Uncovering Discrepancies in Secular History

[Pudgy]

“Artificial Intelligence” is TWO WORDS.;

[George88]

3 hours ago, BTK59 said:

This site is clearly designed to cater to false witnesses and apostates, and it's important for people to be aware of this. That's your loyal fan base in the closed club. If it weren't for apostates and the disfellowshipped, where would you, or he find yourselves?

It's time to ignore those people and their distractions. Let's refocus on making constructive observations.

In certain instances, I concur with "Thiele" regarding the need for chronological adjustments concerning the Babylonians and Judeans, particularly in using the Nisan calendar for references in the Bible and the "autumn calendar" for the other. Variations in timing, even if only by months, and in some cases by a year, may occur depending on when a scribe commenced the chronicle or if any errors were made by copyists due to missing pieces in original or copied tablets, leading them to make judgment calls.

It also agrees with "Kitchen's" observation on calendars.

The same can be said about who and how ancient scribes used their interpretation of seasons and the stars to make calculations. In some cases, even the kings had an influence.

You can also observe a similar discrepancy in the Battle of Megiddo. This particular author suggests that it occurred in 609 BC, while others place it in 608 BC. Can I confidently assert that this individual is mistaken, spreading falsehoods, and lacks knowledge, much like an authoritative thug? Absolutely not! I am unaware of the research undertaken by this person or the documents they may have examined or accepted as factual. However, when someone draws conclusions based on flawed research, deliberately restricting or selectively choosing their sources, it is appropriate to challenge such nonsensical claims.  Such a case is Carl Olof Jonsson's research.

The same theory holds true for ancient historians and scholars as well. While they may have had other reference sources for their work, much of that information has been lost over time. Now, we are faced with newfound knowledge. However, this does not diminish the validity of information from the past.

If I were to have a negative mindset, I might assert that the author's description of Megiddo in 609 BC is false, and wrong, as a shameless thug. However, is it?

ABDULLAH OCALAN Hamma Mirwaisi · 2020 - Page 83
"In 609 BCE at the Battle of Megiddo, an Egyptian force defeated a Judean force under King Josiah and managed to reach the last remnants of the Assyrian anny. In a final battle at Hanan in 608 BCE, the Babylonians and Medes defeated the Assyrian-Egyptian alliance, ending its existence as an independent nation. Still supporting the Assyrians, another Egyptian force was sent in 605 BCE, which met with failure at Carchemish in the same year. Whether Ashur-uballit II was killed at Harran or Carchemish, or even if he survived the battles is not known, but nothing more has been discovered about him. One hundred and seventeen years later, Assyria made a final attempt to regain independence with a large-scale rebellion against the Achaemenid Empire in 482 BCE, but King Darius lI suppressed it. "

On the contrary, some argue that the battle occurred in 608 BC, resulting in the fatal injury of King Josiah. However, it is important to note that this hypothesis would need comprehensive research to validate its accuracy.

[History of the Jews - 6 volume _6] Graetz, Heinrich - History of the Jews (1898, Cosimo, Inc.)

"Hardly had Necho and his army reached the middle of the plain of Jezreel, than the army of Judah barred his way at Megiddo. The Egyptian king, it is said, assured Josiah that his campaign was not directed against the land of Judah, but against more distant territories. Notwithstanding this, Josiah compelled him to do battle. The result was disastrous to the king of Judah, for his army was beaten, and he himself was dangerously wounded (608)."

Edgar Thorpe, Showick Thorpe - The Pearson General Knowledge Manual 2016-Pearson Education (2015)

"Battle of Megiddo 608 bce Necho of Egypt and Josiah of Judah; Egyptians victorious."

Now back to Nineveh, I found this fellow who claims Nineveh was destroyed in 613 BC, and he's not alone. This person also has a book called Norway's Peace Policy: Soft Power in a Turbulent World 2014, lol!

Genocide, mass atrocity, and war crimes in modern history_ -- Taulbee, James Larry, Volume 1, 2017-Page 2

 

[BTK59]

3 hours ago, George88 said:

Now back to Nineveh, I found this fellow who claims Nineveh was destroyed in 613 BC, and he's not alone. This person also has a book called Norway's Peace Policy: Soft Power in a Turbulent World 2014, lol!

