The Watchtower's 20-year adjustment to the standard Neo-Babylonian chronology

[JW Insider]

10 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Correct. What I mean to say is that the Bible does not give such dates in a modern calendar such as BCE dating.

 

OK. I understand that. Thanks.

And I meant something more like whether the Bible ever contains statements like this:

1. "And Jerusalem and Judea began going into Exile in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim"
2. "And I will bring this nation into exile starting in the 11th year Zedekiah."
3. You will be free from this Exile when the Persians conquer the Babylonians."
4. "And I will free you from this Exile in the first year of Cyrus"
5. "Two years and 3 months after Cyrus conquered the King of Babylon many of the exiled Jews began returning to their homeland and the Exile was declared completed." 

There is something very close to that for the end of the exile, but nothing like it for the beginning of the exile. 

So the "dates" for the start and end of the Exile become a matter of interpretation, not a matter of clear Bible declarations or statements. 

10 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Now it is your turn:

What is the exact date for the beginning of the Exile?

What is the exact date for the end of the Exile?

As I said before, we need not worry about the beginning and end of the exile in order to determine the BCE date for the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. The 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar is the date for the fall of Jerusalem as far as the Bible tells us. Similarly, the 14th year of Nabopolassar is the primary date for the fall of Nineveh, if we were to return to the original topic of this thread. So whether the Exile began exactly at that time, or 20 years earlier or 20 years later, the real goal is to find a BCE date that fits the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar and the 14th year of Nabopolassar. 

But I would like to try to think through your question anyway. It's the one question where you have pushed me to think in a different direction in the past, and I'd like to take it more seriously this time. I'll probably move this part of the discussion to a new topic/thread, so that we'll have a more serious place to discuss it.

For now, I'll start rambling off my thoughts about it. 

I think that it's best to think that the exile began when Nebuchadnezzar first began taking exiles. So we should look for the first time the Bible puts any kind of date on events related to "exiles."

The most obvious "first" verse in that regard at first might appear to be this one:

(Jeremiah 52:28) . . .These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews.

I've tested about 8 different pieces of Babylonian astronomical evidence and my software programs always puts that in the year 598. The Babylonian Chronicles claim that it happened very late in that year and therefore probably included an early part of 597. So that would be 598/597 BCE.  

The next verse shows that a much smaller number of exiles were taken in Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, which was the same year the city and the temple at Jerusalem was considered destroyed:

(Jeremiah 52:29) . . .In the 18th year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, 832 people were taken from Jerusalem.

All the astronomical evidence I have seen, and that I have tested myself, consistently places that 18th year as 587 BCE.

The next verse shows a smaller number of people taken as exiles in Nebuchadnezzar's 23rd year:

(Jeremiah 52:30) . . .In the 23rd year of Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar, Neb·uʹzar·adʹan the chief of the guard took Jews into exile, 745 people.. . .

And, of course, all the astronomical evidence places this date as 582 BCE.

But that's not the whole story, of course. The Watchtower publications show that Nebuchadnezzar was marching around Syria-Palestine, so that we know he was near the Judean nation much earlier. The Babylonian Chronicles and the Watchtower publications both agree that this was in the Accession year of Nebuchadnezzar . All the astronomical tablet evidence places that date in the year 605 BCE. The same year that Nebuchadnezzar defeated the King of Egypt (Necho) at Carchemish. The Bible dates that, too:

(Jeremiah 46:2) . . .For Egypt, concerning the army of Pharʹaoh Neʹcho the king of Egypt, who was along the Eu·phraʹtes River and was defeated at Carʹche·mish by King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon in the fourth year of Je·hoiʹa·kim son of Jo·siʹah, the king of Judah:

But do we have evidence that there were exiles taken from Judah this early in Nebuchadnezzar's regime? 

(Daniel 1:1-6) . . .In the third year of the kingship of King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2  In time Jehovah gave King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah into his hand, . . . Then the king ordered Ashʹpe·naz his chief court official to bring some of the Israelites, including those of royal and noble descent. . . . They were to be trained for three years, and at the end of that time they were to enter the king’s service. Now among them were some from the tribe of Judah: Daniel, Han·a·niʹah, Mishʹa·el, and Az·a·riʹah. 

So the answer is apparently Yes. During that early march through the land, just as both the Watchtower publications admit and the Babylonian Chronicles also claim, there were some exiles taken at that time, too. They were even called by the term exiles.

