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

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, xero said:

https://hal.science/hal-03090272v5/file/Mesopotamian-chronology revised.pdf

Excellent point made here in the link you provided:

"The durations of the Babylonian reigns, from Eriba-Marduk (770-761) to Nabonidus (556-539), are all known. The chronology of these Babylonian kings is anchored on the dates set by the astronomy of five precisely described lunar eclipses."

Sometimes when we read about Babylonian or Mesopotamian chronology being revised, we think of the Neo-Babylonian period which, unfortunately for the WTS tradition, has been "set in stone" and therefore can't really be revised. 

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, xero said:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/256488025_Dating_the_fall_of_Babylon_and_Ur_thanks_to_Astronomical_Events

And, as discussed previously about Gerard Gertoux on the forum, the above link you provided gets into some of those exact details that show how the Neo-Babylonian chronology is "set in stone:"

In your link, Gertoux states:

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 stele 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) and Adad-Guppi's stele, the temple of Harran was destroyed in the year 16 of Nabopolassar.

Dated lunar eclipses 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 !ama#-#uma-ukîn (April 10/11 666 BCE); year 42 of Nebuchadnezzar (March 2/3 562 BCE). A diary (VAT 4956) 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.

I think it was pretty brave of Gerard Gertoux to stand up against the WTS tradition publicly and show just why the accepted, evidenced chronology is so difficult to change and try to discredit.

[George88]

2 hours ago, xero said:

https://hal.science/hal-03090272v5/file/Mesopotamian-chronology revised.pdf

@xero

I have always questioned the reliability of Gérard GERTOUX's research due to his reliance on the Babylonian chronicles. The issue does not lie solely in the accuracy of the dates, but rather in the flawed way the information is presented within those dates.

Now, I'm uncertain about whether he ultimately obtained his Ph.D. in Archaeology and History, but it truly will hold no significance, much like it doesn't for Dr. Wiseman.

Thus, any efforts he makes to appear credible are simply in line with the practices of secular scholars.

[George88]

@xero

Now for your astronomical research, if you care to further study his book which I'm referencing is Gerard Gertoux - Moses and the Exodus Chronological, Historical and Archaeological Evidence (2015)

"Chronology of Assyrian reigns can therefore be fully reconstructed starting from Aššur-uballiṭ II (612-609) up to Erišu I (N° 33), since all the years of reign between these two kings are known, being aware that Assyrian years are solar up to Aššur-dân I (1179-1133) and lunar prior to this king. The durations of four reigns are missing (N° 65, 66, 37, and 38), but they can be calculated through synchronisms from Assyrian annals that indicate the exact length between the reconstruction of some famous temples." p220

[Pudgy]

…

[xero]

Ok, so if I'm reading this guy right, the Bible's discussing Nebuchadnezzar being king has nothing to do with his being king from the Babylonian official perspective, but from the perspective of the Jews?

Timeline: Nebuchadnezzar's Reign and the Desolation of Jerusalem

• 625 B.C.E. - Nebuchadnezzar begins his rule as King of Babylon. (from the Jews perspective, not Babylonian)
• 617 B.C.E. - Key figures including Daniel, Ezekiel, and King Jehoiachin are exiled to Babylon.
• 614 B.C.E. - Daniel's training as an advisor ends.
• 607 B.C.E. - Jerusalem is destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar. The beginning of the 70-year period of desolation prophesied by Jeremiah.
• 606 B.C.E. -
  • Ezekiel prophesies against Tyre.
  • The siege of Tyre begins, marking the start of 70 years where it is "forgotten" (per Isaiah's prophecy).
• 605 B.C.E. - Daniel interprets Nebuchadnezzar's dream.
• 590 B.C.E. -
  • Ezekiel prophesies Egypt's 40-year desolation and confirms the siege of Tyre has now ended (after 13 years).
• 588 B.C.E. - Egypt's 40-year desolation begins (prophesied by Ezekiel).
• 548 B.C.E. - Egypt's desolation ends.
• 539 B.C.E. - Babylon is conquered by the Medo-Persian Empire.
• 537 B.C.E. - Cyrus the Great releases the Jewish exiles, ending the 70-year desolation of Jerusalem.
• 536 B.C.E. - The 70 years prophesied regarding Tyre end. Tyre assists the Jews in rebuilding Jerusalem.

