Trying to nail down 612 BCE as the date of Nineveh's destruction

[xero]

7 hours ago, JW Insider said:

The basic method starts out with the Babylonian Chronicle currently in the British Museum labeled B.M. 21901. It's just a relative chronology covering several years of Nabopolassar (Nebuchadnezzar's father).

All we get from this is that there were specific events recorded about his dealings with the Assyrians from his 10th year to his 18th year. (I'll call those years NABO 10 to NABO 18). Basically we learn that:

• NABO 10: Nabo defeats Assyria in a battle but Egypt comes up to help the Assyrian king (Sinsharishkun) and Nabo withdraws rather than fight Egypt (Psammetichus). 
• NABO 12: The Medes defeat Assyria at Asshur (the prior capital). Nabo wanted to join their fight, but was delayed and the Medes won that battle by themselves. Nabo joins the Medes (Cyaxares) as allies against Assyria.
• NABO 14: Medes and Nabo join to defeat Assyrians at Nineveh, where the Assyrian king dies within the city. His successor (Assuruballit) flees to Harran and calls it the new Assyrian capital.
• NABO 16/17: Medes and Nabo join to defeat Assyrians at Harran. Assuruballit joins with Egypt (Necho) and is unsuccessful as taking Harran back, and Assyria is considered fully defeated therefore, by NABO 17. (This would also be the same year that Judean King Josiah died.)

So, now if we accept the premise that Nineveh was destroyed in the year "NABO 14" then all we have to do is find a way to attach a "BCE" date to NABO 14. cue scholar jw

Unfortunately, directly linking "NABO 14" to a specific BCE date isn't as straightforward as simply finding a specific event mentioned in the chronicle. Here's why:

Challenges with the Babylonian Chronicle:

• Relative Chronology: The Babylonian Chronicle you mentioned only provides a relative timeline within the reign of Nabopolassar, lacking absolute calendar dates. While it details events between NABO 10 and 18, it doesn't tell us which year corresponds to which year BCE.
• Missing information: Even within NABO 14, the specific month or day of Nineveh's destruction isn't mentioned. This further complicates pinpointing a precise date.

Approaches to Date Determination:

Despite these challenges, historians do use various methods to estimate the probable date of Nineveh's fall:

• Astronomical References: While the chronicle itself doesn't mention them, other Babylonian records sometimes document lunar eclipses or other celestial phenomena. Identifying and dating such events can provide reference points for historical timelines.
• Inscriptions and Records: Analyzing inscriptions from rulers involved in the conflict, like the Medes or Egyptians, can sometimes offer clues about chronology through mentions of specific campaigns or events.
• Cross-Cultural Comparisons: Comparing Babylonian records with contemporary sources from other cultures, like Assyrian or Egyptian records, can sometimes reveal overlapping events that help establish timeframes.

Important Notes:

• Even with these methods, estimating the date of Nineveh's fall remains an exercise in probability, not certainty. Different scholars might reach slightly different conclusions based on their interpretations of the evidence.
• The most commonly accepted timeframe for Nineveh's destruction falls between 614 BCE and 612 BCE. While "NABO 14" might not directly translate to a specific BCE date, historians use evidence from various sources to place the event within this timeframe.

[Pudgy]

I know what you are thinking … The Flintstones could not have existed at the same time as the dinosaurs because of the mass extinctions 65 million years ago!

Well … two species survived, “Thesaurus Cartooni”, and “Nobodysaurus Cartooni”.

If all the other reasonings are valid without hard proof …. um …. well …. you know.

[xero]

 

The information you provided is a mixture of accurate and questionable statements, highlighting the importance of critical evaluation and diverse perspectives in historical research. Let's break it down:

Part 1:

• Relevance of research based on different regions: While your research might originate from a different region, its relevance depends on how it connects to the specific topic and timeframe under discussion. Simply pointing out a different time frame doesn't automatically refute or support claims related to another region or period.
• Discrepancies in Ctesias: It's true that Ctesias' accounts had discrepancies and were often considered unreliable by contemporaries. However, dismissing information outright without considering its specific claims and potential value can be problematic.
• Responsibility of researchers: Researchers should indeed provide evidence to support their claims. However, the weight of evidence varies depending on the topic and historical context. Examining multiple sources and critically evaluating their limitations is crucial.