I have noticed that there is a conflict in the narratives as well. For instance, while some scholars and historians attribute the fall of Nineveh in 612 BC to the Babylonians and Medes, it is worth noting that Gadd's BM21901 tablet also mentions the Scythians who marched against it along the other two allies.

[JW Insider]

19 hours ago, George88 said:

Absolutely not! I am unaware of the research undertaken by this person or the documents they may have examined or accepted as factual. However, when someone draws conclusions based on flawed research, deliberately restricting or selectively choosing their sources, it is appropriate to challenge such nonsensical claims.

That's the spirit!! I agree wholeheartedly. And I appreciate the indirect permission for any of us to "challenge" in the last line there. 

It's curious to me that you might consider as potentially valid any author who chooses 608 over 609 for Josiah's death. Either date ruins the WTS chronology. The WTS considers both dates to be completely out of the question. 

*** it-1 p. 450 Chronology ***
and Pharaoh Necho’s battle resulting in Josiah’s death likely came in 629 B.C.E.

The difference in 608 and 609 is not much of a discrepency at all when you consider that the WTS needs for the date to be about 20 years off for 1914 to work. 

Authors that use either 608 or 609 are sticking very close to the standard chronology. As you can see:

19 hours ago, George88 said:

[History of the Jews - 6 volume _6] Graetz, Heinrich - History of the Jews (1898, Cosimo, Inc.)

"Hardly had Necho and his army reached . . . Megiddo. . . . Notwithstanding this, Josiah compelled him to do battle. . . .  and he himself was dangerously wounded (608)."

So in 1898, Heinrich Graetz chooses 608 for Josiah's death in a battle with Necho. But that means that he puts the destruction of Jerusalem in 586 BCE, as you can see from the bottom of the following from his volume 6.

Same, of course, with the other author you quoted:

19 hours ago, George88 said:

Edgar Thorpe, Showick Thorpe - The Pearson General Knowledge Manual 2016-Pearson Education (2015)

"Battle of Megiddo 608 bce  Necho of Egypt and Josiah of Judah;   Egyptians victorious."

Naturally, if he chooses 608 he is simply sticking close to the standard chronology. As you can see from the same book, where it mentions the usual 586 date for the conquering of Jerusalem. 

[JW Insider]

19 hours ago, George88 said:

In certain instances, I concur with "Thiele" regarding the need for chronological adjustments concerning the Babylonians and Judeans, particularly in using the Nisan calendar for references in the Bible and the "autumn calendar" for the other. Variations in timing, even if only by months, and in some cases by a year, may occur

This is a valid point about the differences of a few months or even one year. I not only concur with Thiele on this, I have now come to agree with nearly all the BCE dates he has chosen for the "Hebrew Kings." Naturally, they stick very close to the astronomical evidence. Therefore he also understands that the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar must be 586, but still considers the validity of either 587 or 586 for the destruction of Jerusalem and the burning of the Temple. Thiele puts Josiah's death in 609 BCE. 

McFall and Rodger Young have made good points in discussing Thiele, especially Young, but Thiele's numbers are good enough to take most of the "mystery" out of it all. 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mysterious_Numbers_of_the_Hebrew_Kings

[JW Insider]

19 hours ago, George88 said:

The Egyptian king, it is said, assured Josiah that his campaign was not directed against the land of Judah, but against more distant territories.

You were quoting Graetz here, as you already noted. You can tell that by wording it this way, Graetz was already aware of the secular history and not just the Biblical history. The Bible doesn't make it clear that Josiah may have battled Necho at least indirectly in support of Babylon at the time. If one were just to read the Bible accounts, they might get a different idea about who Necho was going to fight:

(2 Kings 23:29)  In his days Pharʹaoh Neʹchoh the king of Egypt came to meet the king of As·syrʹi·a by the Eu·phraʹtes River, and King Jo·siʹah went out to confront him; but when Neʹchoh saw him, he put him to death at Me·gidʹdo. 

(2 Chronicles 35:20, 21) . . .After all of this, when Jo·siʹah had prepared the temple, King Neʹcho of Egypt came up to fight at Carʹche·mish by the Eu·phraʹtes. Then Jo·siʹah went out against him. ²¹So he sent messengers to him, saying: “What does this have to do with you, O king of Judah? I am not coming against you today, but my fight is against another house, and God says that I should hurry. For your own sake, refrain from opposing God, who is with me, or he will bring you to ruin.”