Egypt's Desolation: A Key Piece of Evidence

Ezekiel prophesied the plundering and desolation of Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar, specifying a 40-year period (Ezekiel 29:17-19, 12).

• Secular Chronology: If Ezekiel's exile began in 597/598 B.C.E., the prophecy is dated to 570 B.C.E. This aligns with records like Vat 4956 suggesting Nebuchadnezzar's campaign against Egypt in 568 B.C.E. However, this creates a conflict, as the 40-year desolation would end in 528 B.C.E., before Cyrus' decree to release exiles in 537 B.C.E.
• Bible Chronology: If Ezekiel's exile began in 617/618 B.C.E., the prophecy is given in 590 B.C.E. This places Egypt's desolation squarely in Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year (588 B.C.E.), with the 40-year period ending in 548 B.C.E. This scenario allows for Egypt's restoration before the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C.E, aligning with historical records of Egypt's alliance with Babylon's last king.

Key Points and Arguments for 607 B.C.E

• 70-Year Desolation of Jerusalem: Counting 70 years from Cyrus' decree of restoration in 537 B.C.E. confirms 607 B.C.E as the correct date for Jerusalem's destruction.
• Tyre's Prophecy: If Jerusalem's destruction occurred in 587 B.C.E., the 70-years associated with Tyre would not fall in line with the Jews' return and the recorded actions of Tyre in assisting them.
• Egypt's Desolation: The prophecy about Egypt's 40-year desolation further supports 607 B.C.E. as the accurate date.

[JW Insider]

15 hours ago, xero said:

I'm not a fan of goal-post shifting, inventing of new goal-posts, or editing of people's comments and arguments. There is a natural flow which gets interrupted when those uncomfortable with a conversation try to steer it or control it.

As you probably already know, the WTS publications are correct when they state:

*** kc p. 187 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period.

Literate Babylonians from various cities all over the empire could write "17th year of Nabopolassar" [with the month and day] or "18th year of Nebuchadnezzar" [with the month and day] just as readily as we would write 2/25/2024. And there is apparently an average of about 1,000 of these contracts per year covering EVERY year of EVERY Neo-Babylonidan king.

This means that if you could just put them in the right order, you would have the entire string of dates covered from Nabopolassar, to Nebuchadnezzar, to Amel-Marduk, to Neriglissar, to Labashi-Marduk, to Nabonidus, to Cyrus, to Cambyses, etc.

At that point you would only need to identify the BCE year for any ONE of those years and you would know the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology of every king. Evidence for any one year, serves as evidence for every other year. All of them interlock with no exceptions and no contradictions.

In other words, if you had evidence somehow that the first year of Cyrus was 538 BCE, that would also serve as evidence that the 14th year of Nabopolassar was 612 BCE. If you had evidence that the last year of Nabopolassar was 604, that would serve as the same evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's accession year was 605, and his first year was 604, and his 18th was 587 and his 43rd was 562. 

This is why a discussion of the actual 'solid' evidence for the Neo-Babylonian chronology is the best foundation for discovering the date of Nineveh's destruction, or the fall of Jerusalem, or the fall of Babylon, or the start of Evil-Merodach's reign.

I think you can tell, @xero, that a discussion that focuses on just the secular evidence would be useful to more easily reach exactly the same goal. And that goal could not only be more easily reached, but also more easily verified and double-checked and triple-checked, and quadruple-checked from various independent sources. 

I say this because there is no astronomical event recorded for the 14th year of Nabopolassar which is the evidenced date for the Fall of Nineveh.

