JW Insider

The following is the excerpted review of Furuli's book by Hunger in Archiv für Orientforschung (AfO). The remainder of this post contains the review: --------------- Review Reviewed Work(s): Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible, Volume II: Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology by Rolf J. Furuli Review by: Hermann Hunger Source: Archiv für Orientforschung , 2011, Bd. 52 (2011), pp. 384-385 Published by: Archiv für Orientforschung (AfO)/Institut für Orientalistik Rolf J. Furuli, Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible, Volume II: Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology. 376 pp., with numerous photos and tables. Oslo, Awatu Publishers, 22008. $ 89,00. The other editors of AfO agree with me that the incredible collection of errors, half-truths and suspicions contained in this book must not remain uncommented. However, since it does not add to knowledge but just creates confusion, we do not want to waste our readers' patience nor the space of our journal to print a detailed review here. Such a review is available on the internet at: http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewHunger.htm; and I am ready to send it electronically to anyone who requests it. There is only one item from my review which I want to print here because, in my opinion, it may concern the founder of this journal. On p. 290f., we read: "VAT 4956 ... came to the Vorderasiatische Museum in Berlin in 1906 as one single entity. Someone discovered that the tablet was extremely important because it was an astronomical tablet with the hitherto oldest astronomical observations. These observations seemed to fit year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II according to the chronology of Ptolemy, but a clear connection with Nebuchadnezzar II was lacking. In order to make this connection perfectly clear, the one working with the tablet used a modern grinding machine on the edge of the tablet, thus incising the signs for 'year 37' and 'year 38.' The first line with the name of the king was also manipulated. Because of the vibration, the tablet broke into three pieces, which were then glued together. It was discovered that the fit of the signs on both sides of the break on the reverse side was not perfect, and a grinding machine was used to try to remedy this." And on p. 333: "VAT 4956 ... may be a genuine tablet made in Seleucid times, but in modern times someone has tampered with some of the cuneiform signs, or, the tablet was made in modern time; the obverse side was made by the help of a mold, and the signs on the reverse side and the edges were written by someone." This accuses an unnamed person of criminal acts: this person at least "has tampered with some of the cuneiform signs," but may even have faked half tablet. Since the tablet reached the Vorderasiatische Museum in 1906 and was published in 1915 in the condition reflected by the photo in the Museum's archives, the accusation concerns any people working there at this time, including e.g. Ernst Weidner. In defence of him and all others possibly involved, I state that the accusation is utterly groundless, and I express my disgust of an author whose "openmindedness" leads him to such accusations. Wien. Hermann Hunger

I don't think I should skip any of this next section of PM's "Eclipse" book either because it's about the VAT 4956, an excellent piece of archaeological evidence which many Witnesses have tried to make "infamous." 1. Clay tablet VAT 4956 The first line of this clay tablet says of its date: “In the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.”2 Scholars have applied the information in this clay tablet to 568 BC.3 It has been perhaps the prisoner’s justification for the present ancient chronology. However, it has major shortcomings. It is a pleasure now to present new researched information on this topic. I think that by the term "prisoner's justification" PM just means that most scholars are "stuck" with the current N-B chronology because this astronomical tablet leaves them no other choice but to place Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year as the year beginning on Nisanu 1 568 BCE. There are actually multiple independent lines of evidence that scholars may use to conclude that NEB37 is 568 BCE. You could throw this tablet out and you would still arrive at the same conclusion. It is convenient for those who wish to overturn a well-established chronology to make sure their audience believes in the "all-importance" of this one object. Then, they can focus attention on just one object, hoping to cast doubt upon it, and hoping the audience/reader believes that sufficient doubt has therefore been cast upon the entire N-B chronology. But, as I said, you could throw it out and there would still be plenty of evidence that NEB37 is 568 (and therefore NEB19 must be 587). The so-called shortcomings are not major, but if they were then it would be hypocritical of the WTS not to mention that VAT 4956 is much better in this regard than Strm Kambys 400 (used for decades by the WTS as prime evidence of Cyrus in 539). And yet both of these artifacts produce the correct archaeological dates for the N-B period, despite the very minor shortcomings of VAT 4956 and the great shortcomings of Strm Kambys 400. But we digress, here's how PM starts out the section, and we'll get back to this: Nisannu The opening rows of the clay tablet state that the moon was on the 9th day of the 1st month, or Nisannu, about an elbow away from the constellation Beta Virginis, or Virgo, “in front of it”. From this, the may have been in front of the imaginary “face” of the Virgo constellation. It could also be “in front of it” a little diagonally, even below the “hand”. According to scholars, in 568 BC. this distance was on April 29, which was the 8th day of the month of Nisannu. Scholars have argued that the Babylonian scribe made a mistake at this point. [picture of] Moon and Virgo constellation April 29, 568 BC. (8th Nisannu); Babylon, Iraq If there is an error, what is the cause of that error? Or could it be that no mistake has been made in that matter? Before we start on the details, it must be pointed out right from the start that Witnesses who know only a tiny bit about this tablet believe that it has major shortcomings, and that whatever it says should therefore be dismissed. But Witnesses who have studied it more closely know better, and realize that the only way to discredit it is to do everything in their power to create uncertainty and doubt about it. Furuli understood it so well that he was forced to flail wildly to try to create uncertainty and doubt, and without any basis, he even resorted to accusing others of crimes. For those who don't know it, here is Furuli's theory . . . Better yet, before we speak of Furuli's theory, we should introduce two of the foremost living specialists who have studied astronomical diaries such as VAT4956. If any have watched these recent topics closely, they will know that two people have had their names come up a few times already. One is a Professor of Egyptology and Assyriology [includes Neo-Babylon & Persia & and Ancient Science/Astronomy] at Brown University named John Steele. The link https://vivo.brown.edu/display/jmsteele#Publications gives a list of about 100 publications he has worked on, which include thousands of pages, many of which are available in full text at the same link. Others are on academia.edu and JSTOR, university libraries, etc. One of his publications, very relevant to this discussion was written with Hermann Hunger: Hermann Hunger and John Steele. The Babylonian Astronomical Compendium MUL.APIN. Routledge, 2019. Hermann Hunger is probably the primary Neo-Babylonian specialist in the world today. Here's the Wikipedia version: Hermann Hunger, son of the Byzantinist Herbert Hunger, studied oriental studies at the University of Vienna after graduating in 1960. In 1963/64 he studied Assyriology and Arabic at the University of Heidelberg and from 1964 to 1966 at the University of Münster, where he received his doctorate in Assyriology and Semitic philology in 1966 under Wolfram von Soden (Babylonian and Assyrian colophones). From 1967 to 1970 he was an epigraphist member at the German Archaeological Institute in Baghdad. From 1970 to 1973 he was Research Associate at the University of Chicago and then until 1976 assistant at the Institute for Oriental Studies at the University of Vienna, where he completed his habilitation. From 1976 to 1978 he was Associate Professor at the University of Chicago Oriental Institute and from 1978 he was Associate Professor of Assyriology at the University of Vienna, where he retired in 2007. He is considered one of the leading authorities on Babylonian astronomy history, where he worked early with Otto Neugebauer and Abraham Sachs, and later with David Pingree. He was collaborator in the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary. Hunger is a member of the American Philosophical Society and the Austrian Academy of Sciences, of which he is chairman of the Commission for the History of Natural Sciences, Mathematics and Medicine and the Mycenaean Commission. In 2010 he became an honorary member of the American Oriental Society. Hunger is co-editor of the Archiv für Orientforschung. In fact the Witness(es) behind the site vat4956.com quote from Hunger as the translation authority on most of their pages. The Watchtower quotes him as a leading authority, too, along with the people he has collaborated with: *** w11 11/1 p. 28 When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two *** 11. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume V, edited by Hermann Hunger, published 2001, pages 2-3. 12. Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Volume 2, No. 4, 1948, “A Classification of the Babylonian Astronomical Tablets of the Seleucid Period,” by A. Sachs, pages 282-283. 13. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume V, page 391. [edited by Hermann Hunger] 14. Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology, by David Brown, published 2000, pages 164, 201-202. 15. Bibliotheca Orientalis, L N° 1/2, Januari-Maart, 1993, “The Astronomical Diaries as a Source for Achaemenid and Seleucid History,” by R. J. van der Spek, pages 94, 102. 16. Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Volume I, by Abraham J. Sachs, completed and edited by Hermann Hunger, published 1988, page 47. Often when a well-known scholar writes a book, it is customary to have it reviewed by peers before publication. Furuli was not a well-known scholar in Assyriology, but is a Semitic Languages scholar nonetheless. So imagine the honor for Furuli to have his book on Neo-Babylonian chronology reviewed by Hermann Hunger, the world's foremost scholar in the field. In the next post I'll include portions of Hermann Hunger's review of Furuli's book on Neo-Babylonian chronology, of which 25% of it is about VAT 4956.

