Finnish author looks to fill the 20-year chronology gap

[JW Insider]

Pekka Mansikka is not Furuli. But several of his arguments align with Furuli, and he references Furuli as a source. The arguments inherited from Furuli should be honestly evaluated before anyone takes them seriously. The author(s) at vat4956.com have paraphrased Furuli's arguments, and, most unfortunately, so did the Watchtower artilcle mentioned above:

*** w11 11/1 p. 28 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two ***
11. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume V, edited by Hermann Hunger, published 2001, pages 2-3.

 

[ComfortMyPeople]

Just out of curiosity... do you already have time to sleep? Sometimes I wonder if you are not an alien.

Well, now seriously, I just wanted to tell you that all this information is appreciated. It is sure to be valuable to some. Frankly, I don't understand practically anything. It happens to me like when I go to a museum and see a beautiful painting, I don't have the ability to paint it, but I recognize the merit of whoever did it.

[TrueTomHarley]

6 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Just out of curiosity... do you already have time to sleep?

Finally we get into discussion of the deep questions of life.

One verse I will never apply to JWI is that of the lazy man turning on his bed like a door on its hinge.

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, ComfortMyPeople said:

Just out of curiosity... do you already have time to sleep?

I hope no one got the impression that I wrote all that much in these last few posts. Most of this page is just quotes from others and a few lines with my comments interspersed.

[TrueTomHarley]

19 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I hope no one got the impression that I wrote all that much in these last few posts. Most of this page is just quotes from others and a few lines with my comments interspersed.

I half expect the curtain torn away to reveal you controlling their marionette strings like the old guy running the Oz wizard.

[Srecko Sostar]

9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

P. 79: The Dynastic prophecy does not include all kings, and therefore is useless for chronology. The words “For three years” (broken before and after) need not even refer to a length of reign.

    P. 80: Another possible unknown Neo-Babylonian king suggested by F. he finds in the signs for the name ^idAG-GI on a tablet published by M. Jursa in 1997. F. erroneously transcribes the name as Nabû-šalim. But a name Nabû-šalim would mean “Nabû is well”, and this is not an appropriate statement (F.’s wrong translation: “Let Nabû have peace” is equally blasphemous). If GI stands for šalāmu, only -mušallim or -ušallim would make sense.

Mansikka got the idea about Neb-V from Furuli book?

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, TrueTomHarley said:

I half expect the curtain torn away to reveal you controlling their marionette strings like the old guy running the Oz wizard.

"the OLD guy"?     😉

[JW Insider]

If anyone got through all that reading, they surely won't mind indulging me in a little story about a girl who had trouble sleeping, so she kept a "sleep diary" for a few months. I think that a few here will already understand it even before I begin:

It's 2021. Sally is grown now, about 40 years old, born in 1980, and had already moved out of her parents' house 10 years earlier. But her mother finds the diary while cleaning the basement, and reads a few of the entries:

Sally's Sleep Diary. Age 16.

• Monday, January 8. Got up at 2 am. Cold. Saw one of those circular halos around the moon, a gray frosty circle through the skylight in kitchen. Cool.
• Monday, January 29. Woke up around 1:30 am with TV on. Must have fallen asleep during Super Bowl. Wanted to see Joe Montana. Wonder who won?
• Thursday, February 29. Went out for pizza in afternoon with Sarah. Got back before sundown at 5:30. Stomach bothered me until well after midnight. Lactose intolerance?
• Friday, March 15. Raccoons rustling in garbage kept me awake. Looked out the south window with flashlight and one looked very sick. Might have rabies.
• Tuesday, July 30. Got up well before sunrise today. The moon was full and bright through my east-facing window.
• Wednesday, July 31. Slept in late this morning, rained all day, sun didn't come out until 7:30pm. Saw a very spectacular rainbow out my east window, just before sunset. Glad I didn't go to bed early.
• Thursday, Sept 4. Couldn't sleep. Rain pounded the skylight loudly and the street drain must have clogged. Because water was  several inches at the sidewalk and even came halfway up the driveway.

The mother shows the father, and says:

"Oh look at this dear. I found Sally's diary from when she was only 16. Let's see. What year was that? She was born in 1980, so that must have been 1996."