(Daniel 2:25) . . .Arʹi·och quickly took Daniel in before the king and said to him: “I have found a man of the exiles of Judah who can make known the interpretation to the king.”

Of course, I am quite aware that the Watchtower interpretation doesn't agree with the date mentioned in Daniel 1:1. So the Watchtower changes the meaning of "third year of Jehoiakim" to mean something else.

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

There is something very close to that for the end of the exile, but nothing like it for the beginning of the exile. 

I disagree. The biblical accounts in 2 Ki. 25: 8-17; 2 Chron. 36: 11,20 are very descriptive of the beginning of the exilic 70 years.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

So the "dates" for the start and end of the Exile become a matter of interpretation, not a matter of clear Bible declarations or statements. 

This is expected as any scheme of chronology requires an interpretation of a historical record along with a methodology.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

As I said before, we need not worry about the beginning and end of the exile in order to determine the BCE date for the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar. The 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar is the date for the fall of Jerusalem as far as the Bible tells us. Similarly, the 14th year of Nabopolassar is the primary date for the fall of Nineveh, if we were to return to the original topic of this thread. So whether the Exile began exactly at that time, or 20 years earlier or 20 years later, the real goal is to find a BCE date that fits the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar and the 14th year of Nabopolassar. 

The problem with this methodology is that you have chosen to ignore a major piece of the biblical/historical record namely 70 years which logically is the Exile proper and a period of the Jewish nation in servitude to Babylon whilst the Land of Judah lay desolate. The fixing of Neb's 19th year and that of Zedkiah's 11th year can only be determined if due consideration is given to the 70 years as these regnal years were commensurate with fixed events namely Neb's final assault on Jerusalem and its destruction, the deportation of the populace in Jerusalem and Judah, the dethronement of the Judean king etc, etc. An appeal to an external NB Chronology which has little to say in terms of history regarding these events is simply nonsense creating a false and misleading chronology.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

But I would like to try to think through your question anyway. It's the one question where you have pushed me to think in a different direction in the past, and I'd like to take it more seriously this time. I'll probably move this part of the discussion to a new topic/thread, so that we'll have a more serious place to discuss it.

You need to as most historians have done, focus on the Exile as to its history and its theological significance unless you do this then you will remain distracted by the NB Chronology with its history and the interpretation and use of astronomical tables. The priority must be and can only be the Bible of the first order anything else is secondary.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

I think that it's best to think that the exile began when Nebuchadnezzar first began taking exiles. So we should look for the first time the Bible puts any kind of date on events related to "exiles."

The most obvious "first" verse in that regard at first might appear to be this one:

(Jeremiah 52:28) . . .These are the people whom Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar took into exile: in the seventh year, 3,023 Jews.

The biblical record shows that there was a first deportation of Jews to Babylon under Nebuchadnezzer in his 7/8th year but the Exile proper did not begin then as the land had not been desolated which would be descriptive of a nation in Exile.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

But that's not the whole story, of course. The Watchtower publications show that Nebuchadnezzar was marching around Syria-Palestine, so that we know he was near the Judean nation much earlier. The Babylonian Chronicles and the Watchtower publications both agree that this was in the Accession year of Nebuchadnezzar . All the astronomical tablet evidence places that date in the year 605 BCE. The same year that Nebuchadnezzar defeated the King of Egypt (Necho) at Carchemish. The Bible dates that, too:

(Jeremiah 46:2) . . .For Egypt, concerning the army of Pharʹaoh Neʹcho the king of Egypt, who was along the Eu·phraʹtes River and was defeated at Carʹche·mish by King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon in the fourth year of Je·hoiʹa·kim son of Jo·siʹah, the king of Judah:

But do we have evidence that there were exiles taken from Judah this early in Nebuchadnezzar's regime? 

(Daniel 1:1-6) . . .In the third year of the kingship of King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah, King Neb·u·chad·nezʹzar of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. 2  In time Jehovah gave King Je·hoiʹa·kim of Judah into his hand, . . . Then the king ordered Ashʹpe·naz his chief court official to bring some of the Israelites, including those of royal and noble descent. . . . They were to be trained for three years, and at the end of that time they were to enter the king’s service. Now among them were some from the tribe of Judah: Daniel, Han·a·niʹah, Mishʹa·el, and Az·a·riʹah. 