It seems to some that Necho was going out to "meet the king of Assyria" in battle, because he "came up to fight at Carchemish." It's only if one knows that secular history that one can realize that he was not going to battle Assyria, but he was going to meet Assyria as an ally in order to band together with Assyria against Babylon. That's why the Insight book adds:

*** it-2 p. 118 Josiah ***
Toward the close of Josiah’s 31-year reign (659-629 B.C.E.), Pharaoh Necho led his army northward to the aid of the Assyrians. For a reason not revealed in the Bible, King Josiah disregarded “the words of Necho from the mouth of God” and tried to turn the Egyptian forces back at Megiddo, but he was mortally wounded 

About those alliances developing near the end of the Assyrian empire, the Journal you quoted earlier states:

Others have noted that the identification of the Scythians (also by Gadd) is probably an overreach. But the Nabopolassar Chronicle (aka Fall of Nineveh Chronicle) speaks to the alliance:

and futher on in the same Journal:

And I'll conclude with 2 more snippets because they relate to comments previously made. It's true that Assyrian and Babylon appear allied through much of their history. But this was a time when they weren't. Nabopolassar was appointed by Assyrian rulership, but fought against them for independence, and ultimately won the day -- at least for about a 70 year period (per Jeremiah 25).

and also point 4 was relevant:

and most especially:

This last point is one that I have tried to make for several years in those discussions of the 70 year period for Babylon that ended in 539 BCE. If it ended exactly in 539 then we would expect it to have started in 609 BCE. I've argued before, using these exact same dates, that the fall of Assyria didn't happen all at once but was a process that ran from 612 to 605 BCE. Therefore the hegemony of the Babylonian Empire could easily be seen as running from about 609 (just about the average of the two dates. Or one could just as easily run them from 607 to 537. I'm OK with those dates, too, for the 70 years.

 

Apologies for the long quotes. I know you have already referenced the Journal of the American Oriental Society

 https://www.google.com/books/edition/Journal_of_the_American_Oriental_Society But a lot of people don't like to go to the links. 

[JW Insider]

The following resource in the Biblical Archaeologist has an nice overview of all the Babylonian Chronicles in only 11 pages of reading with some useful commentary:

The Babylonian Chronicle Author(s): David Noel Freedman Source: The Biblical Archaeologist , Sep., 1956, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Sep., 1956), pp. 49-60 Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of The American Schools of Oriental Research Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/3209218

In the 2nd snippet from there below, you'll see another comment about Josiah possibly needing to show loyalty to Babylon now that he had tried to break free from Assyrian control.

 

[George88]

21 hours ago, BTK59 said:

I have noticed that there is a conflict in the narratives as well. For instance, while some scholars and historians attribute the fall of Nineveh in 612 BC to the Babylonians and Medes, it is worth noting that Gadd's BM21901 tablet also mentions the Scythians who marched against it along the other two allies.

Here is another inconsistent time.

The_Bible_Dictionary_Illustrated_Etc page 286
"Moreover, his hieroglyphical inscriptions, bearing his scutcheons, have been discovered as far north as Aradus by the recent French expedition to Phoenicia under M. Renan, who has shown them to the writer of this article. This Pharaoh's son and successor, Necho, is mentioned under that name [ 2 Kings xxiii. 29], as having conquered and slain King Josiah in the fatal battle of Megiddo. Since this battle was fought in B.C. 607 [ see CHRONOLOGY, BIBLICAL], it appears from the above table that it was in Necho's seventh year.

There seems to be yet another attempt to distort the truth, which is completely irrelevant to the clear inconsistencies in history. It is quite telling that the focus is on the year 608 BC instead of the actual significant year, which is 609 BC. Such tactics are a prime example of manipulation at its finest. It is not accurate to suggest that the inconsistency between the Bible and secular history regarding the date of 587/586 BC proves a consistent approach to time throughout the millennia.

The topic at hand is "NOT" about how the Watchtower is mistaken about a 20-year gap, despite the presence of numerous gaps in secular history. For instance, one of the most significant gaps overlooked by insincere researchers is the one in the Babylonian Chronicles. The chronicles cease in 594 BC, leaving a 27-year gap until 568 BC. Yet, this individual fails to thoroughly and passionately scrutinize this secular historical gap.

