Finnish author looks to fill the 20-year chronology gap

[JW Insider]

An author from Finland named Pekka Mansikka has written several books and papers which, among other things, look to adjust the secular chronology to fit the Watchtower's chronology. For those who don't know, the Watchtower's chronology requires an extra 20 years of time somewhere between Nebuchadnezzar's reign and the beginning of the reign of Cyrus. This has the effect of pushing back any archaeological date in Nebuchadnezzar's reign by 20 years.

In fact, it affects dates going back much further than that, so that:

• if one reads that the Battle of Carchemish happened on the archaeological date of 605 BCE, the WTS date will be 605+20=625 BCE
• if the Battle of Harran happened in 609 using archaeological dates, then the WTS date will be 609+20=629 BCE
• if one reads that the fall of Nineveh was in 612 using archaeological dates, then the WTS date will be 612+20=632 BCE
• The same thing continues to occur even farther back into the Assyrian empire and the Israelite and Judean kings.

Although several other factors were involved here, I think it's not a complete coincidence that Bishop Ussher famously put Adam's creation in 4004 BCE, and the Watchtower currently has this at 4026 BCE, a 22-year difference.

Fortunately, Pekka Mansikka has give his permission to discuss any and all parts of any of his works here on this forum:

Several of his works can be found online, or for purchase at very modest costs on Kindle. A good portion of the Kindle books are available for free preview, and most of the content of these books is also available on academia.edu.

Here are some links to his material:

https://independentresearcher.academia.edu/PekkaMansikka

See all 18 items at that link. Sometimes it's only the Table of Contents that shows up here.

 

50 to 70 pages of his primary book are available in free preview here:

New Chronology Using Solar Eclipses

He also offered the following links, two of which are e-books:

https://www.pm-netti.com/lookout-ancient-eclipses

https://www.pm-netti.com/kirjat/PM-Tiedekirjat/nebuchadnezzarv

https://journal.pm-netti.com/

Most sources for his own reference material can also be found online for free, or free with limits. You can find links in his own work to many sites.

 

The most interesting topics he covers are:

• The reign of Nabonidus. He is brave enough to actually try to show exactly where the 20 missing years should be found.
• VAT 4596.
• A proposition to synchronize Neo-Babylonian chronology with Egyptian chronology.

 

[JW Insider]

I could be a day or two before I start commenting. Although anyone else might wish to begin commenting at any time.

[Patiently waiting for Truth]

@JW Insider Just two questions.  Does this have any signficance to a true Christian now ?  If so how ? 

[JW Insider]

10 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

@JW Insider Just two questions.  Does this have any signficance to a true Christian now ?  If so how ? 

Not to me. It has about the same significance to me as learning a language that isn't used any more, like old Hebrew, koine Greek or Latin. or Old English. It's interesting as a secular topic, like learning a facet of history of an ancient culture. There is only a minor overlap between this topic and scripture, but this doesn't mean it's a "spiritual" topic, just as learning ancient languages might have only a minor overlap with scripture, and it doesn't make the study of Greek, Hebrew, etc., a "spiritual" topic.

I know a Witness who has a deep interest in chess, and who goes on forums to discuss it. It would appear self-righteous of another person to go on those forums to tell him that chess isn't spiritual. He already knows that.

[TrueTomHarley]

6 hours ago, 4Jah2me said:

@JW Insider Just two questions.  Does this have any signficance to a true Christian now ?  If so how ? 

JWI: Two questions. Does this heady stuff of yours offer me any way to slam God’s organization without doing any work? If so, how?

[TrueTomHarley]

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I know a Witness who has a deep interest in chess, and who goes on forums to discuss it. It would appear self-righteous of another person to go on those forums to tell him that chess isn't spiritual.

What are the names of this Witness and forum?

[JW Insider]

The most interesting part of Mansikka's proposal is that he intends to show where the 20-year gap actually would go. Previously we showed that the archaeological evidence --and not even all of it yet-- gives us the following timeline, below, for the Neo-Babylonian period, including the BCE years, through astronomical observations and predictions that only fit specific years. Even one or two of these would be enough to date the entire period, but we already have at least 30 of them "locked in" and this isn't even all of them yet. (Several of the years have multiple astronomical observations behind them.)