So the answer is apparently Yes. During that early march through the land, just as both the Watchtower publications admit and the Babylonian Chronicles also claim, there were some exiles taken at that time, too. They were even called by the term exiles.

(Daniel 2:25) . . .Arʹi·och quickly took Daniel in before the king and said to him: “I have found a man of the exiles of Judah who can make known the interpretation to the king.”

This information only shows that there was a deportation of Jews to Babylon which for those who would be in exile in Babylon thus described as exiles but this was not the Exile proper which only occurred some ten years later in Neb's 18/19 year.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Of course, I am quite aware that the Watchtower interpretation doesn't agree with the date mentioned in Daniel 1:1. So the Watchtower changes the meaning of "third year of Jehoiakim" to mean something else.

Indeed but this interpretation is consistent with the biblical record, an accurate translation of malkut as 'kingship in Dan 1:1, Josephus and Jewish tradition.

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

13 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The biblical accounts in 2 Ki. 25: 8-17; 2 Chron. 36: 11,20

It's very possible that this was considered a beginning "date" of the exile (meaning the 18th/19th year of Nebuchadnezzar). It obviously was one of the most important dates of exile. But this never says that the exile began counting only at this time. It's a fair interpretation, but not the only one possible. And the very fact that Jeremiah gives 3 different years for the exiles makes a beginning date more nebulous. 

It actually seems likely that most Jews saw the beginning of the Exile in the 7th year of Nebuchadnezzar. This is also the dating schema that Ezekiel uses to date any year in the "Exilic Era." Starting in 597 BCE according to the evidence.

(Ezekiel 1:1, 2) . . .In the 30th year, on the fifth day of the fourth month, while I was among the exiled people by the river Cheʹbar, the heavens were opened and I began to see visions of God.  On the fifth day of the month—that is, in the fifth year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin. . .

*** it-1 p. 793 Ezekiel, Book of ***
Another notable feature of the book of Ezekiel is the meticulous care Ezekiel took to date his prophecies, giving not only the year of King Jehoiachin’s exile but also the month and day of the month.

Dating everything from the year of the King's exile was the same as dating the exile that started 10 or 11 years before Nebuchadnezzar's 18h/19th year.

And Daniel also begins his exile we say in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th/8th year, not the 18/19th.

Of course, I'm not saying it's wrong. It seems to be the most described part of the disaster, and one could even interpret Jeremiah 52:27 as saying "thus the exile began" referring to the description before which was mostly of the 17th to 19th years of Nebuchadnezzar. It can also appear to describe the 3 exiles listed just after it. The NWT puts it in the above paragraph, not with the 3 exiles that immediately follow the phrase. Logically, it seems to be a heading for the three that follow.

On the issue of Daniel mentioning the third year of Jehoiakim as the beginning of their exile, @George88 has been quoting recently from Wiseman, who takes this to mean that Daniel's exile started closer to 605 BCE, not 597 BCE. In other words, nearer to Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, not this 7th/8th. 

[JW Insider]

15 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The fixing of Neb's 19th year and that of Zedkiah's 11th year can only be determined if due consideration is given to the 70 years as these regnal years were commensurate with fixed events namely Neb's final assault on Jerusalem and its destruction, the deportation of the populace in Jerusalem and Judah, the dethronement of the Judean king etc, etc.

Again, that's a valid proposition for an interpretation. But then what do you do with the fact that you can independently calculate Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year, "six ways from Sunday"  and discover that each independent way brings you to the year 586 BCE. 

Everything might have looked like a proper interpretation up to that point, but if you look at the exile and consider it to be 70 years long, you end up with a contradiction. The 70 years takes you all the way to 516 BCE. Yet, the same exact set of calculations that show Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year as 586 BCE show the first year of Cyrus over Babylon as 538 BCE.

So, you end up with a 70-year period that looks a lot more like the one in Zechariah, which was closer to 516 BCE, as admitted by the "Insight" book:

(Zechariah 1:12) . . .So the angel of Jehovah said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?”

*** it-2 p. 1225 Zechariah, Book of ***
The last time indicator found in the book of Zechariah is the fourth day of Chislev in the fourth year of Darius’ reign (about December 1, 518 B.C.E.). (7:1) Accordingly, this book could not have been committed to writing before the close of 518 B.C.E. 

So that' s the big question for me. What do you do when you discover that the same astronomical evidence that gives you 538 BCE for Cyrus 1st year over Babylon also gives you 587 BCE for Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year? 