• But there is an astronomical event dated to the accession year of Nabopolassar in 626 BCE. That fact alone can tell us that Nineveh fell in 612 BCE.
• There is a separate astronomical event dated to the 18th year of Nabopolassar in 616. That fact alone can tell us that Nineveh fell in 612 BCE. And putting those two independent pieces of evidence together we have double-checked the date.
• But when the entire string of Neo-Babylonian kings is put in the right order, we also have astronomical observations reported for Neb 14 = 591, Neb 16 = 589, Neb 18 = 587, Neb 25 = 580, Neb 26 = 579, Neb 27 =578, Neb 28 = 577, etc. Each one of those pieces of evidence is ALSO therefore evidence that Nabopolassar 14 = 612, so that even an observation under Nebuchadnezzar becomes evidence that Nineveh fell in 612 BCE. 

Of course, this also means that, when you put the entire string of Neo-Babylonian kings in order, any evidence that 539 is the correct date for Cyrus conquering Babylon is the same evidence that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th is 587. There is no such thing as choosing one without the other, UNLESS you are willing to discard the evidence from literally THOUSANDS of business documents, and also discard the double-checked, triple-checked, . . . octuple-checked astronomical data. And it would be highly hypocritical, because whatever reason you tried to give for discarding THOUSANDS of piecies of excellent evidence would apply moreso against the much weaker and less attested evidence for Cyrus in 539.

The reason for moving that kind of a discussion to another thread is because there will invariably be someone who is so fearful of the actual evidence that they will quickly say that first you have to prove exactly when the 70 years started and ended. Or, first you have to tell me why secular scholars haven't decided on whether it was Nebuchadnezzar's 18th or 19th year when Jerusalem was destroyed. Or, first you have to prove that Russell was really wrong in promoting Zionism. Those types of new goal posts and moving of goal posts can be distracting to someone who is more interested in the strength of the evidence for attaching BCE dates to the Neo-Babylonian chronology. 

[George88]

The alignment of secular and biblical viewpoints could be improved slightly. However, the presentation has merits. Interesting fact: Both secular history and biblical texts indicate that Naboplassar started his reign around 626/5 BC, the same time that Prophet Jeremiah began prophesying against Jerusalem.

Hence, for the biblical scribes, the identity of the reigning king in 626/5 BC was of little consequence other than Jeremiah prophesying the destruction and comparing the significance of Nebuchadnezzar's name being associated with the year 607 BC, marking Jerusalem's destruction. This can be attributed to a straightforward explanation.

Another issue pointed out in Dr. Wiseman's reference book is the presence of another person connected to Nabopolassar with the name Nebuchadnezzar, which critics are ignoring even though it is clearly documented. It is suggested that Nebuchadnezzar could have been referred to as an Assyrian King. This raises questions about the dating of 626/5 BC. What implications does this hold?

So, nothing in secular history is absolute as some are claiming. In particular, when considering the 19/8-year scenario, this becomes even more significant. It also ends in 607/6 BC.

[xero]

13 hours ago, JW Insider said:

• But there is an astronomical event dated to the accession year of Nabopolassar in 626 BCE. That fact alone can tell us that Nineveh fell in 612 BCE.
• There is a separate astronomical event dated to the 18th year of Nabopolassar in 616. That fact alone can tell us that Nineveh fell in 612 BCE. And putting those two independent pieces of evidence together we have double-checked the date.

What are these two?

[JW Insider]

On 2/26/2024 at 5:57 AM, xero said:

What are these two?

Those particular two events are simply Saros interpolations, which won't make as much sense as direct evidence until we are ready to re-build the entire king list and test it against the known ancient "spreadsheets" of Saros eclipses (LBAT 1415, 1417, 1418, 1419, 1420 & 1421) listing them for every "18 years" -- and then combined with evidence from another document. This was why I wanted to start with Nebuchadnezzar and then work backward and forward from there. 

However, I can do one better. It turns out that I was wrong when I said there were no observations/events associated with  Nabopolassar's 14th year. I had stopped looking at further astronomical readings when I was satisfied I had seen enough to assure myself. 

But there may be a couple more, one of which should touch on Nabopolassar's 14th:

https://www.jenseits-des-horizonts.de/download_pdf/bsa_044_04.pdf

So it's those first two tablets, referenced in the footnotes 3 & 4. The first is Hunger, Sachs, and Steele, No 52.

