ACTUAL evidence Nebuchadnezzar's 18th is 587 BCE. TEN TIMES BETTER evidence than for Cyrus in 539?

[JW Insider]

There is NO Bible evidence for 539 BCE. There is NO Bible evidence for 587 BCE. There is NO Bible evidence for 607 BCE.

I think most of us understand that by now. So, I propose this new thread/topic where we shift the focus almost exclusively to the basic, fundamental question about the strength of the secular evidence in the Neo-Babylonian period. Why do we rely on it? Why does the WTS rely on secular Babylonian astronomer's evidence for Cyrus in 539? Why does the WTS reject the same evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year?  Is the evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's years actually 10 times better than for Cyrus?

When that question is solved, it also resolves the entire question about the 70 years, the WTS 20-year gap, the years of those kings that came just before and just after. And it will automatically link to the resolution of dates for events like the Fall of Nineveh, the Battle of Carchemish, the death of Josiah, the years of Zedekiah, the BCE dates for the three different exile events reported in Jeremiah 52. And, of course, it should answer the question about the complete lack of evidence for 607 as Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year.  

So in this new thread/topic there would need to be NO discussion of:

• the 70 years of Jewish Exile, or the 70 years of Babylonian domination over other nations
• the purpose of the WTS 20-year gap
• 1914
• Daniel 4, Gentile Times, the length of the 7 times/years, the length of the 2,520 days making up those 7 years
• Not even any discussion of Bible prophecies or "70-year" references in: Jeremiah, 2 Chronicles, Isaiah, Zechariah, Daniel. 

Just the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, and the ACTUAL Neo-Babylonian evidence for it. Any discussion of other topics can be moved back to the topic where this came up and from where I just copied this post. ( https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/90904-trying-to-nail-down-612-bce-as-the-date-of-ninevehs-destruction/ )

[JW Insider]

I would love to discuss the 70-year exile, too, and I'm as tempted to do so as anyone else. So I would also propose a separate thread for discussing the evidence for the years of the exile. But I think we would have a better foundation for any discussion of the BCE years attached to the exile, only after we discuss the basic evidence for the BCE years in the first place. 

[JW Insider]

The Bible mentions the specific reigns of certain foreign kings during the Judean Babylonian exile, and the post-exilic period. It mentions Nebuchadnezzar, Amel-Marduk, Belshazzar, Cyrus, etc. Mostly it mentions Nebuchadnezzar: his 1st year, his 2nd, his 7th, his 18th, his 19th, his 23rd, and the Bible also gives an indication that it must have been around his 43rd year when Amel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach) began to reign right after him. No other foreign king is mentioned in the Bible as much as Nebuchadnezzar.

So let's say we want to start putting actual BCE dates on the Neo-Babylonian kings. It looks like Nebuchadnezzar is a good place to start. To save space I will abbreviate his name as NEB and abbreviate his years of reign as NEB18 for his 18th year of reign, NEB7 for his 7th, etc. Other kings of the period will also be abbreviated like E-M for Evil-Merodach, NER for Neriglissar, NAB for Nabonidus, CYR for Cyrus etc.

[Arauna]

This subject is opened up just about every year...    over and over.  I think it is to sow doubt. I will just say this:  There is some "scholarly" deviancy going on here because JWs use 530 BCE to calculate 607 BCE not merely babylonian sources...... which is the impression given above. . 

The only date that is secularly "absolute" is 530 BCE ..... and this is the date JWs base calculations on.   Look in the Insight book.... I saw it there about a year ago. By irrefutable Greek sources, the death of Cyrus the Great was in 530 BCE.

Cyrus ruled for 9 years starting in 539 BCE  DARIUS the MEDE was appointed Satrap of Babylon following the victory.... . ...And the following year,   in the first year when Cyrus became the RULER OF THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE EARTH during the 14-day Festival of Akito.... the decree was given for them to return home.  This gave them a year to organize from all corners of the Persian empire - to pack up and trek for 3-4 months back to Jerusalem.  537 BCE.   I hope this bit of information sows  some doubt as to the  "reliability" of stating that the info JWs use for these calculations is babylonian. ...and leaving out the absolutely reliable and proven secular date, namely 530 BCE.  The babylonian source says that he ruled for 9 years. 

 

[Pudgy]

Arauna:

That all sounds very reasonable to me … but of what practical use is it today that makes this issue worth the considerable effort?

