JW Insider

Coming from someone with poopolini conclusions

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.

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.

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!

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. 

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.

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.
 

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.

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.
 

A modern parallel of current events with a humorous break from Mansikka's book.
Impeachment!
Evil-Merodach betrayed the state and the people. In order to circumvent the decision of the Babylonian Senate, which forbade him to run for king again, E-V changed his name, thus circumventing the administrative ban and defeating the opponent in the elections. :)))

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.

Yes, it is possible that he came up with the idea. In the first version, he added 20 years to Nabonidus. In this second version, he came up with a new solution. Extend the reign of E-M by changing its name to "Neb V". But, by changing own name, has the E-V alias "Neb V" also changed his tolerant attitude towards other religions? 
To be popular, king don't need to change own name, but to change own behavior. In this case, to start persecuting Jews and everyone else who is not at the will of the "populists" who advocate authoritarian populism.

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.

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.  

Yes, i understand this. Same with BCE and CE. People of later time made system how to distinguish, recognize the order of occurrence in the timeline. 
 Marking with a number, name or nickname that was added much later to a person from the distant past, has the purpose of being recognized by today's people. Precisely because of that moment when someone appears in some role (for a ruler) a lower number should show that the holder of number "I" was in power before number "II", especially if both bore the same name or were from the same line of kings. The years of the beginning and end of the reign of an individual king would follow, or confirm the order of numbers "I" and "II", or further numbers if any. But that's just my understanding of this :))

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.

If you really think it was sound research that brought him to develop his list of Neo-Babylonian kings that you posted, you should be able to let us know how he reached this conclusion. Or you could answer Srecko's question:
Well. as it turns out, I sent Mansikka a link to this forum, and he has already visited and noticed that the "sound research" that @César Chávez provided was "valid" only up until shortly after December 2019. This means that his book that I was quoting from in response to Cesar was also only "valid" up until shortly after December 2019.
Mansikka linked me to the updated information which is found in his Nebuchadnezzar V book. Here's the link again: https://www.pm-netti.com/free/nebuchadnezzar-v.pdf
It's a book of 39 small pages, and I had read only up until page 18 before skimming the rest and missing a critical piece of information on page 20 and on page 39.
He now rejects the idea that the extra 20 years should be tacked onto the end of the reign of Nabonidus. He now would put his new king list in this order:

 

Lord NO! @JW Insiderwhat on earth is wrong with you? implying that there was something Alan did not know?!

If you really think it was sound research that brought him to develop his list of Neo-Babylonian kings that you posted, you should be able to let us know how he reached this conclusion. Or you could answer Srecko's question:
Well. as it turns out, I sent Mansikka a link to this forum, and he has already visited and noticed that the "sound research" that @César Chávez provided was "valid" only up until shortly after December 2019. This means that his book that I was quoting from in response to Cesar was also only "valid" up until shortly after December 2019.
Mansikka linked me to the updated information which is found in his Nebuchadnezzar V book. Here's the link again: https://www.pm-netti.com/free/nebuchadnezzar-v.pdf
It's a book of 39 small pages, and I had read only up until page 18 before skimming the rest and missing a critical piece of information on page 20 and on page 39.
He now rejects the idea that the extra 20 years should be tacked onto the end of the reign of Nabonidus. He now would put his new king list in this order:

 

I think he gave enough information if you have followed TTH's interest in the "Teaching Company Great Courses." I have the same lectures on my hard drive.

