User talk:M9WEK

July 2018
Thank you for your contributions. Please mark your edits, such as your recent edits to Timeline of Jerusalem, as "minor" only if they are minor edits. In accordance with Help:Minor edit, a minor edit is one that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute. Minor edits consist of things such as typographical corrections, formatting changes or rearrangement of text without modification of content. Additionally, the reversion of clear-cut vandalism and test edits may be labeled "minor". Thank you. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 16:38, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Further to the above, your repeated claims about 606 BCE are simply false. There was neither a siege nor a demand for tribute in 606 BCE. Nebuchadnezzar approached Jerusalem in early 604 BCE (before Nisan), but a siege was curtailed as Jehoiakim agreed to become tributary to Babylon. This was shortly after Jeremiah's proclamation during Jehoiakim's fourth year (Tishri-based) counting his accession year and during his third year (Nisan-based) not counting his accession year (cf. Jeremiah 25:1, Daniel 1:1). This is also in agreement with BM 21946, which indicates Nebuchadnezzar's presence in the region after he claimed the Babylonian throne following the death of Nabopolassar. This event is not referred to by historians as a 'siege of Jerusalem'. (Also, the book of Daniel is based on the Neo-Babylonian period, but was written centuries later and presents folktales based on the period as a narrative analogue for events during the Seleucid period.)-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Thank you [User:Jeffro77] for taking the time to provide the above. It is from a detailed study of the calculation of time by different cultures such as Babylonian, Jewish and Persian, that led me to attempt to overlay an accurate chronological analysis of the calculation of the moon phases that would have been observed in the last 4 millennia by these people. One source such sightings that checks is accessible at AstroPixels.com. It was interesting to discover that in particular to 606BC, this would have started in 11th Babylonian/Jewish month of Šabatu / Shebat which itself fell between the two renewings of the moon calculated for 25 Dec 607BC and 23 Jan 606BC, which meant an Addaru II / Adar II became a necessary intercalation to maintain Nisannu / Nisan commencing in the March of 606BC. This results in a minimum additional 4 weeks, providing a full 9 months between King Nabopolassar marching his army home at line [15] of BM 22047 and line [19] when Nabopolassar mustered his army again to pitch at Quramatu. As for Crown Prince Nebuchadnezzar's own army which can be seen working both with and independently of the king's own, BM 22047 is silent on its activities from line [12] a further 5 month earlier since he was last recorded marching home. Silence in BM 22047 on Nebuchadnezzar's behalf cannot be taken as evidence his army was inactive in all this time. The purpose of BM 22047 is after all to chronicle the king and not his prince, just as BM 21946 continues its narrative focus on him once he becomes king, moving forward in time and rightly would not be a record of his activities prior to his ascension. I agree the historian is reduced to arguing for probabilities and choosing the option that appears the least uncertain. It must also be remembered that nothing has been established with certainty at the present time, given the available evidence. However where Babylonian king's lists and museum pieces do fall silent, a timeline narrative has survived in the book of Daniel, which incidentially cannot all be dismissed as a 2nd Century BC work, especially given that chapters 1 to 2:1-4 were written in Hebrew; chapters 2:5 to 7:28 in Aramaic as used in Babylon; and the remaining text again written in Hebrew. It is rather more generally agreed Daniel was its author, writing in the third person. The nature of portions written with prophetic syntax, point further to the book not attempting to be a record of past history, but contemporary to Daniel's considerably long lifetime. The purpose of most biblical scholars is not to establish a reliable chronology of the Bible but to discredit it. I've yet to find any source that does. Please let me know if you have? M9WEK (talk) 18:02, 1 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I do not currently have time for an in depth discussion, but WP:NOR and WP:FRINGE may apply here.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated once again. You will make me a better wikipedia user yet! I greatly value those like you who have gone before to make your corners of interest in the site what it is. Its study from the vantage piont upon the shoulders of others, that I don't expect to claim a WP:NOR of my own, but I will take more care to collect citations of published work, of which multitude should suffice from contravening WP:FRINGE for wikipedia's purposes, should any future supported edits be worth contributing. I really liked seeing a few "talks" on how you've taken the time to communicate with others. Quite impressive. I'm sure you would be very interesting to have in depth discuss with, where time does allow. Where did your own interest in this topic begin? M9WEK (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2018 (UTC)


 * I still don't have a lot of time to discuss in depth (and Wikipedia isn't really the place for general discussion anyway), but I thought I would add a few more comments. The timeline of the Neo-Babylonian period is actually one of the best attested periods in antiquity. I don't dispute (nor have I verified) your statements about the moon cycles during 607-6 BCE, but it is not clear how those would relate to claims about Nebuchadnezzar's undocumented activities during that period. The book of Daniel is almost universally regarded by scholars as a 2nd century BCE work (and analysis of the work demonstrates obvious connections to the Seleucid/Maccabean period, with literary references to Babylon for the purposes of analogy), with parts drawing on older folktales (e.g. elements of the story of Nebuchadnezzar's 'madness'&mdash;which is written as if narrated by Nebuchadnezzar rather than Daniel&mdash;are taken from a Babylonian folktale, the Prayer of Nabonidus, unsurprisingly about Nabonidus rather than Nebuchadnezzar). There is no general agreement that 'Daniel' was the author; most scholars regard Daniel to be a fictional character, and it is considerably more likely that the separate parts are the works of multiple authors. There was an entire genre of Jewish apocalyptic literature that framed history as prophecy, and the book of Daniel is unremarkable in that regard. Though the Jews traditionally viewed Daniel as a real person, the book of Daniel was regarded by the Jews as stories rather than prophecy and it is included among the 'Writings' (Ketuvim) rather than the 'Prophets' (Nevi'im). Adoption of the book of Daniel as 'prophetic' was a later Christian development.-- Jeffro 77 (talk) 05:20, 26 August 2018 (UTC)