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

8 hours ago, JW Insider said:

think most of us understand that by now. So, I propose this new thread/topic where we shift the focus almost exclusively to the basic, fundamental question about the strength of the secular evidence in the Neo-Babylonian period. Why do we rely on it? Why does the WTS rely on secular Babylonian astronomer's evidence for Cyrus in 539? Why does the WTS reject the same evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year?  Is the evidence for Nebuchadnezzar's years actually 10 times better than for Cyrus?

The major problem that you have is that scholarship based on NB Chronology cannot resolve the 586/7 BCE date for the Fall of Jerusalem whether it was in either Neb's 18th or 19th year. Until you have resolved this problem then any talk about the 'strength of secular evidence' is foolishness and futile. Such an unresolved dilemma proves the wisdom of WT scholars choosing a different methodology in the selection of the Fall of Babylon as a Pivotal Date for the purpose of constructing a practical scheme of Bible Chronology.

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, Arauna said:

This subject is opened up just about every year...    over and over.  I think it is to sow doubt. I will just say this:  There is some "scholarly" deviancy going on here because JWs use 530 BCE to calculate 607 BCE not merely babylonian sources...... which is the impression given above. . 

Wow!! Aruana. Great to hear from you again. How are you doing in your new place?

The Watchtower publications show that what you are saying is incorrect. Here's the ACTUAL way that the Insight book admits the date is determined.

First of all, we should notice that there is a dependence on clay tablets, astronomical tablets, king lists matching the one Ptolemy used, and the fact that these were indeed Babylonian sources. Cyrus moved his capital to Babylon where the same scholars and astronomers/astrologers continued to work. Note that "Insight" below even refers to it as evidence from Babylon. In fact, many clay tablets under Cyrus continue to refer to events and people that were there in Babylon going back continuously through the Neo-Babylonian kings as if nothing changed - business as usual.

*** it-1 p. 453 Chronology ***
A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. This tablet contains the following astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II: “Year 7, Tammuz, night of the 14th, 1 2⁄3 double hours [three hours and twenty minutes] after night came, a lunar eclipse; visible in its full course; it reached over the northern half disc [of the moon]. Tebet, night of the 14th, two and a half double hours [five hours] at night before morning [in the latter part of the night], the disc of the moon was eclipsed; the whole course visible; over the southern and northern part the eclipse reached.” (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, Leipzig, 1890, No. 400, lines 45-48; Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) Thus, this tablet points to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of the seventh year of Cambyses II.
Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E.
 

What is not mentioned here is how the WTS has determined that Cyrus' son, Cambyses began reigning immediately upon the death of Cyrus. How do we know there was not one or more kings between them, older brothers who were first in line, usurpers, a sickness that delayed Cambyses reign, overlapping regnal years, etc. It's because they also rely on the equivalent of a "King List" to tell them that Cambyses immediately followed Cyrus. That King List is the equivalent of what Ptolemy used, often called Ptolemy's Canon. Note the quote from Parker and Dubberstein 1971. Parker and Dubberstein were able to find complete support for Ptolemy's Canon, not just for every single year but even more accurately to the month and sometimes the day when one king transferred rulership to the next. They were able to validate "Ptolemy's Canon" going back to Nebuchadnezzar and even before to Nabopolassar and even before that. And they had enough tablets to even determine the methods used for adding the "leap" months to the calendar, to get a much more accurate picture of the Babylonian calendar. 

One might try to claim that because a few centuries later (in the 200's BCE) the Greeks began tying some of these older historical dates to a longer Olympiad period. This is true, but there is ZERO evidence that Olympiad dating was used until SEVERAL HUNDRED YEARS after Cyrus. Besides, the Watchtower publications REJECT the Olympiad dating as inaccurate even for Artaxerxes, who is even more recent than Cyrus in the Persian period. 

It should be clear that none of this evidence helps the WTS calculate 607. Claiming to rely on later Greek historians like Herodotus or Xenophon or others is also problematic. What they got, they copied from Babylonian and Persian sources. Note what the Insight book says:

*** it-1 p. 457 Chronology ***
Included among ancient Greek historians are: Herodotus (c. 484-425 B.C.E.); Thucydides (c. 471-401 B.C.E.); Xenophon (c. 431-352 B.C.E.); Ctesias (fifth-fourth century B.C.E.);  . . . *** it-1 p. 457 Chronology ***
All of these lived after the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian period and only the first four mentioned lived during the period of the Persian Empire. For the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian periods, then, none of these writers present information based on personal knowledge, but they record, rather, the traditional views they heard or, in some cases, may have read and copied. The accuracy of their data obviously depends on the accuracy of the sources used.
Not only this, but what we know of their writings is today dependent upon copies of copies, the oldest copy often dating no farther back than the medieval period of the Common Era. We have already seen how the chronologies of Manetho and Berossus were mutilated by copyists. As to the qualifications and reliability of the other ancient historians of the classical period, the following is noteworthy: . . 
Herodotus’ approach to history—asking a question, looking for relevant information, and then drawing a conclusion—is spoken of highly. But it is also said that at times “his data were unsatisfactory” and that “he offers a rational explanation side by side with the irrational.” It has also been said that he belongs “distinctly to the romantic school” and so was as much a storyteller as a historian. (The New Encyclopædia Britannica, 1985 edition, Vol. 5, pp. 881, 882; 1910 edition, Vol. XIII, p. 383) As to Xenophon, it is said that “objectivity, thoroughness, and research were not for him” and that he adorned his narratives with “fictitious speeches.” (The New Encyclopædia Britannica, 1987, Vol. 12, p. 796) George Rawlinson accuses Ctesias of deliberately extending the period of the Median monarchy “by the conscious use of a system of duplication.” He further states: “Each king, or period, in Herodotus occurs in the list of Ctesias twice—a transparent device, clumsily cloaked by the cheap expedient of a liberal invention of names.”—The Seven Great Monarchies of the Ancient Eastern World, 1885, Vol. II, p. 85.
Concerning Roman history of the kingly period (preceding the establishment of the Republic), we read that it “stretches back into the regions of pure mythology. It is little more than a collection of fables told with scarcely any attempt at criticism, and with no more regard to chronological sequence than was necessary to make the tale run smoothly or to fill up such gaps . . . 

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, scholar JW said:

The major problem that you have is that scholarship based on NB Chronology cannot resolve the 586/7 BCE date for the Fall of Jerusalem whether it was in either Neb's 18th or 19th year. Until you have resolved this problem then any talk about the 'strength of secular evidence' is foolishness and futile.

It's almost like I paid you to say that. But I know you say that as your opening "salvo" in every single discussion of NB chronology I have ever seen you join. What's funny though is that I just said the following in the Nineveh thread:

5 hours ago, JW Insider said:

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. 

And, of course, you did exactly that. In fact, this thread is not focused at all on when Jerusalem was destroyed. The focus is on whether anyone can attach a BCE date to the years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, and thus to any and all of the reigns of every Neo-Babylonian king. 

I keep finding that the question most Witnesses are afraid to answer and terrified to research is the question: What year does the astronomical evidence point to for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year?

Once that question is asked the evasion becomes too obvious. Usual m.o.: poison well with COJ

[scholar JW]

JW Insider

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

It's almost like I paid you to say that. But I know you say that as your opening "salvo" in every single discussion of NB chronology I have ever seen you join. What's funny though is that I just said the following in the Nineveh thread:

If you are going to talk about Neb's 18th or 19th year then you have to assign not just a calendrical year for each but also an event otherwise the matter is meaningless for the purpose of Chronology. Thus. this matter must be resolved whether you choose to ignore it or otherwise.  

2 hours ago, JW Insider said:

I keep finding that the question most Witnesses are afraid to answer and terrified to research is the question: What year does the astronomical evidence point to for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year?

Once that question is asked the evasion becomes too obvious.

You should be upfront and provide such astronomical evidence as far as I am concerned based on COJ's extensive discussion of the astronomical diaries for the NB Period there is none. You have to answer not only this question but also the other about a precise calendar date for the Fall of Jerusalem.

scholar JW

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, JW Insider said:

What year does the astronomical evidence point to for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year?

Once that question is asked the evasion becomes too obvious. Usual m.o.: poison well with COJ

Sometimes, just for fun, I sometimes try to predict the responses of the more easily predictable participants, and put it in white on white text to show my oldest son what I was guessing. You can just take your mouse and highlight the blank text after the last sentence. In this case, you had two responses. I missed the first one about needing to supply an event, but I hit the second one right on target. In case your mouse highlight thing doesn't work I'll show you what I had typed:

In this case, of course, m.o. means modus operandi. I just meant that the usual thing to do instead of answering a question is to try to "poison the well" of astronomical evidence by associating it with an apostate. In this case, an apostate who was disfellowshipped specifically for sharing his research with other Witnesses instead of keeping it to himself as he was told to do.