Referring to what I said above, here are the most significant problems with adding 20 years . Later we can then look at Mansikka's methods of overcoming these issues:
1. If we accept Mansikka's 20 extra years that he tacks on to the end of Nabonidus' 17-year reign to make it 37 years, then he would need to explain every single of one of the years which have astronomical observations that are identified with specific years of the NB kings. (There are at least 50 observations I have tested so far; and a single year may have multiple observations recorded.) Mansikka would have to explain why all 50 (plus) of them do not point to any of the years Mansikka has set them to, and why all 50 of them point, instead, to the same dates of the archaeological timeline.
2. If we accept Mansikka's 20 extra years that he tacks on to the end of Nabonidus, then we would have to wonder why we average hundreds of business tablets for EVERY year of the NB timeline, yet exactly ZERO for every single one of the years of Nabonidus 18 through 37. Since we have THOUSANDS of tablets for the reign of Nabonidus' years 1 to 17, why do we have ZERO for a full 20 years in a row. Did all business stop completely for 20 years and then pick up again during the first year of Cyrus?
3. If we accept Mansikka's 20 extra years, it would be impossible to predict any eclipses because they would all be 20 years off. Even the Saros cycle was known to produce only a predictably SIMILAR eclipse at a time 18 years later, but not 19, and not 20.
4. Why is it that a list of 18-year Saros cycle eclipses (LBAT 1419) found the following:
an eclipse dated to the 2nd year of Cyrus that only matches 537 BCE - the exact date that the INSIGHT book uses for CYRUS 2nd year. an eclipse 18 years before that, dated to the first year of Nabonidus that only matches 555 BCE an eclipse 18 years before that, dated to the 32nd year of Nebuchadnezzar that only matches 573 BCE an eclipse 18 years before that, dated to the 14th year of Nebuchadnezzar that only matches 591 BCE. an eclipse 18 years before that, dated to the 18th year of  Nabopolassar that only matches 608 BCE an eclipse 18 years before that, dated to the 0th year (accession) of Nabopolassar that only matches 626 BCE. If Mansikka's 20 extra years was correct, then there would have to have been TWO 18-year Saros cycles in the reign of Nabonidus:
One of them would have been just 18 years before the one dated to 537, the second year of Cyrus. That would be 537+18=555, which Mansikka calls the 21st year of Nabonidus. Yet the tablet dates it to the first year of Nabonidus. The other would have been just 18 years before 555, which Mansikka calls the 3rd year of Nabonidus 573. Yet the tablet dates that same eclipse to the 32nd year of Nebuchadnezzar. The tablet knows nothing about any eclipse in either the 3rd year of Nabonidus, nor in a fictitious 21st year of Nabonidus. And of course, adding the extra 20 Watchtower years to the tablet throws every date off completely all the way back to the start under Nabopolassar (Nebuchadnezzar's father). But removing the extra 20 Watchtower years produces a tablet perfectly aligned with ALL the other archaeological evidence.
Why would the Saros tablet be perfectly supportive of the Watchtower chronology (and Mansikka) for any year after 539, and completely wrong for every year before 539? The answer should be obvious. You just can't arbitrarily add 20 years to all the dates before 539 as the Watchtower has done.

The most interesting part of Mansikka's proposal is that he intends to show where the 20-year gap actually would go. Previously we showed that the archaeological evidence --and not even all of it yet-- gives us the following timeline, below, for the Neo-Babylonian period, including the BCE years, through astronomical observations and predictions that only fit specific years. Even one or two of these would be enough to date the entire period, but we already have at least 30 of them "locked in" and this isn't even all of them yet. (Several of the years have multiple astronomical observations behind them.)
To make enough room I am only showing from Nabopolassar's last 5 years and Cyrus' first three years. The first chart is the archaeological evidence:

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) 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 1 2 3 Here is the proposal of Pekka Mansikka based on his "new" king list, which I am presenting in the same format as above. In the chart, all I am doing is adding 20 years to the BCE year on the top row and, of course, continuing Nabonidus reign for another 20 years so that there are new regnal years 18 to 37. Mansikka gives Nabonidus a 37 year reign instead of a 17 year reign to make up the 20 year gap.

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 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 1 2 3 The chart shows actual "official" regnal years starting from year one of any king. The accession would have started in the previous month or months before Nisanu of the year shown. However, this shows up some one-year inconsistencies in the way that Mansikka produces his king list below, because he sometimes starts a king's accession year prior to the end date of the previous king, which is impossible. He sometimes gets it right and sometimes wrong, so it's hard to say whether these are just typos.