According to the historical records in the Babylonian Chronicles, which mention a siege of Jerusalem in 598 BC, if we consider the 37th year mentioned in VAT4956, we arrive at 561 BC during the reign of "Amel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach, 561-560). p.248"

Stephanie Dalley - The City of Babylon: A History, c. 2000 BC-AD 116 (2021, Cambridge University Press)

It reminds me of aspiring researchers "authoritative thugs" diligently preparing their thesis and dissertations before attaining scholarly distinction, as exemplified in this case.

[Hebrew Studies vol. 24] Review by_ Robert W. Suder and Robert S. Suder - THE ENIGMA OF THE HEBREW VERBAL SYSTEM_ SOLUTIONS FROM EWALD TO THE PRESENT DAY. Historical Texts and Interpreters in Biblical S (1983)

"mean that Moses here bypassed a needed opportunity to enhance the people's insight (sic) into divine providence. Unfortunately, readers of this edition must tolerate careless English diction, haphazard punctuation, incomplete source-references, and generally inadequate proofreading? errors which would remain within the province of perhaps useless pedantry were it not for the urgent pedagogical need which the author so admirably addresses. Martin D. Yaff North Texas State University "

Leslie McFall, from the Good Order Church, considered there should be some adjustments made to the works of  "Thiele" and "Jack Finegan". Before dedicating himself to full-time research for Tyndale Publishing House, he was a highly skilled Hebrew language lecturer. I would consider him to be in the same league as "Furuli" when it comes to his expertise in linguistics. Therefore, those who criticize Furuli's findings on chronology and agree with McFall truly have a hidden agenda that lacks sincerity.

[Vetus Testamentum 1999-oct vol. 49 iss. 4] Review by_ Leslie McFall - The Chronology of the Kings of Israel and Judahby Gershon Galil (1999)

"The one factor that Galil rejects is Thiele's idea that data relating to the kings of Israel were reckoned by Judah's system and vice versa (pp. 10, 38). Galil is able to dispense with Thiele's fifth factor by postulating that Judah's year ran from Nisan to Nisan, contrary to Thiele's Tishri to Tishri. This seems to remove a number of minor problems of a synchronistic nature from the Division to Jehoshaphat in Thiele's scheme, but that Judah used a Tishri year from Josiah to the Exile is beyond cavil, and consequently Thiele, and not Galil, is correct for this period. The reason for this is that if Judah and Babylon both shared a Nisan-to-Nisan year then there would be no problem in synchronizing their regnal years.

The above sample of McFall's interpretation of Thiele's work is a reasonable conclusion. Did Thiele agree that Judah and Babylon shared the same Nisan-to-Nisan year? Therefore, can the autumn calendar be applied? If so, a discrepancy in timing will arise.

A single year may not appear significant at first glance, although some dissenters may argue even down to the month. However, if we were to consistently follow this pattern over time, the gap would inevitably widen. Consequently, this discrepancy would pose a significant challenge when it comes to synchronizing the king's regnal years and history.

Is there indisputable evidence that scribes did not succumb to those pitfalls?

However, at some point, my esteemed colleague and researcher became more focused on not seeking the truth than on making a name for himself, similar to the case of Furuli. This is a pitfall for many scholars, and it appears that the same kind of tactic is being utilized by another individual here.

I am saddened to hear about the passing of my British colleague. He was a trailblazer in his relentless pursuit and passion for research, although at times it may have been misguided like many others. The desire for recognition likely played a role.

The disparity between the Watchtower's comprehensive investigation into historical events, which extends up to the present day, and Carl Olof Jonsson's restricted research, cannot be trivialized or compared. Those who endorse shoddy research undoubtedly have ulterior motives, driven by dishonesty and manipulation.

While I did find McFall's interpretation of Matthew 19:9 interesting, it reminds me of a certain individual here who claims that fornication is permissible. This person believes that scripture does not provide evidence against it as cited by ancient writings in the Greek New Testament under Erasmus which might lead certain individuals to incorrectly interpret scripture in support of that argument.

McFall did allow a researcher to make adjustments that would read something like this:

"The author’s fairly literal translation of Matthew 19:9 reads: “Now I say to you that who, for example,1 may have divorced his wife—he may not have divorced her for fornication—and may have married another woman, he becomes adulterous by marrying her. And the man having married a divorced wife, he becomes adulterous by marrying her.” Grammatically, this is one way to translate the Greek"

Of course, this researcher is referencing McFalls book, before he passed away. Divorce_Aug_2014 Leslie McFall

Now for those visitors who desire to learn about language from Professor McFall, they can read his book.