To make enough room I am only showing from Nabopolassar's last 5 years and Cyrus' first three years. The first chart is the archaeological evidence:

609	608	607	606	605	604	603	602	601	600	599	598	597	596	595	594	593	592	591	590	589	588	587	586	585	584	583	582	581	580	579	578	577	576	575	574	573	572	571	570	569	568	567	566	565	564	563	562	561	560	559	558	557	556	555	554	553	552	551	550	549	548	547	546	545	544	543	542	541	540	539	538	537	536
Nabop					N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years)																																											E-M		Nerig- lissar				N A B O N I D U S (17)																	Cyr
17	18	19	20	21	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	1	2	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	1	2	3

Here is the proposal of Pekka Mansikka based on his "new" king list, which I am presenting in the same format as above. In the chart, all I am doing is adding 20 years to the BCE year on the top row and, of course, continuing Nabonidus reign for another 20 years so that there are new regnal years 18 to 37. Mansikka gives Nabonidus a 37 year reign instead of a 17 year reign to make up the 20 year gap.

629	628	627	626	625	624	623	622	621	620	619	618	617	616	615	614	613	612	611	610	609	608	607	606	605	604	603	602	601	600	599	598	597	596	595	594	593	592	591	590	589	588	587	586	585	584	583	582	581	580	579	578	577	576	575	574	573	572	571	570	569	568	567	566	565	564	563	562	561	560	559	558	557	556	555	554	553	552	551	550	549	548	547	546	545	544	543	542	541	540	539	538	537	536
Nabop					N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years)																																											E-M		Nerig- lissar				N A B O N I D U S (17)																	Nabonidus (37) [add 20 yr]																				Cyr
17	18	19	20	21	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	1	2	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	1	2	3

The chart shows actual "official" regnal years starting from year one of any king. The accession would have started in the previous month or months before Nisanu of the year shown. However, this shows up some one-year inconsistencies in the way that Mansikka produces his king list below, because he sometimes starts a king's accession year prior to the end date of the previous king, which is impossible. He sometimes gets it right and sometimes wrong, so it's hard to say whether these are just typos.

I think that several significant problems should be immediately apparent to anyone who has given this much thought. I'll point them out in another post.

[JW Insider]

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I think that several significant problems should be immediately apparent to anyone who has given this much thought. I'll point them out in another post.

Referring to what I said above, here are the most significant problems with adding 20 years . Later we can then look at Mansikka's methods of overcoming these issues:

1. If we accept Mansikka's 20 extra years that he tacks on to the end of Nabonidus' 17-year reign to make it 37 years, then he would need to explain every single of one of the years which have astronomical observations that are identified with specific years of the NB kings. (There are at least 50 observations I have tested so far; and a single year may have multiple observations recorded.) Mansikka would have to explain why all 50 (plus) of them do not point to any of the years Mansikka has set them to, and why all 50 of them point, instead, to the same dates of the archaeological timeline.

2. If we accept Mansikka's 20 extra years that he tacks on to the end of Nabonidus, then we would have to wonder why we average hundreds of business tablets for EVERY year of the NB timeline, yet exactly ZERO for every single one of the years of Nabonidus 18 through 37. Since we have THOUSANDS of tablets for the reign of Nabonidus' years 1 to 17, why do we have ZERO for a full 20 years in a row. Did all business stop completely for 20 years and then pick up again during the first year of Cyrus?

3. If we accept Mansikka's 20 extra years, it would be impossible to predict any eclipses because they would all be 20 years off. Even the Saros cycle was known to produce only a predictably SIMILAR eclipse at a time 18 years later, but not 19, and not 20.

4. Why is it that a list of 18-year Saros cycle eclipses (LBAT 1419) found the following:

• an eclipse dated to the 2nd year of Cyrus that only matches 537 BCE - the exact date that the INSIGHT book uses for CYRUS 2nd year.
• an eclipse 18 years before that, dated to the first year of Nabonidus that only matches 555 BCE
• an eclipse 18 years before that, dated to the 32nd year of Nebuchadnezzar that only matches 573 BCE
• an eclipse 18 years before that, dated to the 14th year of Nebuchadnezzar that only matches 591 BCE.
• an eclipse 18 years before that, dated to the 18th year of  Nabopolassar that only matches 608 BCE
• an eclipse 18 years before that, dated to the 0th year (accession) of Nabopolassar that only matches 626 BCE.

If Mansikka's 20 extra years was correct, then there would have to have been TWO 18-year Saros cycles in the reign of Nabonidus:

• One of them would have been just 18 years before the one dated to 537, the second year of Cyrus. That would be 537+18=555, which Mansikka calls the 21st year of Nabonidus. Yet the tablet dates it to the first year of Nabonidus.
• The other would have been just 18 years before 555, which Mansikka calls the 3rd year of Nabonidus 573. Yet the tablet dates that same eclipse to the 32nd year of Nebuchadnezzar. The tablet knows nothing about any eclipse in either the 3rd year of Nabonidus, nor in a fictitious 21st year of Nabonidus.