But the husband says:

"Now just wait a minute, dear. You are too trusting, too naive. We have 4 daughters, remember. We know that Sally was the one who had sleep problems, and she was the one with lactose intolerance, and she was our only daughter in the southeast bedroom with those two windows, and she was the only one who had a friend named Sarah, and she did kind of have a crush on Joe Montana. Why? I'll never know. But this diary might still be a product of deceit. Who says that this is really even about Sally? One of our other daughters could have been faking the name because they didn't want to use their own name for some reason, and wanted you to find this 20 years later. Besides, everyone knows that Super Bowls are on Sunday not Monday. And Sally didn't know that much about football, so it might have been a playoff game or some other game that Joe Montana was in. Let me look into this and try to see if it might be a fake."

Two days later, the husband has the "proof" that this is a fake diary:

OK, dear. Now I know that it must be fake.

1. When a TV is on just after midnight, most people see this as the date the TV was left on, Sunday, not Monday. Even TV Guide lists late night TV under Sunday night, even though the diary is technically right that it was Monday because it's after midnight.
2. On February 29, the sun went down at 5:45, not 5:30 as she stated in the diary. That mistake makes me suspicious, too.
3. The moon was not full until July 31, and she says it was full on July 30. I looked it up. So why would she say she saw the full moon?
4. And the final proof is that she said "Thursday, September 4," and September 4th was a Wednesday, not a Thursday. All the others are right for 1996 but this mistake shows it wasn't really written in 1996.
5. So I looked into it, and the most recent THURSDAY, September 4th was not in 1995, or 1994, or 1993, or 1992. It was in 1991. So this diary might be hers, but it MUST have been written in 1991, when she was only 11 years old.

The wife replies:

"But wait, dear. . . .

• 1991 was not a leap year with a February 29th.
• And Joe Montana was out for the 1991 season with a bad arm.
• And she probably wrote that entry about the Super Bowl on Monday morning, like she says. Joe Montana was in the Super Bowl the night before.
• And she said she got home before sundown at 5:30, not at sundown at 5:45pm.
• And the difference between the full moon on July 30 and the full moon on July 31st is negligible.
• And a lot of people accidentally write down the wrong day of the week, especially in the summer when they are not on a weekly school schedule -- you've done it yourself."
• And besides, there are 30 entries, these are just the first 5, and there are no problems at all with any of the others.
• And if she was only 11, why would she call it "Sally's Sleep Diary. Age 16" ???

Husband:

Who are you to question your husband? You charlatan!!! You Devil-influenced apostate!!!

[JW Insider]

In the above "analogy," Sally's father flails wildly to make sure Sally's mother thinks that Sally's age-16 diary is fake, not Sally's. Or if it is Sally's it must be from when she was 11, not when she was 16. Yet it was marked "Sally . . . Age 16." And it contained information only appropriate for Sally. (Did I mention that only Sally had a south window next to the garbage cans?)

Sally's father makes up problems where there aren't any, resorts to specious reasoning, and focuses on an obvious small mistake and tries to make it negate all the rest of the diary. What would you think of such a man who could find dozens of correctly marked dates for 1996, but decides it must be another year altogether, because just one of the dates doesn't fit 1996?

I'm sure most everyone knows by now that very few Witnesses have been willing to publicly discuss the evidence from the VAT 4956 diary. And some have done so in a very similar manner to "Sally's father." They go immediately for line with the "typo" and a couple of mistaken or misunderstood readings, and "forget" to mention that the other 27 readings are just fine. But there are also at least a few Witnesses who have been willing to publicly discuss the evidence without resorting to wild flailing and tantrums. Here's Gerard Gertoux's take on it (uploaded in 2017). And, for good measure, I've included Gertoux's context because it includes his take on the 763 BCE solar eclipse which is so important to Pekka Mansikka: ( https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256488025_Dating_the_fall_of_Babylon_and_Ur_thanks_to_Astronomical_Events )

Thus, as there are exactly 154 canonical eponyms between Gargamisaiu and Bur-Sagale, which is dated 763 BCE, that involves to date the one of Gargamisaiu into 609 (= 763 – 154).   

    The only solar eclipse over Assyria during the period 800-750 is the total eclipse dated June 15, 763 BCE. The partial solar eclipses dated June 4, 800 BCE and June 24, 791 BCE were not able to be viewed over Assyria.