Let's cover the entire Preface of the eclipses book. Lookout to Ancient Eclipses. To review this book for its relevance to the Neo-Babylonian period (N-B), I'm probably going to use some shorthand now and then for repeated names, words and phrases. PM for Pekka Mansikka, the author. NEB for Nebuchadnezzar and NEB ACC for Nebuchadnezzar's accession year (sometimes NEB 0), and NEB 1 through NEB 43, for his official years of reign. The business/contract tablets will be shorted to "biz docs," and if referring to the dates on them I will use "biz dates." Neo-Babylon or Neo-Babylonian will be N-B. Not to be confused with NEB (above). -------------- Mansikka's "New Thesis" is the ancient chronology he proposes based, he says, on a study of eclipses. After the TOC, the book starts on p.11. He claims that this book follows the evidence from "New Chronology Using Solar Eclipses, II. Preface This new publication largely follows the evidence from the book ‘New Chronology Usin[g] Solar Eclipses, Volume II’. Hereinafter, this book is referred to as the “New Thesis”. However, here we look at the eclipses from a somewhat different perspective. [except where stated the following excerpts are contiguous. I will do a lot of skipping of material, but unless explicitly stated, the following material is contiguous, without skipping.] He agrees that eclipse data is important, and accurate from a scientific perspective. But he readies us with: A scientific perspective on ancient eclipses The space administration NASA states that the calculated location of ancient solar eclipses could have only an error of up to about 10 kilometers.1 In this dissertation, this strict criterion applies to ancient eclipses.In addition, the aim here is to apply assyriologists' assessments that the recorded eclipses were likely to be good covered. On the basis of these criteria, very surprising and even strange findings from ancient history can be found. In the book p.12 Babylonian business documents The New Thesis paid more attention to the dates of business documents written by the ancient Babylonians. This dissertation repeats the result revealed by these business papers, which extends the chronology by several years. A new feature of this dissertation is the use of the Stellarium program. It also provides new, refined information about the history of Babylonia Perhaps PM pays more attention to the biz dates, but I think we will show that it was not enough attention. And he went to the trouble to check a few of the eclipses and planetary positions in Stellarium. This is a very good thing. Based on the dates of these Babylonian business documents, it is not possible to apply the solar eclipse of in 763 BC to the history of Assyria. This is an odd way to end a section on Babylonian biz docs. I don't care if the conclusion is correct or not, but it's an incorrect premise for the conclusion. The biz dates are relative, and a set of N-B relative dates cannot push an "absolute" date of a solar eclipse backwards or forward. Only because it is part if this same Introductory overview will I include this particular analogy: Strange distractions in eclipses Let us first take theories of black holes here. Their existence has not been observed with telescopes as they do not emit light. Their existence can only be detected on the basis of the impact they have on their environment. For example, the bending of light or the rotation of a star around a point where there seems to be nothing gives reason to assume the existence of a black hole. Similar disturbances are found when one carefully looks at eclipses recorded in ancient times and insists that they did indeed occur within the strict scientific criteria described above. The occurrence of these severe disturbances may be the main reason why researchers generally adhere to the year 763 BC. application to the solar eclipse in Assyria. This dissertation examines the magnitude of these disturbances and finally considers what could be the disturbing “black hole” in ancient history and whether the disturbances caused by it could be corrected. I won't comment about whether I think this analogy is absurd or amazing or both. But note that this is mostly about 763, and 763 BCE is far outside the topic of NEB's reign. Free chronology The current old chronology applies such a “free chronology,” that is, it does not apply the eclipses observed in ancient times to support the chronology. In addition, some references to ancient eclipses contradict the scientific criterion set out above. In this respect, New Thesis applies this free chronology, as it presents a higher margin of error in a few points for NASA's calculations. This chronology of New Thesis is mainly included in the free chronology of this dissertation. We will check this claim for how it might affect the N-B period, for which we have more reported eclipses than the periods PM focuses on. Order In this dissertation, the order of the issues under consideration has been slightly “improved” so that they are approximately in chronological order. The review begins in the 5th century BC. and moving back one step at a time. We first look at the chronology of Babylonia and Assyria and then the Eclipses related to the chronology of Egypt. There was a footnote above about the "error" of 10 km per NASA. The location was timeanddate.com/eclipse/accuracy.html In terms of the location of the Moon's shadow during solar eclipses, the margin of error may sound pretty large at first. For example, the location of the Moon's shadow shown on the Eclipse Map can be off by a few kilometers—up to 10 kilometers (about 6 miles) in extreme cases, when the observer is at a high altitude and the Sun is low in the sky. However, 10 kilometers is the distance the Moon's shadow covers in only about 10 seconds, so this imprecision does not amount to much for spectators on the ground. Having said that, if you are at the very edge of the path of the total eclipse, it is probably wise to move a few kilometers towards its center to make sure you will not miss out on totality. So this reference was not at all related to ancient eclipses, and it was only a statement about the reasons for very small apparent inaccuracies when predicting a total eclipse of the sun for a specific observer in a specific place. For the timing of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, we have only lunar eclipses to worry about and a few planetary observations. No solar eclipses. Also PM has possibly misinterpreted the issues of accuracy, as this particular one is about a potential difference when observing a solar eclipse from a high altitude when the sun is low in the sky. (For known physical reasons.) These issues are unrelated to the issues faced by ancient sky observers, and our current state of knowledge about those issues. So that, above, was the entire Preface, no skipping.