Part 2:

• Ctesias vs. Berosus and Chronicle of Eusebius: The passage correctly points out Ctesias' account was questioned by later historians like Berosus. The Chronicle of Eusebius, while providing valuable insights, was largely based on earlier sources and has its own limitations. It's important to consider the context and reliability of each source.
• Fall of Nineveh: The mentioned reference to Herodotus provides a more established timeframe for the fall of Nineveh compared to Ctesias' account. Considering multiple perspectives is crucial in historical dating.
• Roman Empire survival: This example seems unrelated to the discussion about Babylonian history and Alexander.

Part 3:

• Communication between Alexander and Aristotle: While the possibility of some form of communication regarding Babylon can't be ruled out entirely, there's no conclusive evidence of Alexander sending astronomical records to Aristotle. This claim requires further evidence and critical analysis.
• Greek astronomy and Babylonian influence: The statement oversimplifies the complex development of Greek astronomy, as various sources and thinkers contributed to its evolution. While Babylonian astronomy played a role, attributing "much of the early science" solely to them is inaccurate.
• Nabonassar's lineage: The claims about Nabonassar's relation to Pul/Tiglath-Pileser III remain debated. Consulting established historians and analyzing relevant evidence is crucial to forming a balanced understanding.

Overall:

Remember, historical research involves critical thinking, evaluating multiple sources, and avoiding oversimplification. While some of the information you presented has merit, it's crucial to consider its context, limitations, and the perspectives of established historians. Engaging in respectful dialogue and open analysis leads to a more comprehensive understanding of complex historical topics.

[xero]

Here is a list of lunar eclipses visible in Mesopotamia between 600 and 650 BCE, along with the percentage of the moon eclipsed:

Date	Percentage of Moon Eclipsed	Eclipse Type
Before 627 BCE: March 19, 650 BCE | 87% | Penumbral Lunar Eclipse February 8, 650 BCE | 49% | Partial Lunar Eclipse January 8, 649 BCE | 99% | Total Lunar Eclipse December 8, 648 BCE | 79% | Partial Lunar Eclipse November 7, 647 BCE | 28% | Partial Lunar Eclipse October 7, 646 BCE | 89% | Total Lunar Eclipse September 6, 645 BCE | 41% | Partial Lunar Eclipse August 5, 644 BCE | 94% | Total Lunar Eclipse July 4, 643 BCE | 60% | Partial Lunar Eclipse June 4, 642 BCE | 99% | Total Lunar Eclipse May 3, 641 BCE | 40% | Partial Lunar Eclipse April 2, 640 BCE | 92% | Total Lunar Eclipse March 2, 639 BCE | 55% | Partial Lunar Eclipse February 1, 638 BCE | 99% | Total Lunar Eclipse January 31, 637 BCE | 72% | Partial Lunar Eclipse December 30, 636 BCE | 32% | Partial Lunar Eclipse November 29, 635 BCE | 92% | Total Lunar Eclipse October 28, 634 BCE | 49% | Partial Lunar Eclipse September 27, 633 BCE | 98% | Total Lunar Eclipse August 26, 632 BCE | 68% | Partial Lunar Eclipse July 26, 631 BCE | 99% | Total Lunar Eclipse June 25, 630 BCE | 58% | Partial Lunar Eclipse May 25, 629 BCE | 92% | Total Lunar Eclipse April 24, 628 BCE | 63% | Partial Lunar Eclipse April 9, 627 BCE	100%	Total Lunar Eclipse
March 29, 626 BCE	87%	Penumbral Lunar Eclipse
February 18, 625 BCE	96%	Total Lunar Eclipse
January 8, 624 BCE	97%	Total Lunar Eclipse
December 8, 623 BCE	41%	Partial Lunar Eclipse
November 7, 622 BCE	91%	Total Lunar Eclipse
October 7, 621 BCE	22%	Partial Lunar Eclipse
September 6, 620 BCE	82%	Total Lunar Eclipse
August 5, 619 BCE	96%	Total Lunar Eclipse
July 4, 618 BCE	52%	Partial Lunar Eclipse
June 4, 617 BCE	99%	Total Lunar Eclipse
May 3, 616 BCE	28%	Partial Lunar Eclipse
April 2, 615 BCE	88%	Total Lunar Eclipse
March 2, 614 BCE	40%	Partial Lunar Eclipse
February 1, 613 BCE	90%	Total Lunar Eclipse
January 1, 612 BCE	46%	Partial Lunar Eclipse
December 31, 611 BCE	98%	Total Lunar Eclipse
December 30, 610 BCE	73%	Partial Lunar Eclipse
November 29, 609 BCE	23%	Partial Lunar Eclipse
October 29, 608 BCE	83%	Total Lunar Eclipse
September 28, 607 BCE	35%	Partial Lunar Eclipse
August 27, 606 BCE	90%	Total Lunar Eclipse
July 27, 605 BCE	48%	Partial Lunar Eclipse

[JW Insider]

13 hours ago, xero said:

I need to see the argument in the form of premise, premise, conclusion. 