It seems to me you'd have to make another adjustment to your theory, or else you would be forced to keep sowing seeds of doubt about the Neo-Babylonian chronology. But it's the same chronology that gave you 539 and 538! So you'd merely be sowing more seeds of doubt about the whole interpretation.

To keep this theory, you have to somehow keep believers afraid to look at the astronomical and archaeological evidence for the period. I don't think that's a sustainable way to promote a traditional interpretation. People are naturally curious, and some are going to find out, no matter how much doubt is sown.

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Again, that's a valid proposition for an interpretation. But then what do you do with the fact that you can independently calculate Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year, "six ways from Sunday"  and discover that each independent way brings you to the year 586 BCE. 

There is no doubt at all that you can fix the dates of Neb's reign by other means namely with NB Chronology and astronomical methods and arrive at various dates such as 586 or 587 BCE converted to our calendar. But the problem is that such a methodology does agree with the Biblical record which also provides historical data about events in Neb's reign synchronized to that of the Late Judean monarchy.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Everything might have looked like a proper interpretation up to that point, but if you look at the exile and consider it to be 70 years long, you end up with a contradiction. The 70 years takes you all the way to 516 BCE. Yet, the same exact set of calculations that show Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year as 586 BCE show the first year of Cyrus over Babylon as 538 BCE.

Yes, the contradiction between the two chronologies- WT biblical Chronology and NB Chronology amounts to a difference of 20 Years and this is because of the 70 years which fact is omitted in the secular chronology except Josephus. If you argue that the 70 years is applicable from 586BCE? to 516 BCE then you are interpreting the 70 years only about the destruction and restoration of the Jewish Temple but such an interpretation ignores the description by Jeremiah that the yo years was a period of Exile-a period of servitude to Babylon and period of desolation of Judah.

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So, you end up with a 70-year period that looks a lot more like the one in Zechariah, which was closer to 516 BCE, as admitted by the "Insight" book:

(Zechariah 1:12) . . .So the angel of Jehovah said: “O Jehovah of armies, how long will you withhold your mercy from Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, with whom you have been indignant these 70 years?”

*** it-2 p. 1225 Zechariah, Book of ***
The last time indicator found in the book of Zechariah is the fourth day of Chislev in the fourth year of Darius’ reign (about December 1, 518 B.C.E.). (7:1) Accordingly, this book could not have been committed to writing before the close of 518 B.C.E. 

Zechariah's 70 years are identical to that of Jeremiah in terms of their nature, description and chronology which no sense applies to the restoration of the Temple in 516 BCE which is not shown either by Zech 1:12 or by the quoted Insight reference. Zechariah received his first vision in Darius' second year in 519 BCE but the 70 years described by the angel had finished in 537 BCE. Thus, the angel was simply recounting the already accomplished fulfilment of the 70 years. Further, those 70 years were to have been a period of the desolation of the Land of Judah but now at this time, the Jews had already resettled in the land.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

So that' s the big question for me. What do you do when you discover that the same astronomical evidence that gives you 538 BCE for Cyrus 1st year over Babylon also gives you 587 BCE for Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year?

Do nothing. The astronomical evidence is also open to interpretation as shown by the research by Dr. Rolf Furuli but simply rely on biblical evidence as God's Word is the most sure foundation for faith.

 

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It seems to me you'd have to make another adjustment to your theory, or else you would be forced to keep sowing seeds of doubt about the Neo-Babylonian chronology. But it's the same chronology that gave you 539 and 538! So you'd merely be sowing more seeds of doubt about the whole interpretation.

The only adjustment that needs to be made is a full recognition of the fact of the Jewish Exile which disp[laces NB Chronology leaving the biblical record to properly fix the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE. Such secular chronology fixes the Fall of Babylon in 539 BCE as a Pivotal Date used by WT scholars and all other scholars and this is simply methodology.

3 hours ago, JW Insider said:

o keep this theory, you have to somehow keep believers afraid to look at the astronomical and archaeological evidence for the period. I don't think that's a sustainable way to promote a traditional interpretation. People are naturally curious, and some are going to find out, no matter how much doubt is sown.

WT scholars are not afraid but have and continue to examine all evidence that scholarship provides either past, present or future. I myself have completed a course in the archaeology and history of the late Judean /Babylonian period of the sixth=fifth century BC under the auspices of Prof. Obed Lipschits- 'The Fall and Rise of Jerusalem which was the textbook for this university course.