Pekka Mansikka has included the following in a recent email: Did you read the book Lookout to ancient eclipses?Ps. Note: "NCUSE, Volume II" is my a translation error. The same book is Volume II of the Finnish Department. In the English-language department, it is Volume III. Sorry ; ) I don't know if Mansikka picked up on the fact that these are "Editions," not "Volumes." "Cesar Chavez" already alluded to the fact that COJ used the term correctly by calling his different updates, "editions." But Mansikka's point, above, is that "Volume [edition] II" (2020, Finnish) is the same as "Volume [edition] III." (2020, English). The initial 2019 edition is the one I purchased in English. The question about whether I read his book "Lookout to ancient eclipses" was asked of me because Mansikka believes this book covers the objections raised against his conclusions in the latest NCUSE ("New Chronology Using Solar Eclipses"). I would be happy to go over the relevant sections of the Eclipses book, with the warning that I think there are many good reasons to treat it honestly for what it really is. It's the same basic premise for the original 1969 article on Chronology in the AID book and the updated version of the Chronology article in the INSIGHT book and the Appendix in the 1981 "Kingdom Come" book and Furuli's books and vat4956.com and now Mansikka's book. The premise is basically that there are some minor or potential problems with some of the ancient chronology evidence, and if one tries very they can even get reades to doubt some of the most well-established Neo-Babylonian evidence. Assuming we focus on a couple of errors and not on the overwhelming mass of evidence. To sum it up, the goal is get the reader to go along with the following logic: Because there MIGHT be a few random errors within the overwhelming evidence for the archaeologically-supported timeline, then we MUST accept the specific 20-year discrepancy of the WTS timeline. The problem is that the errors he brings up do not really effect the Neo-Babylonian timeline. We can and should expect errors hundreds of years earlier, and even from just prior to the NB timeline, and even some within the timeline itself. That's the nature of archaeological artifacts. We often have to piece together a puzzle from thousands of broken or interlocking pieces. But if those thousands of pieces create a solid picture, we can't throw out that solid picture and try to create a new and different picture from only the remaining half-a-dozen broken pieces. And the worst part is that some of these sources only pretend a piece is broken when it perfectly fits the thousands of other interlocking pieces. When I see that type of pseudo-scholarship, I have to think of extreme confirmation bias (evidentiary "blind spots") or even dishonesty. I don't think of PM as dishonest, because he has inherited some of his ideas from Furuli. And all of us who believe or once believed in the 606/607 date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, ultimately inherited it from the mistake of one of Christendom's former Millerite Second Adventists. So we will take a small diversion and look at the "Eclipses" book by Pekka Mansikka . . .

LOL! Indeed. You don't think I tried to do the same thing for many years that Pekka Mansikka, Carl Olof Jonsson, and Rolf Furuli and others have tried to do? I'm sure we've all hoped there was a way that 607 might just still work because that would be such good evidence that we could show others about Jehovah's guidance. No matter what evidence he finds, Pekka Mansikka's new proposals must always promote the same 20-year discrepancy found in the WTS publications. Where do you think he got the idea from? Did you really think that some random researcher just happened to reach a conclusion that goes against 99.99% of the archaeological evidence, and ended up with the exact same 20-year discrepancy the WTS has used since Nelson Barbour first promoted this same initial mistake? Mansikka got it from the INSIGHT book and, of course, from Rolf Furuli, too. Mansikka paraphrases the INSIGHT book in places, and the following is from page 32 of his "Eclipses" book: References 6 Rolf Furuli: ‘Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology Volume I’ The Bible chronology is the best, but Pekka Mansikka is not interested in Bible chronology. He is only interested in "proving" the chronology of the INSIGHT book. Also, the Bible chronology most definitely does NOT point to 625 BCE as the time for the battle of Carchemish. Christendom merely produced a man (a false prophet) named Nelson Barbour. You should read the book by B.W.Schulz called "Nelson Barbour: The Millennium's Forgotten Prophet." That book is also produced by a Witness (Schulz). Barbour is the one who convinced Russell of the chronology, which Russell admits he had very little interest in (or understanding of). If you research this topic further, you will also see that Barbour evidently misunderstood the chronology of Bowen/Elliott. In the mid-1800's, "Reverend" Elliott, for example, mentioned 606 BCE to 1914 as a possible solution to the 7 times, but Elliott (in the fine print) also shows that he knew this to be closer to Nebuchadnezzar's FIRST year, not his 18th year when Jerusalem was destroyed. It's only this 20-year discrepancy that adds 20 years to the archaeological date for the battle of Carchemish. (605+20=625) Barbour and Russell had already built up their doctrine on this mistake, and it was evidently too late to admit it by the time it was pointed out to Russell (in a letter to the WT which he printed) several years after he had accepted Barbour's chronology.

Back when salesman jokes were in vogue (September 1936 issue) the following was somehow considered a good one: Worried pencil-selling business partner: We buy these pencils for 3 cents and sell them for 2 cents. We're losing money on every sale! How are we ever going to make a profit? Reassuring pencil-selling business parter: Volume!!* * Alternative: "We'll make it up in volume!"

I caught on that you were being feces-tious about the plopping missiles. But I must say that I have no idea what is going on with this re-gendered rejoinder.

That wasn't Charles Schwab. It was Klaus Schwab: World-renowned economist Klaus Schwab, Founder and Executive Chairman of the World Economic Forum Charles Robert Schwab is an American investor and financial executive. He is the founder and chairman of the Charles Schwab Corporation. He pioneered discount sales of equity securities starting in 1975. His company became by far the largest discount securities dealer in the United States.

Pekka Mansikka said: Yes, under some possible circumstances, but not necessarily. And of course, my point was not about Old Babylon and Assyria, but New-Babylon and Assyria. Which I see that you understand when you say: That statement is correct. And here's why I claimed what I did. You don't even have to go back to Assyria, you can even compare two kings of the same nation and era. Let's say my only interest is when Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year landed in "BCE" time. Now, just to simplify, let's say you can show strong evidence that Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar's father, reigned from say 645 BCE to 625 BCE. Now, let's assume, through the same means, that I can show strong evidence that Nebuchadnezzar reigned from 604 to 562. I know that your dates are 20 years earlier than I thought they should be, but they are for Nabopolassar, and mine are for Nebuchadnezzar. Even if your dates are right, they don't necessarily affect my dates for Nebuchadnezzar at all. I would have no more reason to push my dates back by 20 years as you would have to push your dates forward by 20 years. We could just assume that there is a gap between 625 and 604, and we don't absolutely know which king or kings filled that gap. You have strong evidence, let's say, but it's not for Nebuchadnezzar, and is therefore irrelevant for answering the question about Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year. So if this is true of even Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar's father, then how much less a concern is it to look 200, 300, even 500 years further back. In the worst case, if your Nabopolassar evidence was very strong, and my evidence was weak, then I would double-check my evidence before making any strong claims about it. And if the Nebuchadnezzar evidence was equal to or stronger than your Nabopolassar evidence, then I'm justified in not worrying about your weaker evidence. In fact, they could both be true. Fortunately the "real" Nabopolassar evidence supports the archaeological Nebuchadnezzar dates, and the "real" Nebuchadnezzar evidence supports the Nabopolassar dates. So, I have nothing to worry about.