• The fall of the Assyrian empire, which took place in October 609 BCE after the battle of Harran, is characterized by a quadruple synchronisms, since the year of Assur-uballit II corresponds to year 17 of Nabopolassar to Josiah's year 31 and year 1 of Necho II.
• According to the biography of Adad-Guppi¹², mother of Nabonidus, Nabopolassar reigned 21 years, then Nebuchadnezzar 43 years, Amel-Marduk 2 years, Neriglissar 4 years just before Nabonidus. According to the Hillah's stele¹³ there were 54 years between the destruction of the temple of Sin, in Harran, and the beginning of the reign of Nabonidus. According to a Babylonian chronicle (BM 21901)¹⁴ and Adad-Guppi's stele, the temple of Harran was destroyed in the year 16 of Nabopolassar.
• Dated lunar eclipses¹⁵ are: year 1 and 2 of Merodachbaladan (March 19/20 721 BCE,  March 8/9 and September 1/2 720 BCE); year 5 of Nabopolassar (April 21/22 621 BCE); year 2 of Samas-suma-ukîn (April 10/11 666 BCE); year 42 of Nebuchadnezzar (March 2/3 562 BCE). A diary (VAT 4956)¹⁶ contains numerous astronomical conjunctions in years 37 and 38 of Nebuchadnezzar dated from astronomy in 568 and 567 BCE. An astronomical journal (BM 38462)¹⁷ list some lunar eclipses in the years 1 to 27 of Nebuchadnezzar which are dated from 604 to 578 BCE.
• ------------Footnotes:-------------
• ¹² J.B. PRITCHARD - Ancient Near Eastern Texts
  Princeton 1969 Ed. Princeton University Press p. 560-561.
  ¹³ P.A. BEAULIEU – The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556-539 B.C.
  in: Yale Near Eastern Research 10 (1989) n°2.
  ¹⁴ J.J. GLASSNER – Chroniques mésopotamiennes n°22
  Paris 1993 Éd. Belles Lettres pp. 193-197.
  ¹⁵ F.R. STEPHENSON - Historical Eclipses and Earth's Rotation
  Cambridge 1997 Ed. Cambridge University Press pp. 99-100, 151-152, 206.
  ¹⁶ A.J. SACHS, H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol. I .
  Wien 1988 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften (n° -567).
  ¹⁷ H. HUNGER - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia vol. V n° 6
  Wien 2001 Ed. Akademie der Wissenschaften pp. 27-30,396.

 

Gertoux provides an exact fit for the chart I provided earlier. He even has an extra few verified points that I had not checked yet, such as dating year 42 of Nebuchadnezzar to 563/2 and year 5 of Nabopolassar to 621 and the battle of Harran to 609 (Nabopolassar's 17th year), etc. I will add the green highlight in the top row after I have checked these myself.

	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

[JW Insider]

So, now we can return to Mansikka's comments regarding VAT 4956.

1. Clay tablet VAT 4956 The first line of this clay tablet says of its date: “In the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.”² Scholars have applied the information in this clay tablet to 568 BC.³ It has been perhaps the prisoner’s justification for the present ancient chronology. However, it has major shortcomings. It is a pleasure now to present new researched information on this topic.

P.M. admits that the first line dates it to NEB37 and that scholars date it to 568 BCE.

• If NEB37 is 568 BCE, then NEB18 587 BCE. But the WTS says NEB18 is 607 BCE.

So the attack plan is usually the same. Ask readers to think that almost all NB chronology is justified from this one artifact. (It isn't.) And then start focusing on the "typo" without admitting that most of the data is an excellent fit for the archaeological supported date.

That's what P.M. does. Instead of pointing out that the opening rows actually start out with a perfect fit for 568 (and a bad fit for 588), P.M. skips down to the typo on line 3 and calls it "the opening rows." No mention that there is plenty of info on lines 1 and 2 and even additional info on line 3, that fits 568.

Nisannu The opening rows of the clay tablet state that the moon was on the 9th day of the 1st month, or Nisannu, about an elbow away from the constellation Beta Virginis, or Virgo, “in front of it”. From this, the may have been in front of the imaginary “face” of the Virgo constellation. It could also be “in front of it” a little diagonally, even below the “hand”. According to scholars, in 568 BC. this distance was on April 29, which was the 8th day of the month of Nisannu. Scholars have argued that the Babylonian scribe made a mistake at this point.