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

52 minutes ago, scholar JW said:

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

What do you do when you discover that the same astronomical evidence that gives you 538 BCE for Cyrus 1st year over Babylon also gives you 587 BCE for Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year?

Do nothing. The astronomical evidence is also open to interpretation

If the astronomical evidence is open to interpretation why do you put faith in 539 as a "pivotal" year?

Since there is even more direct astronomical evidence for:

• 604 as Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year, and
• 598 as Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, and
• 591 as Nebuchadnezzar's 14th year, and
• 589 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 16th year, and
• 588 as Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year, and 
• 580 as Nebuchadnezzar's 25th year, and
• 579 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 26th year, and
• 578 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 27th year, and
• 577 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 28th year, and
• 571 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 32nd year, and
• 568 as Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and therefore
• 587 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year . . .

. . . then why not use the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign as even more pivotal? In other words, why do you have faith that all those years are wrong and have faith that 539 for Cyrus accession is right?

• How did you personally arrive at the conclusion that 539 was indeed the year of Cyrus conquering Babylon?
• Do you think that most Witnesses even know how one arrives at 539 for Cyrus Accession, or 538 for Cyrus 1st year, and 537 for Cyrus 2nd (including the last few months of Cyrus 1st)?
• Was it through your own research or was it faith in the tradition of our WT publications?
• If it was through your own research, then again I ask very seriously, how did you arrive at it yourself?

And lastly, I think it's great that you had Professor Obed Lipschits -- although you should know that his name is NOT Obed, but Oded Lipschits. My question is:

Why do you think that your Professor Oded Lipschits believes Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE?

[Pudgy]

He was drunk?

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

If the astronomical evidence is open to interpretation why do you put faith in 539 as a "pivotal" year?

WT scholars in our publications have well explained the relationship and use of astronomical tables in the construction of our scheme of biblical chronology. In fact, when Parker and Dubberstein published their Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C - A.D. 45 in 1942 and 1946, WT scholars made use of this new material using establishing 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon as a useful date for this purpose in 1949 later be termed as an 'Absolute Date' and now termed as a 'Pivotal Date'. The reason why WT scholars champion 539 BCE as a 'pivotal date' is that it enjoys universal acceptance within scholarship and was a pivotal event in Bible history being fully described as being well placed in the context of the fall of Jerusalem- the end of the Davidic Monarchy.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Since there is even more direct astronomical evidence for:

• 604 as Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year, and
• 598 as Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, and
• 591 as Nebuchadnezzar's 14th year, and
• 589 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 16th year, and
• 588 as Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year, and 
• 580 as Nebuchadnezzar's 25th year, and
• 579 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 26th year, and
• 578 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 27th year, and
• 577 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 28th year, and
• 571 as  Nebuchadnezzar's 32nd year, and
• 568 as Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, and therefore
• 587 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year .

Only a few of these dates are mentioned in the OT and the astronomical evidence for all of these dates is open to question as shown by Rolf Furuli's research.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

then why not use the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign as even more pivotal? In other words, why do you have faith that all those years are wrong and have faith that 539 for Cyrus accession is right?

Only those dates that are synchronized to the Judean Monarch reigns should be used for Chronology. WT publications have well explained how the date 539 BCE for the Fall of Babylon is determined and such an explanation is both accurate and reasonable.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

How did you personally arrive at the conclusion that 539 was indeed the year of Cyrus conquering Babylon?

 

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

How did you personally arrive at the conclusion that 539 was indeed the year of Cyrus conquering Babylon?

By reading such explanations in WT publications which are in turn based on scholarship.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Do you think that most Witnesses even know how one arrives at 539 for Cyrus Accession, or 538 for Cyrus 1st year, and 537 for Cyrus 2nd (including the last few months of Cyrus 1st)

Agreed, for very few Witnesses are interested or know Chronology.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Was it through your own research or was it faith in the tradition of our WT publications?

Both. I have an extensive library of books on Chronology as well as journal articles on Chronology back to the fifties as well as almost fifty years of experience in dealing with this subject.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

If it was through your own research, then again I ask very seriously, how did you arrive at it yourself?

By extensive reading of all WT publications dealing with Chronology, reference books on Chronology such as Finegan, Anstey, Thiele, Jonsson, Furuli, James Ussher, Isaac Newton, Hughes and many Journal authors.