And of course, adding the extra 20 Watchtower years to the tablet throws every date off completely all the way back to the start under Nabopolassar (Nebuchadnezzar's father). But removing the extra 20 Watchtower years produces a tablet perfectly aligned with ALL the other archaeological evidence.

Why would the Saros tablet be perfectly supportive of the Watchtower chronology (and Mansikka) for any year after 539, and completely wrong for every year before 539? The answer should be obvious. You just can't arbitrarily add 20 years to all the dates before 539 as the Watchtower has done.

[Srecko Sostar]

36 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

Why would the Saros tablet be perfectly supportive of the Watchtower chronology (and Mansikka) for any year after 539, and completely wrong for every year before 539? The answer should be obvious. You just can't arbitrarily add 20 years to all the dates before 539 as the Watchtower has done.

I have no time nor ability to face all this important and interesting questions about chronology. Apologize for my passive "participation" (viewing) :).

If i may ask, how Mansikka justified or explained this "adding of 20 years"? And how he came to this particular time point where is needed to add this 20 years?    

[JW Insider]

17 hours ago, César Chávez said:

Really, didn't read like that to me. But as usual, when it comes to sound research, you reject it.

If you really think it was sound research that brought him to develop his list of Neo-Babylonian kings that you posted, you should be able to let us know how he reached this conclusion. Or you could answer Srecko's question:

11 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If i may ask, how Mansikka justified or explained this "adding of 20 years"? And how he came to this particular time point where is needed to add this 20 years?    

Well. as it turns out, I sent Mansikka a link to this forum, and he has already visited and noticed that the "sound research" that @César Chávez provided was "valid" only up until shortly after December 2019. This means that his book that I was quoting from in response to Cesar was also only "valid" up until shortly after December 2019.

Mansikka linked me to the updated information which is found in his Nebuchadnezzar V book. Here's the link again: https://www.pm-netti.com/free/nebuchadnezzar-v.pdf

It's a book of 39 small pages, and I had read only up until page 18 before skimming the rest and missing a critical piece of information on page 20 and on page 39.

He now rejects the idea that the extra 20 years should be tacked onto the end of the reign of Nabonidus. He now would put his new king list in this order:

 

[Srecko Sostar]

Mr Mansikka puts Amel Marduk in 581-579 BCE, that is quite different than in this source. But ending of rule is same for Amel Marduk (in britishmuseum.org) and Mansikka's Nebuchadnezzar V.

Also on page 25 Mansikka wrote: Is there then evidence that Amel-Marduk could have had a different religious background? Yes it is. The Bible tells, that During of the accession year of his us that he released King Jehoiachin of Judah immediately. Compassion for the Jewish prisoners point did not end there. He exalted Jehoiachin, king of Judah, so that he might eat at the king's palace at the same table as the king for the rest of his life.14

and then continue immediately in next passage with: 

Thus, Nebuchadnezzar V may have shown positive attention to the Jews in many other ways.

 

By this i would conclude how very similar or same attitude this "two kings" had about people of different religious background. According to Mansikka, on page 20 he wrote: 

Thus, on this basis, it can be concluded that probably Nabonidus was not a king who changed his name and ruled for another “extra” 18 years. Instead, that king was Amel-Marduk.

 

Does he tell how Amel-Marduk continue to rule as Nebuchadnezzar V?

 

 

https://www.britishmuseum.org/collection/term/BIOG61870

Also known as

Amel-Marduk

primary name: Amel-Marduk

Biblical: Evil-Merodach

Details

individual; ruler; Mesopotamian; Male

Other dates

561BC-560BC (ruled)

Biography

Third king of the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty; 561-560 BC. Mentioned in the Old Testament under the name Evil-Merodach.

[JW Insider]

So here are the standard years of the timeline as evidenced by archaeology and astronomy and later historians who referred to the period.