[picture of] Moon and Virgo constellation April 29, 568 BC. (8th Nisannu); Babylon, Iraq

If there is an error, what is the cause of that error? Or could it be that no mistake has been made in that matter? 

Very clever. Just like "Sally's father" who dismisses the majority of good readings just so he can make something out of the typo. This one date typo (or perhaps a correct date but a misidentified star in the same constellation) doesn't actually fit 588 BCE, anyway, which would be the WTS chronology goal. Furuli and others have tried to make it seem like it fits, but it takes so much inconsistent manipulation of the evidence that Mansikka has obviously given up. He has looked at the attempts to do this by Furuli but he could not make enough of them work, so he dismissed Furuli's ideas and came up with his own explanation. Good, so far.

But then Mansikka makes the most illogical blunders, and still somehow (of course) ends up with a conclusion (spoiler alert):

Thus, these historical data could come from the actual 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II, i.e. 588 BC.

I'll deal with the in between stuff soon enough.

[JW Insider]

PM mentioned the "typo" but didn't take it anywhere, yet. He leaves the idea hanging there while he changes the subject to "historical" data contained in the Diary:

Historical data On closer inspection of the structure of the clay tablet VAT 4956, it can be seen that it is very exceptional. It seems that this is mainly an astronomical dissertation of antiquity. But it also includes historical records.

Line 5 says:

[nisannu] 20th, in the morning, the sun was surrounded by a halo. Around noon ... A rainbow stretched in the east.

Lines 6 and 7 say:

From the 8th of month to the 28th, the river level rose 3 cubits and 8 fingers. 2/3 cubits [….] to the high flood [….] were killed on order of the king. That month, a fox entered the city. Coughing and a little risutu-disease

John Steele has written a lot about the general nature and the changing format of these diaries over the centuries. At the time of a 568 BCE astronomical diary, it was not 100% about astronomy. The day to day diaries could include river levels, grain prices, weather and other activities considered more or less significant. When the daily reports were collected, there was no need to include all the days where "nothing special happened today." But descriptions of sky events like halos around the moon, or perhaps even an exceptional rainbow might have been more than just mundane "history." One of the halo descriptions includes the name of a star covered within the 22 degree radius of the halo circle, and therefore helps us date the event (to 568). Also, a disease carrying fox that manages to get into a city with extremely high walls might have been more ominous to the Babylonian citizens than mere mundane history.

Over time the scribes became purely recorders and observers, with little interest in recording mundane events that might be somehow related to celestial observations. Ultimately, they just stuck with observations with no attempt to interpret the observations, or link heavenly observations with gods or omens.

Later, PM will try to use these types of items as if they have been somehow meshed in from a completely separate history of the year (588), but this ignores the fact that several such elements like these are not listed under their own lines but tied in with the astronomical observations on the same lines, on the same dates. No good reason is given for treating them separately as if they are from a different year. (A year that has no evidence going for it in the tablet.)

Nevertheless, PM says this about them, but at least admits that he is making an "assumption" about them just because they aren't purely astronomical observations:

Although this is dated to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, these lines 6 and 7 describe the end of the last month of the supposed 36th year of government. Many other lines can be found. Because of the things described in them, it is reasonable to assume that they describe historical, real-time recorded information. Indeed, this feature initially evokes great wonder when creating an accurate look at the astronomical markings on the clay tablet. Instead, one might assume that they were not written at the same time.

Then PM goes on to this topic, skipping several lines of the tablet:

Jupiter was above Scorpio This is a remarkable detail that has often been overlooked. Line 13 tells you what the view was like just when the third or simanu month began: Mercury passed below Mars to the East; Jupiter was above α Scorpii; What is the time of Jupiter's orbit around the sun? It is 11 years, 315 days, and 1.1 hours.⁴  Based on this, we can find out what years Jupiter can be found near the constellation Scorpio when we apply that term.