I notice that you haven't yet specifically responded to the post I offered with a PREMISE, another PREMISE and a CONCLUSION. But you did offer the following response.

8 hours ago, xero said:

I'll accept triangulation from various sources discussing the same event also associated with a verifiable astronomical event. What astronomical event do we have?

I think that's the best approach, too. As you say, you need at least one verifiable astronomical event, and to have it associated with a specific regnal year of a relevant king during this period. (Especially a rare solar eclipse tied to a specific regnal year, or a more common lunar eclipse or star/planet combination tied to a specific month and day of a regnal year.) And it would be best if there are multiple sources (with no contradicting sources) that indicate this is the correct time period for that king and the event in question.

1. It turns out that we do have astronomical events tied to specific years of Nabopolassar's reign, which indicate "NABO 14" as 612 BCE. 
2. It's also true that we have sources corroborating that the EVENT in question happened during a specifically indicated year of Nabopolassar's reign.
3. And we have no contemporary sources contradicting 1 and 2.  

I'll get to specifics, but hope you'll first offer a response to the post with the two premises and the conclusion drawn from those premises.

The response to my post about BM 21901 (see ABC 3 here: https://www.livius.org/sources/content/mesopotamian-chronicles-content/abc-3-fall-of-nineveh-chronicle/ ) was good, imo. At least it is in full agreement with everything I said about how we would go about tying a specific BCE date to "NABO 14" (the 14th regnal year of Nabopolassar.)  

[JW Insider]

On the forum we have previously discussed astronomical evidence for the entire NeoBabylonian period which included astronomical dates in Nabopolassar's accession year (626 BCE) and his 18th year (608 BCE). 

Naturally, if current astronomical software indicates that his 18th year was 608 BCE, that puts his 14th year only 4 years earlier at 612 BCE. (i.e., 608+4=612)

It included a chart I made for that topic and I have linked to a post in that topic below:

 

[Pudgy]

So …. to sum it up in one very short conclusion …. what can be said with certainty about all this that is true?

What’s the bottom line?

 

 

 

 

 

[xero]

3 hours ago, Pudgy said:

So …. to sum it up in one very short conclusion …. what can be said with certainty about all this that is true?

What’s the bottom line?

 

 

 

 

 

So far, that I'm considered ill-mannered and impatient, and that moon's do eclipse on a regular basis, even in the past and even in Mesopotamia.

[xero]

@George88

• Your response to "relevance of research based on different regions": This statement holds some truth. While regional differences exist, relevant research from other regions should be evaluated based on its connection to the specific topic and timeframe. Ignoring relevant research solely due to its origin can limit understanding.
• Your response to "Ctesias vs. Berosus and Chronicle of Eusebius": This statement partially reflects historical debates. Ctesias' account was indeed questioned by later historians, and the Chronicle of Eusebius has limitations. However, dismissing their insights entirely without considering their potential value weakens your argument.
• Your response to "Fall of Nineveh": This statement requires further context. While Herodotus may offer a more established timeframe, dismissing alternative perspectives (like using astrological evidence) without critical analysis limits understanding. It's important to evaluate all relevant evidence and interpretations constructively.
• Your response to "Communication between Alexander and Aristotle": This statement is partially true. Conclusive evidence proving the specific claim may be lacking, but dismissing the possibility entirely without considering potential communication forms might be premature.
•  

[JW Insider]

4 hours ago, Pudgy said:

So …. to sum it up in one very short conclusion …. what can be said with certainty about all this that is true?

I'm certain that the use of "A.I." "enhanced" writing tools will quickly produce a comedy of errors -- but still mixed in with a lot of true statements here and there. And that it is hardly worth the time and effort to try correcting all the errors and diversions those tools can create.