The enigma of the Hebrew verbal system_ solutions from Ewald -- McFall, Leslie -- 1982 -- Sheffield [South Yorkshire]_ Almond Press

"It follows then that the Hebrew gata is an imperfect synthesis of Eastern and Western forms; for the long -a- reflects the accented -8- of the Akkadian 4111 and the tone on the short -8- corresponds with that on the Aramaic 49581 (p. 90 n 3). There can be no doubt, however, that in an earlier stage of the spoken language the older forms (i.e. the consecutive tenses) were distinguished from the younger or Western forms by a different pronunciation/intonation relics of which can be see in weghtalts where the secondary tone marks the more primitive accentuation, and in the weak imperfect consecutives forms such as wayyibn as opposed to the later wayyibnéh (pp. 90, 96-7). The Massoretes unwittingly assimilated the older tone position to that of the Western style (op. elton; though it is possible that the forms were confused at an early stage of the language (p. 91) as these forms hardly outlived the Babylonian exile (p. 96, cf. Dp. 137f.). It is also probable that the present-future yagattal was once a feature of the HVS but that it too disappeared at an early stage (pp. 83-4, 106, but cf. p. 89 where it is possible that Hebrew failed to develop this form)." p.136

Therefore, no one needs permission to be mistaken about chronology. However, when individuals purposefully manipulate and misguide God's spiritual children through the promotion of apostasy, God not only takes notice but also holds them accountable. Just as He did with the ancient Israelites, God will judge these stubborn individuals for their actions.

[JW Insider]

1 hour ago, George88 said:

The chronicles cease in 594 BC, leaving a 27-year gap until 568 BC. 

Very true. I'm glad you recognize that the 27 year gap runs from Nebuchadnezzar's 10/11th year to his 37th year, because the gap is temporarily closed by VAT 4956 dated, as you show above, to the year 568 BCE. But this is just the "Babylonian Chronicles" themselves, not the actual dates of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. There is absolutely NO gap in identifying all the BCE years from his very first year to his 43rd year. We know the BCE equivalent of every single one of them.

And of course, there is also a gap in the early Babylonian Chronicles for Nabopolassar. We get the first years of his reign and the final years, but his 4th year to his 9th year is missing (622 to 617 BCE).
As Freedman puts it in "The Babylonian Chronicle" article (already quoted above):

 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

the fatal battle of Megiddo. Since this battle was fought in B.C. 607

What you are quoting there was written in 1863 and remained even until the 1875 edition. It was fairly typical to get dates off by at least a year or two before more of the Babylonian Chronicles were first discovered and published. Recall that even Charles Russell said that the first year of Cyrus was 536 BCE and it took the WT publications between 60 and 70 years before correcting that date to 538 BCE. 

1 hour ago, George88 said:

It is quite telling that the focus is on the year 608 BC instead of the actual significant year, which is 609 BC. Such tactics are a prime example of manipulation at its finest.

I wondered about that too. It seemed odd that you brought up 608 as an alternative to 609 when both dates invalidate the Watchtower's chronology for Josiah's death. I didn't think it was a "tactic" though, but I did wonder why you focused on not one but two authors who happened to use the 608 date. Same goes for going all the way back to the mid-1800's to find someone who is off by two years instead of one. (Or, 22 years instead of 21 years using the Watchtower's chronology.)

1 hour ago, George88 said:

According to the historical records in the Babylonian Chronicles, which mention a siege of Jerusalem in 598 BC, if we consider the 37th year mentioned in VAT4956, we arrive at 561 BC during the reign of "Amel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach, 561-560).

What you are quoting from Stephanie Dalley there is exactly right. On page 248-249 she is discussing the 37 year exile of Jehoiachin. It's what my calculations get when I start Jehoiachin's 37-year exile in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, therefore the 1st year of his exile is Nebuchadnezzar's 8th year, and the 37th is the first year of Amel-Marduk. With that statement she also agrees with COJ.

[JW Insider]

2 hours ago, George88 said:

Therefore, those who criticize Furuli's findings on chronology and agree with McFall truly have a hidden agenda that lacks sincerity.