For the record, of course, no one has to produce a specific event to attach a BCE year to a specific year of a king's reign. If you know someone reigned for 43 years and you know the BCE date for year 7 is, then you know also know year 17, and 18, and 19, and 20. He could have been asleep the entire year, or insane and eating grass the entire year, or conquering Tyre for all we know. If you know that I'm 66, and you don't know any specific event in my life during 1968, it doesn't mean I didn't exist in 1968.

Still, I can always change the question but I think you will either say you don't know or you will be otherwise just as evasive as you were with this last one: 

What year does the astronomical evidence point to for Nebuchadnezzar's 17th year? (Or, you can use his 16th or his 14th or his 25th, 26th, 27th or 28th or 32nd, or his 42nd year.) Nothing this time, sorry.

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, Arauna said:

There is some "scholarly" deviancy going on here because JWs use 530 BCE to calculate 607 BCE not merely babylonian sources...... which is the impression given above. . . . By irrefutable Greek sources, the death of Cyrus the Great was in 530 BCE.

@Arauna, just to respond more comprehensively.

• It is not "scholarly deviancy" to claim that the WTS only relies on Babylonian sources.
• The WTS rejects the accuracy of the later Greek sources as shown in the comments about those sources in "Insight."
• The WTS rejects the accuracy of Olympiad dates that later Greek sources began tying events to. 
• And Insight admits very explicitly that it was ONLY Babylonian sources which gives them the date 530 BCE.
• And the date 530 is for the beginning of Cambyses reign (not the death of Cyrus) 
• The 530 date itself is not attested in the evidence, only the date, 523 and 522 which are said to be in the 7th year of Cambyses, so it's a matter of counting back from 523.
• If the WTS is only using the source they claim to be using, then it is only an assumption that Cyrus also ended his reign in 530.
• That assumption is based on the business tablets, and the fact that there have only been tablets discovered for years 0 through 9 of Cyrus.
• The WTS rejects that these same business tablets tell us about the rest of the Neo-Babylonian chronology.
• The WTS indicates that evidence may someday be found that would adjust the chronology in favor of the WTS, so the mere fact that the last discovered tablets in Cyrus reign are for his 9th year is not very meaningful if a 10th or 11th year might show up in the future.  
• The WTS explains in the Insight's Chronology article why those Greek sources are not irrefutable.
• Those Greek sources might also assume (correctly) that Cyrus died in his 9th year, but they do NOT tell us that year was 530 BCE. 
• Therefore, the "impression given above" was actually correct, and not a "deviancy." 

7 hours ago, Arauna said:

The only date that is secularly "absolute" is 530 BCE

The tablet the WTS uses is actually a tablet of inferior quality, a much later copy of a copy, with multiple corrections, and places where the copyist admits he had to try to fill in gaps because it was damaged and needed to be restored.

So, if the relatively poor and indirect evidence pointing to 530 BCE is absolute, then it is most definitely NOT the only date that is secularly absolute. ALL of the dates of the Neo-Babylonian period can be discovered in exactly the same way, including the date for Nineveh's fall in 612 BCE, the Battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE, Nebuchadnezzar's 18th regnal year in 587 BCE, and Cyrus' accession year in 539 BCE. But there are something on the order of 40,000* of these business tablets dated to Nebuchadnezzar's reign. 

The reign of Nebuchadnezzar is attested not only with about 40,000 tablets, averaging about 1,000 for every year, but several of the years of his reign are attested in the exact same manner astronomically as the 7th year of Cambyses, as explained in the Insight book. And although several of these are also through eclipses, there are also several more important planetary observations which Rolf Furuli himself admits (in his book) can ONLY be associated with a year of his reign that places his 18th year in 587 BCE.

*I got the 40,000 number when I attended a seminar when I visited the British Museum in 2018 and met a man named Dr. Gareth Brereton who works there as a curator of Assyrian and Babylonian artefacts. He was in charge of a lecture on Assyria and Ashurbanipal at the time. I was also able to contact him one additional time in 2020 for some related follow-up questions. 

If you are right, that 530 is an absolute date, then ALL of Nebuchadnezzar's years are at least ten-times-better absolute dates. 

[Pudgy]

There's the tale of A.K. Dewdney, who wrote about a fictional character named Dr. Matrix, an eccentric mathematician.

In one story, Dr. Matrix spends years calculating the optimal way to peel a banana, determining the exact number of slits needed and their precise angles.

The idea of focusing on minutiae without practical purpose.

But then again, I binge watch TV with six seasons of 27 episodes each, which is worse.