To be fair to Pekka Mansikka I would like to deal with his objections as they come up. I will quote him from his most recent communication: In the forum I wrote: "We could stipulate that all Assyrian history is wrong, and it would not effect the accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian period.". Pekka wrote: ". . . but I slightly disagree " links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_kings_of_Babylon https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-1-from-nabu-nasir-to-samas-suma-ukin/ Tiglath-Pileser III became king of Assyria in the third year of Nabonassar, king of Babylon. If a major change were to be made to the chronology of Assyria in order to find the solar eclipse of Assyria, it would directly affect the chronology of Babylonia. The reigns of kings cannot be extended without justification, at random, but would have to be done if the year 626 BC had been applied. To the beginning of the New Babylonian dynasty. Because he is gracious enough to follow along and only "slightly" disagree while I "strongly" disagree, I appreciate the sense of humor, and will give his work more attention than I thought I would at first. My first response would be that I am only turning Mansikka's logic "back on itself," from the perspective of someone who believes that the archaeology tells a more accurate story for Neo-Babylon than it does for Assyria, Egypt, and Old Babylon.. Mansikka is actually asking us to accept that when he finally resolves the Assyrian history to be "right" (corrected from his perspective), that this would most definitely effect the accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian period. In effect, then Mansikka is saying that when he corrects the Assyrian period, it negates the Neo-Babylonian. I go from the other perspective and say that the Neo-Babylonian period is a later period of time, with much more archaeological evidence. We even have evidence that it was the 17th year of Nabonidus when Cyrus conquered in 539 BCE. Both Mansikka and I and most everyone else agrees with this Neo-Babylonian archaeology. So we already know that the Neo-Babylonian archaeological dates have some merit. And they are easy to work with because they are all supported by all the other dates in the series. There are no anomalies. The Assyrian period is not quite as well understood in terms of overlapping kings, potentially conflicting names and nicknames, usurpers, illegitimate claimants, and the kings that belong in the official Assyrian yearly calendar system, and the Assyrian kings over Babylon that belong to the official Babylonian yearly calendar system. The issues can be resolved, but it took archaeologists more time to resolve them. I would not be surprised if there are some remaining mistakes in the Assyrian calendar. But I'm even less interested in the Assyrian king's BCE dates than I am in Babylonian. It's only at the point when the Assyrian and Babylonian calendars sync up that we need to look at any problematic chronology issues. And even here it's much better to start fresh with the Neo-Babylonian period rather than try to impose a previous era with older counting methods on the subsequent period. Even the official dates of the Nabopolassar reign will not be determined by the last year of the Assyrian/Babylonian king before him, but by the first uniquely identified regnal year within the range of Nabopolassar. And if we get a date or two (or 20) identified within Nebuchadnezzar's reign, we could even ignore any discrepancies under Nabopolassar, and evaluate the accuracy of Nebuchadnezzar's dates on their own. The fact that they actually support each other is good, but it's not as problematic as one might think if they didn't. At any rate, they support each other, just as every known date in the Neo-Babylonian period supports every other date within the period.

And this is more funny. True. It's OK for a scholar to depend on his own prior work, especially if that work has been reviewed and has withstood criticism. But this entire chapter was only sourced from his own previous works. Even works containing ideas he currently rejects. Here are the sources for this entire section: And the only exception is where he quoted the Bible in footnote #4. And here he rejects the INSIGHT book which identifies Pul as Tiglath-Pileser III.

And from 1360 BCE, Mansikka finally jumps over to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar the Great, the Nebuchadnezzar II of Biblical fame: Date of Nebuchadnezzar II's reign In a more recent phase of the investigation, in the winter of 2020, progress was made in examining Babylonia’s business documents. The first of these was to identify overlaps during the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar II, Amel-Marduk, and Neriglissar, kings of Babylon.6 Since it is unlikely that they would have ruled in part at the same time, it was also simple to conclude that the beginning of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II must be postponed for at least two years. With this correction, the chronology has been extended by 2 years, with a further 23 years remaining. 6 P.Mansikka: NCUSE, Volume II, 2020, pp. 22- 24 I purchased the 2019 version of NCUSE, which covers this same material on different pages, but I do not have the 2020 version of the same book. I assume (from the updates Pekka Mansikka has provided) that this is the same information covered later in the 2019 volume, and within pages 20-27 of NCUSE, Volume III based on the TOC he provided with the updates. (Note that Mansikka labels these books Vol I, II and III, when they are apparently just 3 editions of the same book, re-ordering the pages, and replacing obsolete material with new material.) The very convoluted overview of that material in the last two sentences in the above quote are not presented any clearer in the NCUSE material ("Volume I"), although that idea covers several pages. Perhaps when and if I purchase "Volume III" I can do a better job on this. For now however I can see that he has merely ended up with the same mistakes that Furuli presented. If one looks closely at how this material was originally presented, they would be rightfully accused of scholastic dishonesty. It is possible that Furuli merely copied from some source, which means he was only passing along information that came from a very dishonest and hypocritical source. I believe that Mansikka is only passing along information from Furuli here, so that I cannot blame Mansikka as being the original dishonest and hypocritical source here. He probably doesn't realize he is taking some of the blame for the dishonesty himself, by claiming he investigated (in the winter of his dis-contents) and examined Babylonia's business documents. The "holy grail" of these business documents is to try to find some inconsistency or anomaly that can overturn the transitions between regnal years, the ordered timeline, and therefore the chronology. Even though it's still probably less than half of the 50,000 business documents that have been fully published, it's likely that all of them have been scanned by archaeologists for the anomalies, because these always get the most attention, and could make any archaeologist famous for being the one to find real evidence that could overthrow a long-established chronology. But he, too, (as of 2019, at least) has succumbed to the pretense that such anomalies exist, and that an anomaly of only a few days difference can somehow be blown up into adding 20 years to the timeline and chronology. I'll get to the specifics, as soon as I can find out whether any of the 2020 material was supposed to make any of my 2019 Mansikka material obsolete.

Mansikka's next point will go without much comment at all. It's about an eclipse from around 1360 BCE that somehow supports 809 vs 763 BCE and 809 vs 791 BCE. The difference is as much as 570 years here, more than half a millennium! Finding the solar eclipse of Mursili II In July 2018, the solar eclipse scheduled for the 10th year of Mursili II's rule could be attributed to July 1360 BC. This finding was influenced by the information found in the Amarna letters that Suppiluliium I, the predecessor of Mursili II, died fairly soon after the death of an unnamed pharaoh.5 The relegation of Mursili II's reign to some extent also directly affects how the chronology of Babylonia and Assyria can be dated to the 6th and 7th centuries BC. This period of Mursili II's reign has also been found to support the year 809 BC. In the 9th year of the reign of Ashur-Dan III, King of Assyria. On the other hand, it does not support the assertion that the Assyrian solar eclipse took place in 791 BC. This section has no footnotes or references that show the connection between 1360 BCE and 809 BCE.

