605BC, 597BC, 586BC, and 535BC.

3.       609BC, 598BC, 587BC, and 539BC.

The problems that can be generated by misinterpretation, can be solved. But not in the context you would like to hold secular chronology as indisputable, that isn’t happening. Regardless of which chronology one uses? The answers is there.

Now, a straight line from Carchemish to Babylon can have a flat surface. However, that terrain would mostly be desert. Could Nebuchadnezzar use multiple horse teams? Of course he could have. The American Pony Express can attest to that. A horse will run himself to death if the master allows it. But what about the endurance of humans.

Once again, Arabs were NOT partial to Chaldeans, after Sennacherib. Look at it, as with the modern battles being waged in the Middle East right now. Who’s a friend and who’s a foe.

So according to your aerial simulation? Nebuchadnezzar could arrive at Babylon as attested to from the Babylonian Chronicles.

History shows King Necho II left a garrison in Jerusalem. So it wouldn’t be possible for Neb to take the King’s Route established by trade within that region. Unless he felt it would have been safe enough to do so. But that would IMPLY he already has control of that territory BEFORE 605BC.

NOT ACCORDING TO THE BABYLONIAN CHRONICLES!

Now your proposal suggest a more direct approach. Nebuchadnezzar came down from Carchemish with NO obstacles, plenty of oasis water, green pasture with no care in the world. In other words, Neb was descending perfectly from Carchemish. A care free travel. Even though the terrain might have been different back then?

 

King Necho II still had a garrison in Riblah.

Assyrians had control of Rezeph, and Terqa. So was Nebuchadnezzar invisible? Or was he flying his magic carpet, not to be noticed.

Funny thing about WAR, people like to sneak around. But, what happens eventually; like ISIS…when they try doing that. Their troops get caught. So I guess the Assyrians were not smart people to allow a ROYAL PRINCE and COMMANDER travel freely back home to take over his father’s Kingdom, and in 2 weeks. Starting from a Mountainous terrain. Yeah! The Babylonian Chronicles is a perfect account.

Nebuchadnezzar had the best. His security detail were superhuman, no layover’s, no sleep, (No need for Tents, and Blankets) and they all had the best horses, galloping theirs hearts away to secure NEB’s kingdom.  Traveling with little combat gear, no water, or food since the land was blooming with those amenities, which would have weighed down a horse. But mind you, NO rest for the weary. Eat your food on the go. There were NO patrols around them, no danger what’s so ever, since that’s how history painted that scenario, by the Babylonian Chronicles showing it took him less than a month to accomplish that miraculous ride. (Ride Boldly Ride!) It would be even MORE miraculous, if he had chased King Necho II back to Egypt in 605BC with Nebuchadnezzar’s ENTIRE army. (That’s what he would have needed?) Instead of moving a full army from point to point, back then it would have taken 3 to 5 years; it took him only 5 months, Wow! Even a modern army takes longer to deploy.

Not to mention, we would have to EXCLUDE the following: No rain, sand storms, or hot days, no horse injuries, no human illnesses. A paradise ride back home.

[Guest Allen Smith]

4 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

I also would like Allen to name these historians who attest to Neb's accession year as being 603 BCE.

Hey! You caught me O'Maly. I meant to say wannabe historian.

 

 

Feel free to do your own research!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Ann O'Maly]

18 hours ago, Allen Smith said:

I didn't imply it, you did.

I was referring to your unambiguous statement here:

On 4/23/2016 at 11:21 PM, Allen Smith said:

According to the Babylonian chronicles, Nebuchadnezzar was rushing back to Babylon from Carchemish.

The assumption was yours.

And I still would like you to name the historians who attest to Neb's accession year as being 603 BCE. I don't want to see wannabes. I want to see bona fide historians.

[Guest Allen Smith]

2 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

I was referring to your unambiguous statement here:

Well, the exaggeration is in the hyped up "Babylonian Chronicle"

 

2 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

And I still would like you to name the historians who attest to Neb's accession year as being 603 BCE. I don't want to see wannabes. I want to see bona fide historians.

And as for historians, look them up, Just as the insinuation implies, too me they are all wannabes, since known of you have learned chronology the right way.

[Guest Allen Smith]

Before you continue your non acceptance on written works you refuse to see, it would be NO different when a historian, comments; that Nebuchadnezzar rushed home on 604BC to claim his throne. The things we know about accession years, then…that is implying what? That Nebuchadnezzar’s accession was in 603BC.

It would be NO different if a historian thought 605BC was Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year. That would make Neb rushing home from Carchemish in 606BC.

Unless you are suggesting that this historians are running everything concurrently? That’s the type of ideology, earlier historians had.

And since were dealing with hypothesis, then the observations are analytical, regardless who wrote matters about ancient history.