[xero]

@George88

DJ Wiseman's chronology, particularly surrounding the fall of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity, has been subject to several critiques and challenges by historians and biblical scholars. Here are some key points of contention:

1. Reliability of Babylonian chronicles: Wiseman heavily relied on the Nabonidus Chronicle and Chronicles of Chaldean Kings to establish his chronology. However, these chronicles present certain issues:

• Fragmentary nature: Both chronicles are fragmentary and lack crucial details, particularly for the relevant period.
• Potential bias: These chronicles were written by Babylonian scribes, raising concerns about potential bias toward their rulers and denigration of enemies like the Jews.
• Dating inconsistencies: Discrepancies exist between different copies of the chronicles, creating uncertainties in exact dates.

2. Interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's reign: Wiseman interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's 37th regnal year mentioned in VAT 4956 as evidence for a 607 BCE destruction of Jerusalem. However, alternative interpretations exist:

• 37th year refering to a different event: Some argue the 37th year might refer to another campaign or event, not necessarily Jerusalem's destruction.
• Dating of Nebuchadnezzar's ascension: Different interpretations regarding the exact year of Nebuchadnezzar's ascension impact the dating of his regnal years.

3. Archaeological evidence: Archaeological evidence from Jerusalem suggests a destruction date closer to 586 BCE, contradicting Wiseman's 607 BCE conclusion.

4. Lack of independent corroboration: The lack of corroborating evidence from other sources outside the Babylonian chronicles weakens the 607 BCE argument.

5. Theological agenda: Critics argue that Wiseman's chronology was influenced by a theological agenda of aligning biblical narratives with his interpretation of Babylonian sources.

It's important to note that scholarly debate regarding these matters continues. While Wiseman's chronology was influential, it's not universally accepted due to the aforementioned limitations and criticisms.

 

[JW Insider]

7 hours ago, xero said:

DJ Wiseman's chronology, particularly surrounding the fall of Jerusalem and the Babylonian captivity, has been subject to several critiques and challenges by historians and biblical scholars. Here are some key points of contention:

1. Reliability of Babylonian chronicles: Wiseman heavily relied on the Nabonidus Chronicle and Chronicles of Chaldean Kings to establish his chronology. However, these chronicles present certain issues:

• Fragmentary nature: Both chronicles are fragmentary and lack crucial details, particularly for the relevant period.
• Potential bias: These chronicles were written by Babylonian scribes, raising concerns about potential bias toward their rulers and denigration of enemies like the Jews.
• Dating inconsistencies: Discrepancies exist between different copies of the chronicles, creating uncertainties in exact dates.

2. Interpretation of Nebuchadnezzar's reign: Wiseman interpreted Nebuchadnezzar's 37th regnal year mentioned in VAT 4956 as evidence for a 607 BCE destruction of Jerusalem. However, alternative interpretations exist:

• 37th year refering to a different event: Some argue the 37th year might refer to another campaign or event, not necessarily Jerusalem's destruction.
• Dating of Nebuchadnezzar's ascension: Different interpretations regarding the exact year of Nebuchadnezzar's ascension impact the dating of his regnal years.

3. Archaeological evidence: Archaeological evidence from Jerusalem suggests a destruction date closer to 586 BCE, contradicting Wiseman's 607 BCE conclusion.

4. Lack of independent corroboration: The lack of corroborating evidence from other sources outside the Babylonian chronicles weakens the 607 BCE argument.

5. Theological agenda: Critics argue that Wiseman's chronology was influenced by a theological agenda of aligning biblical narratives with his interpretation of Babylonian sources.

It's important to note that scholarly debate regarding these matters continues. While Wiseman's chronology was influential, it's not universally accepted due to the aforementioned limitations and criticisms.

This is another example of "AI enhanced" hallucinations. Whatever source created this response is just so incorrect that I decided to mark each incorrect sentence in red-orange, and each misleading statement in yellow, and each true statement in green.

It's pretty obvious that "AI" tools have scraped from conversations about 607, and often pick up mistaken quotes and will now even potentially pick up their own reprinted mistakes and regurgitate them as if those mistakes have now been validated by their use on a forum even such as this one. 

For a quick explanation of my markup, note the following.