Mansikka next goes on to discuss (in a few sentences) the reign of Pul and Tiglath-Pileser as it relates to King Menahem of Israel. King Pul of Assyria When the year 809 BC was applied Ashur-Dan III’s reign, it also paved the way for a new interpretation of the reigns of the Assyrian kings in the 7th century BC. The history of Israel tells of this activity of Pul, the king of Assyria in question: “King Pul of Assyria came to the land, and Menahem gave Pul 1000 talents of silver. . . . And Menahem gathered silver out of Israel. . . and gave it to the king of Assyria.”4 Assyriologists have found confirmations for this event. Tiglath-Pileser III boasts of inheriting taxes from King Menahem of Israel. However, according to biblical chronology, Menaheim's reign ended as early as 780 BC. about. The 18-year reign – 12 – of Tiglath-Pileser III did not go so far back in time. Thus, this paved the way - in the early stages of the study in the winter of 2017 - for the reign of King Pul, or Pulu, of the Assyrian, which lasted about 18 years before the reign of Tiglat-Pileser III began. This is just another reflection of Mansikka trying to improve on the more flexible admission of the INSIGHT book: *** INSIGHT-2 p. 1102 Tiglath-pileser (III) *** In ancient Assyrian records Tiglath-pileser III is assigned a reign of 18 years. Biblical references, however, seem to indicate that his kingship was of longer duration, inasmuch as references to him appear from the time of Menahem down to that of Hoshea. But the Hebrew Scriptures do not set forth all the details needed for one to state positively that the Assyrian records are in error in this case. This is so for several reasons: There is some uncertainty regarding the manner in which the reigns of the Israelite kings are to be fitted into a chronological framework. It is also worth noting that the period prior to the time generally assigned for the start of Tiglath-pileser’s reign is one of relative obscurity as far as the ancient records are concerned and is considered to have been a time of great decline for the Assyrians. However, to accomplish this Mansikka apparently has to separate the reign of Pul from Tiglath-Pileser III, where INSIGHT would say: *** INSIGHT-2 p. 1101 Tiglath-pileser (III) *** During the reign of King Menahem of Israel (c. 790-781 B.C.E.), Tiglath-pileser III (Pul) advanced into Palestine, and Menahem sought the Assyrian’s favor by paying him tribute to the amount of “a thousand talents of silver” ($6,606,000 in current values). Thus, Mansikka would double the 18-year reign of Tiglath-Pileser (archaeological dates: 745 to 727) by adding a twin 18-year reign of Pul, thus supposedly adding 20 years the WTS needs, plus another 18 years for Pul, so that 745+18+20=784 BCE to reach the WTS date range for Menahem. Mansikka doesn't admit the circular reasoning going on here. So when he says, the 18-year reign did not go so far back in time "according to Biblical chronology" he doesn't mean that the "Bible" has anything to do with this. It just means that the WTS placed it farther back in time, and the extra 20 years that the WTS not only conflicts with Neo-Babylonian chronology, it also conflicts with Assyrian chronology. Instead of admitting that this actually is further evidence against the "wishful thinking" chronology of the WTS, Mansikka takes the WTS position and assumes that all other chronologies must be off. Like the little drummer boy who marches to the beat of his own drum and assumes it was everyone else in the band who were wrong. Of course, marching to the beat of your own drum produces ridicule by experts, and this feeds directly into the us/them psychology, or even persecution psychology, that some Witnesses thrive on. Like a good conspiracy theory, it's the very lack of evidence that is therefore turned into perceived "evidence." The ridicule over our belief without evidence (faith) supposedly makes us right, like a small David standing before a Goliath of evidence. We believe we must be right if the so-called experts all say something else. This is turned into a "Bible vs secular" argument, which some will turn into a "Jehovah vs Satan" argument. In reality it's nothing more than the "WTS vs Bible&archaeology." Ultimately, the WTS is accepted over the Bible&archaeology because . . . well, because FDS & 1914!

The rest of this might be boring 😊 but just to be thorough, we should look at the rest of his book: We left off above on page 9, where Mansikka reviews his own studies that would put a solar eclipse dated to the 9th year of Ashur-Dan on June 809 BCE instead of June 763 BCE. The timing of this eclipse opened the door to a considerable extension of the chronology also on an archaeological basis and not solely on the basis of Israeli history. Somehow, he thinks that identifying an eclipse usually associated with 763 but which could have referred to one 46 years earlier will change Nebuchadnezzar's reign, because he wants a 46 year difference in Assyrian history to negates all the many eclipses and planetary observations recorded from Neo-Babylonian history (where the Watchtower Society requires an unrelated 20 year extension). In his review of his own research, Mansikka's then goes on to discuss Esarhaddon's reign from 100 years later than Ashur-Dan. Timing of Esarhaddon's reign In early March 2017, more than a month after the start of the study, a translation by Professor Smith of the cuneiform of the Esarhaddon Chronicle was found.2 On this basis, already at that early stage, was applied in 704 BC October eclipse to the 1st year of Esarhaddon. The new chronology clearly began to take shape. The footnote/reference #2 is to the book which contains the outdated Nabonidus theory. So it refers to that book, pages 16 and 19-23. I will not get into the convoluted reasoning from that book, but the basic idea is take advantage of differences of opinion about a specific translation, which may refer to either a solar or lunar eclipse in the first year of Esarhaddon. In addition there is evidence of either a lunar or solar eclipse related to Esarhaddon's campaign in Egypt, which he ties to years 10 to 12. Mansikka believes we should look for either lunar or solar eclipses from 700 BCE to 681 BCE for a 10th-12th year of Esarhaddon that might also end up allowing a match for the lunar or solar eclipse in the first year of Esarhaddon. The date of Esarhaddon’s reign, already outlined at the beginning of that dissertation, also showed the need for a strong extension of the chronology. In the winter of 2020, it was seen necessary to postpone Esarhaddon's reign for another year.3 Thereafter, the need to extend the chronology after Esarhaddon is 25 years. Mansikka's goal, apparently, is to show that If a person can take all these poorly defined eclipses seriously enough to pinpoint to a specific year that is different from the generally accepted dating of those years, then Mansikka can somehow convince readers that we should not take seriously the very well-defined eclipses of the Neo-Babylonian period.

One of the most obvious examples of circular reasoning shown by Pekka Mansikka is this: Mansikka claims that this otherwise unknown entity, "Neb. V" must have really existed and reigned for nearly 20 years. So we ask of Mansikka: But if he really existed, then why does all the evidence point away from the existence of this otherwise unknown king? What about all that eclipse evidence that shows that no king named Neb existed at this time? Mansikka answers, that it must still be true, because we can't trust their own evidence, because they didn't know about "Neb. V." I know that this will probably sound like a joke, that I must be making this up to make fun of him. But here's what he says: https://journal.pm-netti.com/lunar-eclipses-of-the-babylonian-astrologers.html The concluding paragraph says it all, emphasis mine: Result From the above, it can be easily concluded that the lunar eclipses recorded by ancient Babylonian astrologers are largely unworthy for New Babylon and earlier. The reason for this is that these eclipses were written down around the 200th [sic] century BC, and their authors had incomplete knowledge of Babylonian history. They knew nothing of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar V.

I think I see what you are saying. That if Jehovah thought it was important for us to know for sure that we were supposed to start this date counting of "7 times," and turn those 7 times into 2,520 years from 607 BCE, then Jehovah would have given us exactly enough information to count back from the first year Cyrus, and forward from the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar without guessing. And 2 Tim 3:16 would have been changed to say: All scripture is inspired of God . . . that the man of God may be almost fully equipped, so that all he will still need is a working knowledge of how Greek Olympiads were tied to BCE dates through ancient king lists, and how Neo-Babylonian chronology can be tied to BCE dates through ancient king lists and validated with observations through astronomy. A little further he at least explains how he manages this apparent total lack of evidence and information. He says that Amel-Marduk is the one who was nice to KIng Jehoiachin: *** nwt 2 Kings 25:27-30 *** And in the 37th year of the exile of King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah, in the 12th month, on the 27th day of the month, King Eʹvil-merʹo·dach of Babylon, in the year he became king, released King Je·hoiʹa·chin of Judah from prison. 28 He spoke kindly with him and put his throne higher than the thrones of the other kings who were with him in Babylon. 29 So Je·hoiʹa·chin took off his prison garments, and he regularly ate before him all the days of his life. 30 A regular allowance of food was given him from the king, day after day, all the days of his life. So this Evil-Merodach (Amel-Marduk) was nice to a Jewish king, therefore he was unpopular, therefore he he had to change his name to Nebuchadnezzar to be popular again.