So, has PM skipped to this line to show us where, in one of the planetary observations, that a year outside of 568 might be intended? Because of the chart, I will include a picture of the text:

Jupiter Scorpio near the constellation  [chart above] Jupiter can be found there on the date 18th-22nd June 568 BC. It is also found near Scorpio from 544 BC, 556 BC, 580 BC. and 592 BC. Of these only in 568 BC. was a lunar eclipse. Based on this, one could make an estimate and conclude that the astronomical measurements of VAT 4956 date back to 568 BC.

That could be a let-down to some Witness readers. He agrees that this is about 568, not 588 which would please the WTS. (Of cource, Furuli also admitted that the planetary data matches 568, but resorted to the idea that it was "forged.")

The fact that the planet Jupiter hits the constellation Scorpio above the orbit just at the beginning of the simanu month is a very rare event. It repeats about every 150 years, with a few of these “hit” every 12 years. And what can be found out when it was mentioned above that Mars and Mercury were close together?

So above PM admits that he had no choice but to date this to 568. It's a very rare event. The chart showed that while Jupiter finds Scorpio just about every 12 years, it only happens at the beginning of the month Simanu (month III) every 150 years. And what about Mars and Mercury so close? Will we get another chance to see the WTS date of 586 evidenced here?

Mars and Mercury in front of the Lion In the clay tablet, VAT 4956 reads the following on line 12:

Mars and Mercury were 4 cubits in front of [Leonis ….]

This was at the end of the last day of the time of the ajaru month, in 568 BC this was 20th June. The orbit of Mars around the sun is 686 days, or about 1 year, 10 months, and 21 days.⁵ In the meantime, this similarity does not appear to be found in the other years mentioned earlier. At that point, the translator has marked the name of the constellation “Leonis” in square brackets. It could suggest that the name of that constellation in the clay tablet is a bit damaged. But when comparing the years in the table above, Mars and Mercury were not close in those other years at the beginning of the same month.

So, PM is still stuck with 568, the only year in which the first part of the data fits (Jupiter in Scorpio in month Simanu), and further confirmed with the next part of the planetary data (Mars and Mercury together in front of Leo). But next we can see why PM brought it up.

Admittedly, that mention in VAT 4956 “at a distance of four cubits” would not properly fit the year 568 BC either. Let’s take a small screenshot of this on the next page, which also shows the Virgo constellation next to it. Comparing that distance to the previous image from the 8th day of the month of Nisannu, it appears that Mars and Mercury were only one cubic distance from the constellation Lion. Because it seems likely that VAT 4956 describes in 568 BC. astronomical phenomena, this would seem to suggest that the second error of Babylonian astrologers.

It's because this is evidently the second mistake on the tablet. Possibly another typo. Just like the only previous example from the tablet, when Nisannu 8 lists either the wrong star or was a typo for Nisannu 9.

PM does not try for an explanation of these these two typos, and does not try to say that they both point to another year. But there is one more reading for the month of Simanu, and it's about an eclipse on the 15th of the month.

Lunar eclipse 568 BC The clay tablet VAT 4956 also states that there was a lunar eclipse on the 15th of the simanu month. July 4, 568 BC, has been applied to this lunar eclipse. This eclipse was not visible in Babylon. Line 17 describes this event as follows: 

A lunar eclipse which was omitted

Scholars generally believe that this lunar eclipse was predicted in advance, and now that the predicted time came, the Babylonian scribe stated that the eclipse was not visible.

So far, so good. We know from dozens of other eclipse reports that the expression "which was omitted" shows that the observers knew that an eclipse was predicted for the date, but expected to be invisible due to the time of day which would have put it below the horizon.

We can easily check an astronomy program to see if the Babylonians were right (as usual) about their eclipse predictions, and they were. So what is it that PM thinks he can do with this eclipse, that we don't already know? I think the jump in logic is so amazing that I will discuss it in another post by itself.

[JW Insider]

So PM (Pekka Mansikka) recognizes that this eclipse was stated by the scribe to be not visible, and that scholars match it to July 4, 568. BCE, which is Simanu 15, 568 BCE.

Scholars generally believe that this lunar eclipse was predicted in advance, and now that the predicted time came, the Babylonian scribe stated that the eclipse was not visible. However, it could be uncertain whether the entry related to this lunar eclipse was written in real time in 568 BC. Why? Because then one would have to draw the conclusion that the aforementioned positions of the moon and planets are also written down in real time.