I think that several significant problems should be immediately apparent to anyone who has given this much thought. I'll point them out in another post.

An author from Finland named Pekka Mansikka has written several books and papers which, among other things, look to adjust the secular chronology to fit the Watchtower's chronology. For those who don't know, the Watchtower's chronology requires an extra 20 years of time somewhere between Nebuchadnezzar's reign and the beginning of the reign of Cyrus. This has the effect of pushing back any archaeological date in Nebuchadnezzar's reign by 20 years.
In fact, it affects dates going back much further than that, so that:
if one reads that the Battle of Carchemish happened on the archaeological date of 605 BCE, the WTS date will be 605+20=625 BCE if the Battle of Harran happened in 609 using archaeological dates, then the WTS date will be 609+20=629 BCE if one reads that the fall of Nineveh was in 612 using archaeological dates, then the WTS date will be 612+20=632 BCE The same thing continues to occur even farther back into the Assyrian empire and the Israelite and Judean kings. Although several other factors were involved here, I think it's not a complete coincidence that Bishop Ussher famously put Adam's creation in 4004 BCE, and the Watchtower currently has this at 4026 BCE, a 22-year difference.
Fortunately, Pekka Mansikka has give his permission to discuss any and all parts of any of his works here on this forum:
Several of his works can be found online, or for purchase at very modest costs on Kindle. A good portion of the Kindle books are available for free preview, and most of the content of these books is also available on academia.edu.
Here are some links to his material:
https://independentresearcher.academia.edu/PekkaMansikka
See all 18 items at that link. Sometimes it's only the Table of Contents that shows up here.
 
50 to 70 pages of his primary book are available in free preview here:
New Chronology Using Solar Eclipses
He also offered the following links, two of which are e-books:
https://www.pm-netti.com/lookout-ancient-eclipses
https://www.pm-netti.com/kirjat/PM-Tiedekirjat/nebuchadnezzarv
https://journal.pm-netti.com/
Most sources for his own reference material can also be found online for free, or free with limits. You can find links in his own work to many sites.
 
The most interesting topics he covers are:
The reign of Nabonidus. He is brave enough to actually try to show exactly where the 20 missing years should be found. VAT 4596. A proposition to synchronize Neo-Babylonian chronology with Egyptian chronology.  

The most interesting part of Mansikka's proposal is that he intends to show where the 20-year gap actually would go. Previously we showed that the archaeological evidence --and not even all of it yet-- gives us the following timeline, below, for the Neo-Babylonian period, including the BCE years, through astronomical observations and predictions that only fit specific years. Even one or two of these would be enough to date the entire period, but we already have at least 30 of them "locked in" and this isn't even all of them yet. (Several of the years have multiple astronomical observations behind them.)
To make enough room I am only showing from Nabopolassar's last 5 years and Cyrus' first three years. The first chart is the archaeological evidence:

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) 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 1 2 3 Here is the proposal of Pekka Mansikka based on his "new" king list, which I am presenting in the same format as above. In the chart, all I am doing is adding 20 years to the BCE year on the top row and, of course, continuing Nabonidus reign for another 20 years so that there are new regnal years 18 to 37. Mansikka gives Nabonidus a 37 year reign instead of a 17 year reign to make up the 20 year gap.

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 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 1 2 3 The chart shows actual "official" regnal years starting from year one of any king. The accession would have started in the previous month or months before Nisanu of the year shown. However, this shows up some one-year inconsistencies in the way that Mansikka produces his king list below, because he sometimes starts a king's accession year prior to the end date of the previous king, which is impossible. He sometimes gets it right and sometimes wrong, so it's hard to say whether these are just typos.

I think that several significant problems should be immediately apparent to anyone who has given this much thought. I'll point them out in another post.