	625	624	623	622	621	620	619	618	617	616	615	614	613	612	611	610	609	608	607	606	605	604	603	602	601	600	599	598	597	596	595	594	593	592	591	590	589	588	587	586	585	584	583	582	581	580	579	578	577	576	575	574	573	572	571	570	569	568	567	566	565	564	563	562	561	560	559	558	557	556	555	554	553	552	551	550	549	548	547	546	545	544	543	542	541	540	539	538	537	536	535	534	533	532	531	530
	N A B O P O L A S S A R (21 years)																					N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years)																																											E-M		Nerig- lissar				N A B O N I D U S (17)																	C Y R U S
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	1	2	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9

The green marks at the top refer to the fact that all the astronomical observations for specific, marked years from this period perfectly align with the BCE years shown just below them AND align them correctly with the official regnal year of each king as labeled in the bottom row. There are additional years I could have marked, but I have not checked those observations yet for myself. Obviously, it doesn't matter because even ONE identified year is enough to fill in the rest, and I have mostly focused on Nebuchadnezzar.

Above, I was able to fit the entire timeline from Nabopolassar's accession year through the 9th (last) year of Cyrus. Mansikka, below, knows (and agrees with) the full length of those reigns, but I had to start from Nabopolassar 17 through Cyrus 3, just to (barely) fit the extra 20 years which I have marked in black.

So here is Pekka Mansikka's first suggestion/attempt to add 20 years to the timeline: tacking an extra 20 years onto the reign of Nabonidus:

629	628	627	626	625	624	623	622	621	620	619	618	617	616	615	614	613	612	611	610	609	608	607	606	605	604	603	602	601	600	599	598	597	596	595	594	593	592	591	590	589	588	587	586	585	584	583	582	581	580	579	578	577	576	575	574	573	572	571	570	569	568	567	566	565	564	563	562	561	560	559	558	557	556	555	554	553	552	551	550	549	548	547	546	545	544	543	542	541	540	539	538	537	536
NABOP					N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years)																																											E-M		Nerig- lissar				N A B O N I D U S (17)																	Nabonidus (37) [add 20 yr]																				Cyr
17	18	19	20	21	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	1	2	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	16	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	1	2	3

The green mark over the second year of Cyrus shows that this date perfectly aligns with the archaeological and astronomical and historical evidence for that year. But all the red marks in previous years show that these observations are now misaligned.

 

Here is Mansikka's most recent suggestion/attempt. I have simplified a bit to show that almost all the additional 20 years are shown as an extension of Amel-Marduk's reign under his new name, Nebuchadnezzar (V). It's actually still a bit incorrect, because there are some other complexities of some start and end dates that shift a year or two in other places, so that this is really only an 18 year extension of Amer-Marduk's reign. I'll fix this post to reflect that.

																										,
629	628	627	626	625	624	623	622	621	620	619	618	617	616	615	614	613	612	611	610	609	608	607	606	605	604	603	602	601	600	599	598	597	596	595	594	593	592	591	590	589	588	587	586	585	584	583	582	581	580	579	578	577	576	575	574	573	572	571	570	569	568	567	566	565	564	563	562	561	560	559	558	557	556	555	554	553	552	551	550	549	548	547	546	545	544	543	542	541	540	539	538	537	536
NABOP					N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years)																																											E-M		NNebuchadnezzar V (20 yr) extension of E-M																				Nerig- lissar				N A B O N I D U S (17)																	Cyr
17	18	19	20	21	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18	19	20	21	22	23	24	25	26	27	28	29	30	31	32	33	34	35	36	37	38	39	40	41	42	43	1	2	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	13	14	15	16	1	2	3	4	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	1	2	3

In this case (because he has added the extra 20 years before Nabonidus, there are now two marked dates that perfectly align with the archaeological and astronomical and historical evidence for those particular years. All previous years are now misaligned. Note that he has tried to "squeeze in" the 20 years for a Nebuchadnezzar V (five), between Ami-Marduk (Evil-Merodach) and Neriglissar. He thinks this Nebuchadnezzar V is actually an extension of the Amil-Marduk.

The reason that Mansikka calls him Nebuchadnezzar V is because III and IV were already taken by real persons who used the name Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar V is, in my opinion, a new imaginary person made up in order to create the additional 20 years!

Just because he shows Nebuchadnezzar II (2), then V (5) and then III (3) and then IV (4) does not make this suggestion completely wrong on that count alone. He is saying that the tablets assigned to Nebuchadnezzar II, or at least a large portion of them were actually for this "imaginary" Nebuchadnezzar V, 46 years later.

Again there are several additional problems with this theory (which we will see in further discussion).

For now the most important point is that the first chart above aligns to all other archaeological, astronomical and historical sources puts Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year in 587 BCE, and both of Mansikka's suggestions/proposals would place Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year in 607 BCE.