Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction

[xero]

I get relative measurements w/regard to regnal years and the like as that will allow you shift right or left, but no matter where I look, I get bloviating when it comes to how this exact date was decided upon. I need to know what they used as a starting point. I haven't found any astronomical events used, I'm not taking anyone's word for it, or "Experts agree". I need to see the argument in the form of premise, premise, conclusion.  I want all the connecting dots, not an inky wash of academic bloviance.

[JW Insider]

41 minutes ago, xero said:

no matter where I look, I get bloviating when it comes to how this exact date was decided upon. I need to know what they used as a starting point. I haven't found any astronomical events used

Sounds like a familiar quest. I had the same experience when I first tried to figure out why the 612 date was used everywhere except the Watchtower, which uses 632 instead. (Because 632 is needed as part of the foundation for our traditional claim that 1914 was pointed to in the book of Daniel.)

But it turns out that, for me, there were at least 3 basic ways to reach a date within one year of 612 for the destruction of Nineveh. (Making the date either 613, 612, or 611.) 

However, it's been my experience on this forum that if a statement about ancient chronology includes any concept that takes more than a minute to understand, it is immediately dismissed, so that we can fall back on whatever is more comfortable for our traditional belief system. I don't think that about you, but it should help manage the expectations of anyone who might start to read this type of discussion.

[Pudgy]

I really, really miss having an intense interest in such things. 

I stopped when I realized if you assume EVERYBODY is a quack, especially about things that have NO PRACTICAL VALUE … the reward is peace and contentment.

Sleeping beside me on the sofa as I write this are three happy dogs.

…. it’s more than enough.

[JW Insider]

The basic method starts out with the Babylonian Chronicle currently in the British Museum labeled B.M. 21901. It's just a relative chronology covering several years of Nabopolassar (Nebuchadnezzar's father).

All we get from this is that there were specific events recorded about his dealings with the Assyrians from his 10th year to his 18th year. (I'll call those years NABO 10 to NABO 18). Basically we learn that:

• NABO 10: Nabo defeats Assyria in a battle but Egypt comes up to help the Assyrian king (Sinsharishkun) and Nabo withdraws rather than fight Egypt (Psammetichus). 
• NABO 12: The Medes defeat Assyria at Asshur (the prior capital). Nabo wanted to join their fight, but was delayed and the Medes won that battle by themselves. Nabo joins the Medes (Cyaxares) as allies against Assyria.
• NABO 14: Medes and Nabo join to defeat Assyrians at Nineveh, where the Assyrian king dies within the city. His successor (Assuruballit) flees to Harran and calls it the new Assyrian capital.
• NABO 16/17: Medes and Nabo join to defeat Assyrians at Harran. Assuruballit joins with Egypt (Necho) and is unsuccessful as taking Harran back, and Assyria is considered fully defeated therefore, by NABO 17. (This would also be the same year that Judean King Josiah died.)

So, now if we accept the premise that Nineveh was destroyed in the year "NABO 14" then all we have to do is find a way to attach a "BCE" date to NABO 14. cue scholar jw

[TrueTomHarley]

24 minutes ago, Pudgy said:

I stopped when I realized if you assume EVERYBODY is a quack, especially about things that have NO PRACTICAL VALUE … the reward is peace and contentment.

Now if Tucker had asked Putin whether Moscow girls really do make him sing and shout, then we’d have something to hang our hats on.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, xero said:

I need to see the argument in the form of premise, premise, conclusion.  I want all the connecting dots, not an inky wash of academic bloviance.

Here is one method that I find to be the easiest to understand and support. 

.PREMISE: Babylon was destroyed in 539 BCE (Won't go into it here, but there are many ways to reach this date. Even the Watchtower "accepts" this date, in spite of the fact that the Watchtower does NOT accept the evidence for it. Because accepting the evidence for it means rejecting 607 BCE as NEB 18.)

PREMISE: Babylon was to have its period of greatest domination over all the surrounding nations for 70 years. Biblically supported by direct statements in Jeremiah 25:8-17 and accepted by the Watchtower publications as shown in the following statement found here:

 https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/pc/r1/lp-e/1200270023/388/2 *** ip-1 chap. 19 p. 253 par. 21 Jehovah Profanes the Pride of Tyre ***
Evidently, the 70 years represents the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination—when the Babylonian royal dynasty boasts of having lifted its throne even above “the stars of God.” (Isaiah 14:13) Different nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years, that domination will crumble. 

CONCLUSION: If the Babylonian Empire ended in 539, we can count back 70 years and see that it must have started when the Assyrian Empire fell in 539+70 = 609. That means NABO 17 (fall of final Assyrian capital Harran) = 609, therefore NABO 14 (the fall of Nineveh) = 612 BCE

[Pudgy]

…

[George88]

The prevailing idea regarding the absolute dating theory possibly originates from individuals who are eager to embrace DJ Wiseman's Babylonian Chronicles without considering other ancient sources. It requires assuming that ancient scholars and historians, despite being closer to the time in question, were less informed compared to modern times and that no valuable ancient information was lost until DJ Wiseman stumbled upon it.