That tablet is reported elsewhere to show observations for:

• Nabopolassar  7 = 619 BCE
• Nabopolassar 12 = 614 BCE
• Nabopolassar 13 = 613 BCE
• Nabopolassar 14 = 612 BCE [edited to add: possibly stops at Nab 13=613BCE]

Since the above PDF shows the readings stopping in 613 and doesn't include Nabopolassar 14 = 612 BCE, perhaps it is partly cut off or damaged at that point. Or the readings go past December of 613 still in the same regnal year 613, but technically 612. I haven't seen a picture of it, although I might have a photocopy of the correct pages of Hermann Hunger's "Astronomical Diaries and Texts V" in my files from a time I copied several pages from those volumes at the NYPL Reference Library. I kind of doubt I have it though, because I knew nothing about this one when I did my readings for the posts here: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88343-secular-evidence-and-neo-babylonian-chronology-nebuchadnezzar-cyrus-etc/?do=findComment&comment=152186 

Another one, (Text Number 5) related to the above, is also in Hermann Hunger's Astronomical Diaries and Texts V, and it has the year of the king (16) but not the name of the king. It reports an eclipse that matches September 15, 610 BCE. That is of course the 16th year of Nabopolassar, as it lands right there in among the readings above in Text Number 52.

I'm out of state right now, but will check these out for myself in a few days.

[George88]

What can be demonstrated with HSM 1899.2.112? Can it prove that it was the 39th year of Nebuchadnezzar's Reign? Does the tablet specify that people should use 568/7 BC as a reference point for the destruction of Jerusalem? 
 

Continuing with the same sequence, it becomes evident that both 607/6 BC and 587/6 BC would be a valid outcome from 568/7 BC. However, it is important to note that this does not serve as conclusive evidence for anything. Therefore, if people are going to use a 19/8-year cycle with a starting point of 568/7 BC, for 587/6 BC, then in all conscience, they should continue to 607/6 BC. 

There is also a similar extrapolation about MB 41222. However, you may find the data from H. Hunger (the editor) quite intriguing for your exploration of Nineveh in 612 BC. It is worth noting that this source does not mention the destruction of Jerusalem.

Now, the mention of a siege of Jerusalem in 598/7 BC in The Babylonian Chronicles undermines the argument for 587 BC, as there is no mention of an event in that year. Therefore, it is important to carefully consider the historical evidence before deciding that the actual event in scripture could have been the one mentioned in 598/7 BC solely based on this mention. It would seem farfetched.

 

[JW Insider]

Thanks @George88 for the details from Britton: "An Early Observation Text for Mars:"

I don't know how many people have tried this, but you can create a kind of time-lapse "movie" with several of these astronomy applications (software) by simply pointing in a fixed, specific direction (il.e. due West) but zooming out to get a picture of the entire night sky and setting the time to give you a picture of what it looked like at say 9pm Babylon time (or Baghdad, Iraq or thereabouts). Then you quickly click through days going either forward or backward to watch the movements of the planets and the changing path and phases of the moon. On some apps you can just hold down the arrow key and run through about 20 days per second, creating a kind of movie showing the new position for 9pm every day.

What is most interesting is the path of planets like Mars when they move at a steady pace across the sky from night to night, but then will slow down to almost no movement and smoothly changes direction. (Mars in retrograde.) It makes you wonder just how closely the ancient astronomer/astrologers were able to figure out exactly when it turned retrograde because it slows down so much. It's like the date for the Roman Sol Invictus being around December 25 when accurate measurements show that the Winter Solstice was actually on December 21/22. (The idea, of course, is that the hours of sunlight in a day got shorter and shorter, but by December 25 they were sure the days were getting longer again.) 

You might expect a similar 3-day delay in determining Mars in retrograde. And this is pretty much what happens with the earliest Mars readings:

 

What I am talking about is in the second paragraph above where you would expect the observation to be "late by several days" which is exactly what happened for the ancient measurement of when "Mars stood still."

I included the paragraph above just to show that if you are using the software, and yours doesn't have "Babylon" you will be off by no more than a day if you pick a modern city closer to Baghdad or a different city 100 miles away.