His next paragraph starts out as follows: Assyrian solar eclipse Already at the beginning of this study, in January 2017, it was clear that in June 763 BC. the solar eclipse could not reconcile the history of Assyria with the 9th year of Ashur-Dan III’s reign. The reason for this was its blatant contradiction with the history of Israel. Based on this, it was easy to start looking for that eclipse at other times. Thus, it could be stated at the outset of the investigation that there were only two other options. Of these, 13th June 809 BCE seemed more probable a solar eclipse occurred, because it was not inconsistent with the history of Israel.1 Anyone can read a bit about this eclipse from the references and links found on this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assyrian_eclipse It really shouldn't matter whether an eclipse has been misidentified from 200 years earlier in another nation's history. This has no effect on identifying a large set of eclipses and observations that are not misidentified 200 years later in the Neo-Babylonian period. We could stipulate that all Assyrian history is wrong, and it would not effect the accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian period. It's really almost as ludicrous as saying there is evidence that the Aztec calendar was off by 46 years at some remote period in the past, and therefore we can't trust that this is really the year 2021. It's only when there is a synchronism between an outside calendar and the Neo-Babylonian calendar (during the Neo-Babylonian period) that we should then consider evidence from other nations and other time periods. Even then, the accuracy of calendars outside the Neo-Babylonian evidence does not necessarily reflect on the accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian evidence itself. What Mansikka is really referring to above about the difference between a 763 eclipse and the 809 eclipse is already discussed in the INSIGHT book: *** INSIGHT-1 pp. 454-455 Chronology *** An example is the solar eclipse relied upon by historians to correlate Assyrian chronology with Biblical chronology. It is mentioned in the Assyrian eponym lists as taking place in the third month (counting from the spring) during the eponymy of Bur-Sagale. Modern chronologists calculate it to be the eclipse occurring on June 15, 763 B.C.E. Counting back 90 years (or 90 names on the eponym lists) from this date, they arrive at 853 B.C.E. as the date for the battle of Karkar in Shalmaneser III’s sixth year. They claim that Shalmaneser lists King Ahab of Israel as in the enemy coalition facing Assyria in that battle, and that 12 years afterward (Shalmaneser’s 18th year) the Assyrian king refers to King Jehu of Israel as paying tribute. They then deduce that the year 853 B.C.E. marked the date of Ahab’s last year and 841 B.C.E. the start of Jehu’s reign. How sound are these calculations? First, though it is assumed that the solar eclipse was total, the eponym list does not state this. And, whereas most historians today would apply this reference to the eclipse of 763 B.C.E., not all scholars have done so, some preferring the year 809 B.C.E., during which year an eclipse occurred that would have been at least partially visible in Assyria (as was also the case in 857 and 817 B.C.E., etc.). (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, charts 17, 19, 21) Though modern historians object to any change from the solar eclipse of 763 B.C.E. on the grounds that it would ‘introduce confusion into Assyrian history,’ . . . Our own (INSIGHT's) chronology for the Judean and Israelite kings appears correct, but the INSIGHT book admits that it is more of a relative chronology. *** it-1 p. 463 Chronology *** The chart is not intended to be viewed as an absolute chronology but, rather, as a suggested presentation of the reigns of the two kingdoms. The ancient inspired writers were dealing with facts and figures well known to them and to the Jewish people then, and the different chronological viewpoints adopted by the writers at certain points presented no problem. And we already know that some arbitrary years have been added due to some special needs required for our prophetic interpretations. And we also know that co-regencies have been assumed in order to fit an interpretation of the 390 years, for example. But if our interpreted chronology is generally correct, or even MORE correct than Assyrian chronology, it has no effect on Neo-Babylonian chronology 200 years later. I'll assume that Pekka Mansikka doesn't realize it, but the level of confirmation bias is so high as to border on hypocrisy. For example, he is quick to see -- as he ought to be -- that a shift of a date of one event, like a specific eclipse, will invalidate a chronology because it throws off so many other dated observations in that same timeline. Not just other eclipses and planetary phenomena are thrown off, but in another place Mansikka even uses as evidence that the identified king in the eponym list associated with an event would be wrong: How can one complain that earlier Assyrian and/or Egyptian chronology must line up on this basis, and not believe that Neo-Babylonian chronology must be lined up on the same basis? Mansikka is required to negate every one of the Neo-Babylonian eclipses using the exact opposite of the argument for why some years are better than others for these other periods. Another example of bias is Mansikka's immediate assumption that a coregency must NOT have happened because he doesn't think it likely (for a two year period). Yet he is trying to support the chronology promoted in the INSIGHT book where it is immediately assumed that a coregency will take care of a three year discrepency: *** it-1 pp. 462-463 Chronology *** In the chart that follows, this 390-year period is adhered to as a sound chronological guide. A summation of the years listed for all the reigns of the kings of Judah from Rehoboam to Zedekiah gives a total of 393 years. Whereas some Biblical chronologers endeavor to synchronize the data concerning the kings by means of numerous coregencies and “interregnums” on the Judean side, it appears necessary to show only one coregency. This is in the case of Jehoram, who is stated (at least in the Masoretic text and some of the oldest manuscripts of the Bible) to have become king “while Jehoshaphat was king of Judah,” thus giving some basis for assuming a coregency. (2Ki 8:16) In this manner the overall period comes within the 390-year limit. (As a side point, it is also curious that when the details add up to 393, that the INSIGHT book prefers to take the more general length of the reported period and assume that the overview number, 390, is more accurate than the detailed view of 393.) Another gross inconsistency in Mansikka's writings is where he finds it a big problem when astronomical data and other tablets (archaeological evidence) do not line up. In unnecessarily many cases, “harmony” is found in a very questionable way: by ignoring archaeological evidence. - https://journal.pm-netti.com/lunar-eclipses-of-the-babylonian-astrologers.html This turns out to be the most egregious of the internal inconsistencies. When convenient to his argument, Mansikka argues for not ignoring archaeological evidence. But in the Neo-Babylonian period, for which we have literally "tons" of evidence, on the order of 50,000 clay tablets, we must ignore nearly all of it, because all of it supports a much different, much simpler chronology.

SInce the last book Mansikka asked me to look at was his work about "Nebuchadnezzar V" I will look closely at that first. He has also just sent me an email asking to especially look at the book "Lookout to Ancient Eclipses" especially chapter 5. First Nebuchadnezzar V. It opens up with these words: Introduction Who was Nebuchadnezzar V, king of Babylon, who ruled in the 570s and 560s BC? This dissertation publishes this new king, who has been unknown for more than 2,300 years. The dissertation sets out the rationale for the time he ruled and what evidence is there that he used the name Nebuchadnezzar. So, Mansikka admits that this "Neb.V" is a "new king" who was supposedly already unknown just a couple hundred years after a nearly 20 year reign. This is odd because, Babylonian, Persian and Greek historians even tells us about other kings who reigned only a few months. In other words, no one mentioned him, or put him in a calendar or king list which was a requirement of time-keeping --ever! I believe that we will be able to see that this person has really never existed except in the imagination of Pekka Mansikka. Next he says: Why is Nebuchadnezzar V missing from the list of kings? Probably this be not an mishap. However, Berossos, whose list is often quoted, was apparently not the first to write the King's List of Babylon from that time. Berossos – 7 – had older clay paintings at his disposal. Thanks to the texts of these old clay tablets, the Babylonians were already in complete obscurity at the time of Berossos in connection unknow [sic] for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar V. The conjecture here is that not only Berossos, a later historian, but even the Babylonians themselves already knew nothing about him, shortly after he supposedly reigned. The Babylonians were accurate about their religious background. Thus, the reason for Nebuchadnezzar V’s absence from the royal list is that he was unpopular during his lifetime because of his religious diversity. The Babylonians were accurate about their religious background. Thus, the reason for Nebuchadnezzar V’s absence from the royal list is that he was unpopular during his lifetime because of his religious diversity. Of course, there is no evidence for this. That was the entire "Introduction." The book goes on then with the section: 1. From the researcher's desk The historical years in this dissertation that deviate from the traditional chronology of the reigns of the various kings could surprise the reader. Therefore, this chapter examines the background to how the decisions of this dissertation have been reached over the years. The author began researching the history of eclipses recorded in history and their timing in the course of history in the winter of 2017. The next few paragraphs seem unrelated, but I'll go through them anyway. While I cannot help but focus on the weaknesses of his argument, anyone who wishes can focus on the strengths, if they find some.