I find it difficult to believe that it is possible.

So, there are 2 working theories, 606 BCE and 612 BCE.

However, if we accept the words of Dr. Wiseman, the Babylonians were busy elsewhere in 606 BCE.

At times, historians seem to contradict themselves in their published work. 
 Sykes, Percy Molesworth, Sir, 1867-1945 -- 2011

Is it contradictory? According to Sykes, there were two invasions of Nineveh, one in 612 BCE and another in 606 BCE.

[xero]

I'll accept triangulation from various sources discussing the same event also associated with a verifiable astronomical event. What astronomical event do we have?

[xero]

According to Bard:

 

Lunar Eclipse Calculations:

1. Astronomical Software: Programs like Stellarium or NASA's Eclipse website can be used to simulate celestial events based on historical dates and locations. These programs factor in the moon's orbit, Earth's rotation, and other parameters to accurately predict past and future eclipses.
2. Calculations: Astronomers can also utilize specialized software or manual calculations to track the moon's motion and determine the precise timing and visibility of eclipses for any point in history.

Applying to 627 BCE:

• Using these tools, astronomers have confirmed that a total lunar eclipse did indeed occur on April 9, 627 BCE.
• The eclipse would have been visible across a large part of the Near East, including Mesopotamia, where the Babylonian scribes were located.

However, it's important to note:

• These programs and calculations don't "agree" with history in the sense of having opinions or beliefs. They simply utilize scientific principles and data to reconstruct past astronomical events.
• The "Fall of Nineveh Chronicle" simply mentions a lunar eclipse in 627 BCE without specifying details like date, type, or location. While the astronomical calculations corroborate the possibility of an eclipse, they don't directly confirm the chronicle's account.

In conclusion:

• We have scientific tools and knowledge to confidently say that a total lunar eclipse occurred on April 9, 627 BCE, visible from Mesopotamia.
• However, these programs don't "agree" with history but rather help us understand past astronomical events.
• The "Fall of Nineveh Chronicle" offers valuable context but lacks specifics, so the connection between the recorded eclipse and historical events remains an interpretation based on available evidence.

 

[George88]

The research will result in the remarkable Nabonassar's astronomical canon, which, according to Herodotus, dates back to 606 BC. Furthermore, Ctesias skillfully employed the Trojan War as a basis for his precise calculations. Take a moment to thoroughly delve into the events presented in the book of Tobit. It is interesting to note that the astronomical tables, which were sent from Alexander to Aristotle, also make mention of Nineveh.

Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that the Babylonian Chronicles hold high significance in the research conducted by contemporary scholars for the year 612 BC. It should be noted that BM21946 in the Chronicles does not provide information beyond 594 BC.

[xero]

11 minutes ago, George88 said:

The research will result in the remarkable Nabonassar's astronomical canon, which, according to Herodotus, dates back to 606 BC. Furthermore, Ctesias skillfully employed the Trojan War as a basis for his precise calculations. Take a moment to thoroughly delve into the events presented in the book of Tobit. It is interesting to note that the astronomical tables, which were sent from Alexander to Aristotle, also make mention of Nineveh.

Furthermore, it is worth mentioning that the Babylonian Chronicles hold high significance in the research conducted by contemporary scholars for the year 612 BC. It should be noted that BM21946 in the Chronicles does not provide information beyond 594 BC.

There are some truths and some inaccuracies in the statements you provided:

Nabonassar's astronomical canon:

• True: Nabonassar, the founder of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, did commission astronomical observations around 747 BCE. These observations formed the basis for later Babylonian astronomical records.
• False: Herodotus, a Greek historian from the 5th century BCE, did not mention Nabonassar's canon dating back to 606 BCE. His writings mention observations starting with the reign of Nabonassar but don't specify a date.

Ctesias and the Trojan War:

• False: Ctesias, a Greek physician and historian from the 5th century BCE, did not use the Trojan War for precise astronomical calculations. While he wrote about Assyria and Persia, there's no evidence he connected them to the Trojan War for astronomical purposes.

Book of Tobit:

• Uncertain: The Book of Tobit is a deuterocanonical text included in some Bibles but not others. Its historical accuracy is debated, and its events might be fictional or embellished. It doesn't provide reliable information about Nineveh's destruction.

Alexander and Aristotle:

• Unlikely: There's no known record of Alexander sending astronomical tables to Aristotle. While both figures were interested in astronomy, there's no evidence of such a specific exchange.

Nineveh in astronomical tables:

• Unclear: It's possible that some ancient astronomical tables might have mentioned Nineveh, but without specific sources or details, it's impossible to verify this claim.

Overall:

The statements contain a mix of truth and fiction. While Nabonassar's astronomical observations are well-documented, the other claims lack clear historical evidence or contain inaccuracies. When studying historical events, it's crucial to rely on credible sources and critically evaluate the information presented.