Wait! Almost all the lunar data on the tablet are a good match for 568. Except for the Nisanu 8/9 "typo" and a couple other difficult readings that PM doesn't mention. However, even Furuli admits that the planetary data is a good match for 568 (and not the 588 date he and the WTS would have hoped for). But PM says that because of a couple of minor typos, we can now imagine that there is uncertainty about the persons who were assigned to observe and write down their observations. PM wants us to believe that perhaps none of these were ever real-time observations. And why not? Because then we would have to accept that all of them were. (And we don't want that because it would be evidence that this tablet is actually for the year it says it is.)

Such a convoluted bit of circular reasoning! PM admits that there are obvious observations on the tablet. Even if they are as mundane as a sick fox getting into the city, or a wolf that gets in and kills a couple of dogs. He thinks these probably belong to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar as claimed. But the lunar data and the planetary data on the same tablet keep pointing to 568 BCE, which is the same place all the other Neo-Babylonian archaeological data also points to. So how do we get rid of this evidence against the WTS theory? Simple. We are asked to assume that the perfectly good 568 data for a lunar eclipse might not have been checked for, simply because the observer knew it was predicted to be not visible anyway. Yet, we have absolutely no evidence that the observer decided not to check for this eclipse. So why do we decide that he didn't? Because then we would have to admit that the other lunar and planetary data had been observed. (And that would be devastating to the WTS theory about 607. )

But then PM goes right ahead and contradicts himself anyway, and says that the line actually refers to a lunar eclipse that was observed in 588. Furuli's book calls this the "point of departure." PM paraphrases that idea by calling it the "one 'small' exception."

This involves a very serious mistake. The inscription at the beginning of the clay tablet “the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar’s rule” is incorrect.The positions of the moon and planets in the starry sky described in this clay tablet were realized several years after the end of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II. However, there is one, “small” exception to this. It has been estimated that this lunar eclipse would have taken place on 15 July 588 BC.⁶ In that case, it could be a real-time entry and would be part of the “historical data” listed earlier. However, it is uncertain whether such a late date can be applied to the 15th day of the simanu month. The beginning of the year would then be in early May.

Of course, the confusion in PM's logic is directly inherited from the same confusion in Furuli. And there actually never was a predicted but unobserved eclipse in the third month of 588. Furuli tried hard to make one up by shifting the Babylonian calendar by one month. It was a clever plan because an unobserved eclipse will have no data associated with it, and should therefore be easier to "match" to any other unobserved eclipse. And all eclipses fall pretty much on the same day of the month, too, from the 13th through the 15th. So it was a good plan, but 588 did not have an eclipse in the third month. But it did have an eclipse in the 4th month. So all Furuli had to do was shift the Babylonian calendar to a place it had never been before, and say that the 4th month was actually the third month in 588.

Of course, Furuli got "caught" trying to start the year in May, which had never been evidenced in many centuries of astronomical data left to us by the Babylonians. Even PM has to admit above: "However, it is uncertain whether such a late date can be applied to the 15th day of the simanu month. The beginning of the year would then be in early May."

Ann O'maly already pointed out the strange mix of honesty and dishonesty when the authors of the pro-WT-theory site called vat4956.com were confronted by this objection: (You can see the page at VAT 4956 - Can be dated 20 years earlier to 588 BC instead of 568 BC)

Common counter-arguments for the year 588 BC

A Babylonian year never started as late as May

Not according to Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein in Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. – A.D. 45. The latest a year starts during this period according to them is April 26^th, just 7 days earlier than May 2^nd.

To me this is a not-so-cleverly dishonest way possible of wording this, because they pretend that an authority agrees with them, and then when they quote the authority, you have to be careful to note that the authority disagrees with them. They realize that most of their readers who will believe them have a bias that would allow them to miss the dishonesty out of one side of their mouth, while admitting the authority disagrees with them out of the other side.

There was another snag in Furuli's theory that this other 588 eclipse was NEB37. Another tablet that I already tested (in another topic, LBAT 1420) lists the same unobserved eclipse, except that it names it for Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year, 20 years earlier, just where we would expected it based on the archaeology. But, to make things worse for Furuli and PM, that tablet also had an observed eclipse in the same year. That provides even more sure evidence that Furuli's attempt was impossible and short-sighted.