He started to, but I think he realizes there is trouble in the details for him. His explanations are very "light." I think he does care. He discusses the other countries, but with the same lack of detail during the Neo-Babylonian period. I plan to discuss before giving all my biases. I invited him to join, because he might be able to give answers that the book doesn't give. Or updates. My last email to him: Hello again, Thanks for visiting the discussion forum. You are, of course, welcome to join in the discussion. They can get quite lively on this and related topics. I am sorry I had not read the Nebuchadnezzar V information carefully to the end. As I read the first few pages it was not clear to me that this would replace the Nabonidus proposal by more than a couple of years. I assumed that the information about Nebuchadnezzar II on page 14 was a reference to a two year-correction. You weren't clear about the direction or relationship with the "23 year" correction to follow. Up to page 16, when you spoke of an increase in Amel-Marduk's term, I naturally associated the reference with a relatively small period of overlap which would have been part of the two year-correction on page 14. So although I could tell you were going to adjust Nabonidus, I had the impression that we were talking only about a couple of years here and there. I admit that I only skimmed, from about page 18 onward, and didn't see the critical explanation on page 20 about increasing Amel-Marduk by 18 years, instead of Nabonidus, and using the two year adjustment from an overlap to pick up the other two years. (2+18=20) This was my mistake and I will be open about it when I explain your new position on the discussion forum: https://www.theworldnewsmedia.org/topic/88423-finnish-author-looks-to-fill-the-20-year-chronology-gap/ Feel free to pass along your own comments, or updates, or as I said above, to join the discussion yourself.

The advantage of this last suggestion by Mansikka is twofold. He does not have to come up with a brand new king of 20 years to insert, that history somehow forgot about, even though history can tell us about several kings that reigned only a few months. We even have contract tablets representing those kings who reigned only a few months, so it was ludicrous to try to get people to believe that there were 20 (imaginary) years of Nabonidus that were represented by zero tablets when each of the other years of his actual reign could have been represented by dozens or even hundreds of tablets. He can account for the fact that there are no additional contract tablets for a king by the same name, just by claiming that perhaps half of the contract tablets from years 1 to 20 of Nebuchadnezzar II were actually mistakenly credited to Neb II and were actually for Neb V. One problem with the new claim is that we would now have to expect that the number of tablets for the first twenty years of Nebuchadnezzars would be about double the number from years 21 through 43. Because there are two kings who are getting tablets marked NEB (1-20) and only one NEB (21-43). There are several other problems he tries to avoid with the new proposal related to the Babylonian Chronicles, but I am not concerned with those. One of the major disadvantages is that Mansikka had previously utilized a contemporary piece of archaeological evidence in the first suggestion that he must now reject. The inscription for Adad-guppi' has been discussed before, and it lists the age of Nabonidus' mother, by saying she lived through so many years of Nabopolassar (21), then so many years of Nebuchadnezzar (43), then so many years of Amel-Marduk (2), then so many years of Neriglissar (4) and then so many years of Nabonidus (only 9, up to that point because she died in his 9th year). Mansikka could therefore show that he had "negative evidence" that it was Nabonidus that could be extended from 17 to 37 years, and this would not conflict with the Adad-guppi' inscription. Adad-guppi' allows you to imagine anything you want after year 9. But I believe Mansikka finally dropped it because the Insight book includes the evidence that it was in Nabonidus 17th year when Cyrus came a-conquering in 539 BCE. But you have to give Mansikka some credit for trying. Not even the WTS writers will dare to propose where they might intend to squeeze in those additional 20 years they need. In fact, if you add up all the different statements of years that the WTS has admitted for each king, you would only get the same chart as the first chart I presented above, the one that pretty much everyone outside the WTS agrees with. No one would have any idea exactly where to start changing the BCE dates by 20 years, or even if we are supposed to believe it was all in one block. Perhaps the WTS has the idea that there were one or two or three new kings to be added in here between Nebuchadnezzar 43 and Nabonidus 17(Cyrus 0). Or perhaps there is a combination of new kings and tacking a few years onto Evil-Merodach and/or Neriglissar. Mansikka seems to be looking for just one king whose reign is extended. So I think we need to look at his own reasons for going that route. If he doesn't give any, then I'll assume Occam's Razor. Also we might want to look at why he thinks we need to add 20 years to these reigns in the first place, and know why he wants them between the end of Nebuchadnezzar's reign and the first year of Cyrus. Deep down, we all know why. It's because . . . 1914! Adding those 20 years anywhere else outside of that range will ruin the support for 1914. Technically, it has to after the start of Evil-Merodach's reign and before the beginning of Nabonidus 17 year reign, because the INSIGHT book already admits that Evil Merodach began just after the 43 years of Nebuchadnezzar, and that Nabonidus only reigned 17 years before Cyrus. That gives a total range of only 5 years by standard archaeological evidence, into which Mansikka must stick 20 more years to turn it from 5 to 25. But since he writes his books without giving away his WTS bias, and without claiming he is a Witness, then he is probably under some diversionary obligation to give a different reason to make it all look scholarly. So I'll look at the reasons he gives publicly for adding 20 years in the first place. We already know his real reasons because he has placed them exactly into that narrow 5-year period allowed by the WTS publications.

True. The imaginary Nebuchadnezzar V should have been named "Nebuchadnezzar II.i" or "2a" or "2.1" or "two and one-half" etc.