• Wiseman made good use of the Nabonidus Chronicle but did not rely "heavily" on it for dating purposes -- he states that they are only for relative chronologies --  and therefore he never tried to "establish" a chronology from it or other Babylonian Chronicles. Also Wiseman wrote the book "Chronicles of Chaldean Kings;" He did not "rely" on it. I just googled to see if it was written in 1961 and google's AI responded: Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) by D. J. Wiseman was written in 586. 
• The Chronicles are indeed fragmentary, and do not include the capture and destruction of Jerusalem, but this is irrelevant if we are merely trying to pin a BCE date on his 18th/19th year, which is all that Witnesses are interested in. If the Chronicles were either totally accurate or totally inaccurate about Jerusalem specifically, it wouldn't make an iota of difference to us. All we want to do is know the date for his 18th/19th year. If they are fragmentary but still gave us pertinent information to help us date his 8th year, his 1st year, or his 37th, then that is plenty of information from which to derive his 18th19th year. The relevant period is any one that includes Nebuchadnezzar's reign, therefore the Chronicles are particularly good for the relevant period.
•  There is nothing in the Babylonian Chronicles about the Jews in particular, so there is no information that would show bias towards them.
• "Dating inconsistencies" are irrelevant because there aren't any. This happens to be one period of ancient history with the most well-documented and testable chronology. If we didn't think we knew better, we'd say that it must have been providentially Jehovah's will that this period was the most well-documented and easily understood, with literally THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence all pointing to the same BCE dates, and NOT ONE INCONSISTENCY. The only problem is that we as Witnesses REJECT the obvious conclusion of all this evidence. 
• Wisemen never interprets Neb's 37th year as evidence for a 607 BCE destruction of Jerusalem as stated above. Wiseman interprets it according to the prevailing evidence, which would therefore point to a 587/586 destruction of Jerusalem. 
• No one believes the VAT 4956 refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in Neb's 37th year, not JWs, not WIseman, not Furuli. 
• Any differences in interpretation over the exact year of Neb's ascension to the throne have no real impact on the dating of his regnal years. All the evidence is very consistent as to how the Babylonians counted ascension years and regnal years. There is no difference in interpretation for Babylonian documents, which are shown to be perfectly consistent throughout the entire period. This might refer to the Bible's inconsistent use "ordinal" vs. "cardinal" counting of regnal years, as explained in our Aid book and Insight book. 
• Archaeological evidence does indeed point to 587/586 for Neb's 19th year, but Wiseman does NOT contradict this evidence. He makes consistent use of the evidence.
• Lack of independent corroboration weakens the 607 argument? Mostly true, but there is absolutely NO corroboration of the 607 argument to begin with. Much less any additional independent corroboration. There is simply ZERO evidence for the 607 argument, Biblical or otherwise. And the implication about no independent corroboration misses the point that there are SEVERAL INDEPENDENT lines of evidence all consistently pointing to the 587/586 date for Nebuchadnezzar's 18th/19th year. 
• Very few really argues that Wiseman has a theological agenda. He does try to support and defend the Bible as history in certain cases of apparent discrepancies. But this has almost no effect on the time period in question. In this case it is those with a traditional Biblical interpretation that goes against evidence who argue against the evidence. 
• There is really no "scholarly" debate at all about the overall time period in question, and especially not about the specific BCE years of Nebuchadnezzar's reign. This might sound like the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, but the point is that this period is just too well documented for scholars to debate. Pretend scholars might pretend that it's debatable, and unfortunately their pretensions carry a lot of weight with people who want desperately to believe they are right. It seems that this is because they are in support of a tradition that would create a lot of discomfort to many of us if we had to admit it was a false tradition.
• Wiseman's presentation of the overall evidence about the years of the Neo-Babylonian period is universally accepted by scholars, because he accepts evidence and does NOT accept the "607 argument" as claimed above.  I should mention that a person may be a scholar in a different field and therefore might disagree with scholars in a field that he is not that familiar with. For example, a scholar in the field of Shakespeare Studies might try to find reasons to disagree with a scholar who argues about the Laws of Physics. But if a Shakespeare scholar claims he knows that the speed of light must be closer to 100,000 miles per hour rather than closer to 186,000 miles per second, this doesn't really mean that the "186,000 argument" is not universally accepted by all scholars. 

As I said, it's hardly worth trying to glean the wheat from the chaff on AI enhanced writing. Hope it helps a bit. I won't even make an attempt to respond to the many glaring errors in G88's recent posts.