1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

Why do you think that your Professor Oded Lipschits believes Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE?

He does not. He gives 586 BCE and not 587 BCE as do most historians and archaeologists following the tradition of Edwin Thiele.

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

3 hours ago, scholar JW said:

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

Why do you think that your Professor Oded Lipschits believes Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 BCE?

He does not. He gives 586 BCE and not 587 BCE as do most historians and archaeologists following the tradition of Edwin Thiele.

You have that wrong. He absolutely does! Oded Lipschits believes Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587/6 BCE. Just as he believes his 19th year was 586/5 BCE, his 23rd year was 582/1, etc. 

Note, for example, page 40 of the following work by him.

Ammon in Transition from Vassal Kingdom to Babylonian Province

Oded Lipschits

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No. 335 (Aug., 2004), pp. 37-52 (16 pages)

https://doi.org/10.2307/4150068•https://www.jstor.org/stable/4150068

 

Also note the comment later on the same page:

 

 

Perhaps you thought I was referring to the date for the more complete destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. I also would put this more complete destruction of the city and temple almost as likely in 586, and we should recall not just the two different "new year" dates that are six months apart, and the difference in counting even a partial accession year as a full year with some Bible writers, but also the fact that the siege lasted about a year and a half. (Yes, I have read Rodger Young and Edwin Thiele on the matter of regnal year counting.)

 

I was asking, not about the destruction itself, but what was the BCE YEAR that Oded Lipschits identifies as Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year. So the answer is definitely 587 BCE. (Using the usual Spring/Nisan start of the new year, 587 starts in the spring, and therefore will contain about 3 months of 586. This is one of the main reasons we'll often see a BCE date written, for example, as 587/6 instead of just 587.

 

We also know from several of his papers, books and articles, that Lipschits begins the period of Babylonian domination over other nations with the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, starting with the campaigns of 605, and then his 1st year, 604. 

 

It might be worth the reminder that whenever you find a reference to any year in Nebuchadnezzar's reign, such as when Lipschits says: "in the 23rd year of Nebuchadrezzar's reign (582/581 B.C.E.)" this is the same as saying his 22nd year was 583/2, his 21st year was 584/3, his 20th was 585/4, his 19th was 586/5 and his 18th was 587/6, etc. 

 

 

Also, you seemed to miss the point of the question. Even if you thought that Lipschits used a different year-to-year schema, my question means the same thing as if I had asked:

 

Why do you think that your Professor Oded Lipschits believes Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587 [586] BCE?

 

If the Neo-Babylonian regnal years of the NB kings were open to interpretation, why does he not admit that anywhere? Do you think that all these professors and historians and archaeologists of the period are just going along with what they've heard the way most Witnesses do? Or do you think they do a little research before making such definitive use of the NB chronology?

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, scholar JW said:

Only a few of these dates are mentioned in the OT

No. As we've already established NONE of them are, not as BCE dates. We are ONLY talking about how you might determine that a certain reference to a specific year of Nebuchadnezzar (in this case) has been assigned a valid BCE date. After you assign any ONE of them to a regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar, you have just assigned BCE dates to ALL the known years of his reign, even ones I didn't mention. (I only focused on ones where I had already personally checked astronomical data that was related to major events of interest or referenced on Babylonian tablets.)

To be clear, if you tell me how old you were on April 1, 1999, then I can tell you how old you were on April 1st every year from when you turned ONE all the way up to the most recent April 1st. 

[Srecko Sostar]

4 hours ago, scholar JW said:

WT scholars in our publications

Please, who are WT scholars?

Then, since when have they been operating within WTJWorg?

Who chose them and appointed them to do this kind of work?

On the basis of which credentials were they chosen?

On the other hand, what is even more important (primarily for me) for this and any other assessment of their action comes from the consequences produced by WT scholars. Namely, the entire promenade of various WT scholars has been making theological and doctrinal chaos and commotion for a whole century.

They are dangerous for the spiritual and mental health of believers. So how can they even be trusted?

[Srecko Sostar]

4 hours ago, scholar JW said:

WT scholars in our publications

On all these pages where history and dates are discussed, many people are very clearly mentioned with their first and last names and with the names of books, publications, and sources from which they are quoted.
Please, who are the people, by name and surname, who are WT scholars? Let them stand behind their claims with their full name and surname.