This is possible because there was a Nebuchadnezzar about 500 years earlier than Nebuchadnezzar the Great. So the first one is now known as "I" and the second one is now known as "II." It's not that they every called themselves I and II. Using Wikipedia's references at the bottom of their page, we can verify that these statements in the article are substantially correct: A Babylonian noble of the Zazakku family and the son of a man by the name of Mukīn-zēri or Kîn-Zêr, Nidintu-Bêl took the regnal name Nebuchadnezzar upon his accession to the Babylonian throne and claimed to be a son of Nabonidus, Babylon's last independent king. The earliest record of Nebuchadnezzar III is a document mentioning him as the king of Babylon on 3 October 522 BC, possibly the day of his accession to the throne. His revolt had probably originally been aimed at throwing off the rule of the unpopular Persian king Bardiya, but Bardiya had been overthrown by Darius I by the time the revolt began. Nebuchadnezzar III quickly established his rule in Babylonia, seizing control of not only Babylon itself but also the cities of Borsippa, Sippar and Uruk. It is possible that he successfully gained control of all of Babylonia. On 13 December, . . . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebuchadnezzar_III A half-century after Nebuchadnezzar, the regnal year that began in the year 523 BCE (Nisan 1) was already credited to the current king, Cambyses. And the next year Nisanu 522 would also have been credited to Cambyses since he was still alive and well that year. But later in 522 there was a scramble between this person who wanted to call himself Nebuchadnezzar (III), and Bardiya. But neither of them could last until Nisanu of 521, so they never had an official regnal year. Before their "make Babylonia Great again" coup attempts worked out, Darius the Great had already usurped the throne of Cambyses so that he was already in his "accession" year in 522 and his official reign began to be numbered from Nisan 1, 521 BCE. In other words, it would be wrong for any "king lists" to name either of them in an official calendar year. During the first year of Darius there was another attempt by a MBGA "Nebuchadnezzar" (IV) but this was also "during the year" between the two Nisanu's, and didn't remove Darius anyway. So we should not see this Nebuchadnezzar in the calendar, even though we can read about III and IV in the Babylonian and later histories. Imagine the likelihood of this assumption that there might have been a Nebuchadnezzar V who reigned for nearly 20 years, under such a "great" name, but that this detail was somehow missed by the same historians who can tell us about some obscure usurpers or coup attempts that only lasted a few months.

True. For many of these years there are two or even many more readings for that same year, so he would actually need to make about 45 to 50 different explanations, so far, as to why the vast majority of these readings absolutely fit the standard given years in the first chart, and why they absolutely cannot fit the vast majority of years in either of his proposal/suggestions. (I don't know the actual total number yet of verifiable observations he would need to explain, but I have done about 50 myself so far.) One also needs to remember that the astronomical observations ("natural history") not only gives us the proper BCE date, they were already tied to the name of the king and his regnal year in which it occurred. So his new explanation, which he can't offer, of course, would have to do the following: Explain how a specific observation might not have actually occurred. (Even though we can verify that such an observation actually did occur. at all even though we can look in modern astronomy programs and verify positions that happened last year, just as easily as we can verify positions that happened 100 years ago, or 1000, or 3000 years ago.) Explain how a specific observation might have occurred but somehow got put down for a king that hadn't reigned for 20 years, or was assigned to a year of his reign that was 20 years off. Explain how and why a recurring cycle of observations, such as a recurring saros cycle could suddenly become meaningless gibberish with an 18 year gap that becomes a proposed 38 year gap that would never even be identifiable as a "cycle" anymore. In other words, why would they even know anything about an 18 year cycle if that cycle couldn't predict anything that re-occurred, and was therefore no longer a "cycle." The very fact that observations could be predicted and not just observed is evidence that there were no fictitious 20 year gaps that needed to be filled in. Had there been even a 1 year gap, all predictions would have been impossible.

So here are the standard years of the timeline as evidenced by archaeology and astronomy and later historians who referred to the period. 625 624 623 622 621 620 619 618 617 616 615 614 613 612 611 610 609 608 607 606 605 604 603 602 601 600 599 598 597 596 595 594 593 592 591 590 589 588 587 586 585 584 583 582 581 580 579 578 577 576 575 574 573 572 571 570 569 568 567 566 565 564 563 562 561 560 559 558 557 556 555 554 553 552 551 550 549 548 547 546 545 544 543 542 541 540 539 538 537 536 535 534 533 532 531 530 N A B O P O L A S S A R (21 years) N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S (17) C Y R U S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The green marks at the top refer to the fact that all the astronomical observations for specific, marked years from this period perfectly align with the BCE years shown just below them AND align them correctly with the official regnal year of each king as labeled in the bottom row. There are additional years I could have marked, but I have not checked those observations yet for myself. Obviously, it doesn't matter because even ONE identified year is enough to fill in the rest, and I have mostly focused on Nebuchadnezzar. Above, I was able to fit the entire timeline from Nabopolassar's accession year through the 9th (last) year of Cyrus. Mansikka, below, knows (and agrees with) the full length of those reigns, but I had to start from Nabopolassar 17 through Cyrus 3, just to (barely) fit the extra 20 years which I have marked in black. So here is Pekka Mansikka's first suggestion/attempt to add 20 years to the timeline: tacking an extra 20 years onto the reign of Nabonidus: 629 628 627 626 625 624 623 622 621 620 619 618 617 616 615 614 613 612 611 610 609 608 607 606 605 604 603 602 601 600 599 598 597 596 595 594 593 592 591 590 589 588 587 586 585 584 583 582 581 580 579 578 577 576 575 574 573 572 571 570 569 568 567 566 565 564 563 562 561 560 559 558 557 556 555 554 553 552 551 550 549 548 547 546 545 544 543 542 541 540 539 538 537 536 NABOP N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S (17) Nabonidus (37) [add 20 yr] Cyr 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 1 2 3 The green mark over the second year of Cyrus shows that this date perfectly aligns with the archaeological and astronomical and historical evidence for that year. But all the red marks in previous years show that these observations are now misaligned. Here is Mansikka's most recent suggestion/attempt. I have simplified a bit to show that almost all the additional 20 years are shown as an extension of Amel-Marduk's reign under his new name, Nebuchadnezzar (V). It's actually still a bit incorrect, because there are some other complexities of some start and end dates that shift a year or two in other places, so that this is really only an 18 year extension of Amer-Marduk's reign. I'll fix this post to reflect that. , 629 628 627 626 625 624 623 622 621 620 619 618 617 616 615 614 613 612 611 610 609 608 607 606 605 604 603 602 601 600 599 598 597 596 595 594 593 592 591 590 589 588 587 586 585 584 583 582 581 580 579 578 577 576 575 574 573 572 571 570 569 568 567 566 565 564 563 562 561 560 559 558 557 556 555 554 553 552 551 550 549 548 547 546 545 544 543 542 541 540 539 538 537 536 NABOP N E B U C H A D N E Z Z A R II (reigned for 43 years) E-M NNebuchadnezzar V (20 yr) extension of E-M Nerig- lissar N A B O N I D U S (17) Cyr 17 18 19 20 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 13 14 15 16 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 1 2 3 In this case (because he has added the extra 20 years before Nabonidus, there are now two marked dates that perfectly align with the archaeological and astronomical and historical evidence for those particular years. All previous years are now misaligned. Note that he has tried to "squeeze in" the 20 years for a Nebuchadnezzar V (five), between Ami-Marduk (Evil-Merodach) and Neriglissar. He thinks this Nebuchadnezzar V is actually an extension of the Amil-Marduk. The reason that Mansikka calls him Nebuchadnezzar V is because III and IV were already taken by real persons who used the name Nebuchadnezzar. Nebuchadnezzar V is, in my opinion, a new imaginary person made up in order to create the additional 20 years! Just because he shows Nebuchadnezzar II (2), then V (5) and then III (3) and then IV (4) does not make this suggestion completely wrong on that count alone. He is saying that the tablets assigned to Nebuchadnezzar II, or at least a large portion of them were actually for this "imaginary" Nebuchadnezzar V, 46 years later. Again there are several additional problems with this theory (which we will see in further discussion). For now the most important point is that the first chart above aligns to all other archaeological, astronomical and historical sources puts Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year in 587 BCE, and both of Mansikka's suggestions/proposals would place Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year in 607 BCE.