Except that Furuli was caught doing exactly as you say above about someone else:

On 3/22/2024 at 9:03 PM, George88 said:

However, when someone draws conclusions based on flawed research, deliberately restricting or selectively choosing their sources, it is appropriate to challenge such nonsensical claims.

This is exactly what one of the secular authorities that the Watchtower used has indicated about Furuli. Furuli also tried to hide his WTS-chronology agenda under the guise of the "Oslo-chronology." I couldn't say whether Furuli lacked sincerity, because no one else can really get into his own mind. But I had already seen that Furuli had told untruths even prior to the book that fooled the WTS into printing misinformation back in 2011. Perhaps that would fit the bill for something else you said:

2 hours ago, George88 said:

However, when individuals purposefully manipulate and misguide God's spiritual children

I don't care about Furuli's or Thiele's or Young's or McFall's credentials. I only know that those last three added some interesting points to the body of work on the topic. Furuli is competent in Hebrew from what I've read, but at least he admitted to being an amateur on some of the topics he tackled in his two books on chronology.

[JW Insider]

12 hours ago, George88 said:

A single year may not appear significant at first glance, although some dissenters may argue even down to the month. However, if we were to consistently follow this pattern over time, the gap would inevitably widen. Consequently, this discrepancy would pose a significant challenge when it comes to synchronizing the king's regnal years and history.

The main thing to remember in all this discussion is that there are absolutely no BCE dates that can be known without astronomy. NONE.

If you make a claim about ANY date in the BCE range, you have relied upon astronomy as the foundation for that date. That's the foundation we start from even for our famous 607 date (WTS chronology). The 539 date. The 632 date we use for the 14th year of Nabopolassar, and therefore the likely Fall of Nineveh. It's all about astronomy if we include a BCE date.

The gap does not necessarily widen, at least through the late Neo-Assyrian or the entire Neo-Babylonian era, and every era since: Persian, Greek, Roman, etc. This is where the many readings from astronomy come in. There is often a question about what month of the year a king started his reign in, and if reigns count from a fall new year instead of a spring new year, you could be 6 months off. If you don't know whether the few weeks or months before the new year was counted as the "first year" then you might be a year off. But if the method stayed the same from reign to reign you would not continue to widen any gap, and if the method changed back and forth from reign to reign, the mistakes would essentially cancel each other out. 

But every few years, and sometimes year after year for several years in a row, we have astronomy readings that identify every BCE year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, every BCE year of Nabopolassar's reign, every BCE year of Amel-Marduk, Neriglissar, and Nabonidus, right up to Cyrus. The reason those dates match exactly to the years of the eras that Ptolemy used was because he, too, checked them against the astronomy.

[JW Insider]

On 3/23/2024 at 12:46 AM, BTK59 said:

I have noticed that there is a conflict in the narratives as well. For instance, while some scholars and historians attribute the fall of Nineveh in 612 BC to the Babylonians and Medes, it is worth noting that Gadd's BM21901 tablet also mentions the Scythians who marched against it along the other two allies.

It looks like it could be based on a translation issue where Gadd trusted Herodotus and Diodorus to fill in some of the information gaps in the heavily damaged places on the tablet. The tablet credits the alliance between the Babylonians and Medes. But the tablet uses the name Cyaxares, the King of the Medes, as a way to reference to the Medes, but it also uses the term Umman-Manda which may have also meant Medes and not Scythians. Either way, both things could be true, rather than constituting a true conflict. Some are willing to give Herodotus and Diodorus the benefit of the doubt, and some are more skeptical, as was the case of Maurice Price in 1923 who only wanted to derive information from what was actually said on the tablet, not what was inferred through others.

It is rather hard to believe that Cyaxares could have forced a true alliance with the Scythians after just murdering their leaders a few years earlier. That assumes that the following was true: (Wikipedia, Cyaxares)

The next year, in 625 BCE, Cyaxares overthrew the Scythian yoke over the Medes by inviting the Scythian rulers to a banquet, getting them drunk, and then murdering them all, including possibly Madyes himself. After freeing the Medes from the Scythian yoke, Cyaxares reorganised the Median armed forces . . . .Cyaxares might also have forced the Scythians into an alliance with the Medes after overthrowing their rule, since from 615 BCE onwards the Babylonian records mention the Scythians as the allies of the Medes.

 Price's skeptical 1923 article on the "Nabopolassar Chronicle" was already quoted from earlier. (Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol 43.)