**The table in my previous post didn't format well on my iPad, so this repost is, in part, to satisfy my curiosity to find out how it appears with the few adjustments I made to it, and, in part, a reply to @Essan's message.**

@MeanMrMustard wrote:

**How is it that you "deduce" from Josephus, the absolute date of 577 BC as the date Baal ascended to the throne of Tyre? Where did you get that from? Without that first date at the beginning of your long monologue, the rest is irrelevant.**

@djeggnog wrote:

**Like this (you might want to use a date calculator):**

**Eiromos (20 years) = [555 BC - 535 BC]**

**Merbalos (four years) = [559 BC - 555 BC]**

**Balatoros (one year) = 560 BC - 559 BC**

**Myttynos and Gerastartos (six years) = 566 BC - 560 BC**

**Abbalos (three months) /**

**Chelbes (ten months) = 567 BC - 566 BC)**

**Ednibalos (two months) = 567 BC**

**Baal (10 years) = 577 BC - 567 BC**

@AnnOMaly wrote:

**You might want to take your own advice....**

**End of Tyre's siege - 594 BC according to you. 594 - 577 = 17 YEARS LONGER THAN JOSEPHUS' CALCULATION! Therefore, you cannot use his Tyrian king list to support your argument, can you?**

Why shouldn't I? Because this happens to be a kinglist that doesn't fit your notion that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/586 BC? I don't have a problem relying upon the Tyrian kinglist provided in Josephus' *Against Apion*, I, xxi, and I do appreciate that Josephus poses a big problem for you and for all of you for whom 587/586 BC is so precious.

On page 98 of the book, *The Gentile Times Reconsidered, Chronology and Christ's Return*, its author, Carl Olof Jonsson provides a "Table I" on page 98 that ostensibly assigns the dates of the regnal years of the Neo-Babylonian kings, starting with Nebuchadnezzar's father, Nabopolassar, which resembles the following:

TABLE 1: THE REIGNS OF THE NEO-BABYLONIAN KINGS ACCORDING TO BEROSSUS AND THE ROYAL CANON |

NAME | BEROSSUS | ROYAL CANON | B.C.E. |

Nabopolassar | 21 years | 21 years | 625–605 |

Nebuchadnezzar | 43 years | 43 years | 604–562 |

Awel-Marduk* | 2 years | 2 years | 561–560 |

Neriglissar | 4 years | 4 years | 559–556 |

Labashi-Marduk | 9 months | — | 556 |

Nabonidus | 17 years | 17 years | 555–539 |

*Called Evil-Merodach at 2 Kings 25:27 and Jeremiah 52:31. |

Jonsson prefers calling this kinglist, "Royal Canon," rather than "Ptolemy's Canon" or "the Ptolemaic Canon" because, according to Jonsson's book, Prof. Otto Neugebauer believes "Ptolemy's Canon" to be "a misnomer" (p. 96), believing this kinglist to have been in use long Cladius Ptolemy was born. Be that as it may, Jonsson goes on to state the following on page 113:

"If, as has been established, Nabonidus’ first year was 555/554 B.C.E., Nabopolassar’s sixteenth year must have been 610/609, his first year 625/624 and his twenty-first and last year 605/604 B.C.E. Nebuchadnezzar’s first year, then, was 604/603, and his eighteenth year, when he desolated Jerusalem, was 587/586 B.C.E.—not 607 B.C.E. These dates agree completely with the dates arrived at from Berossus’ figures and the Royal Canon."

According to the Phoenician records, when Baal began to rule as king of Tyre in 577 BC, Nebuchadnezzar and his son, Evil-Merodach, were both deceased, and Evil-Merodach's brother-in-law, Neriglissar, had assassinated Evil-Merodach, had been ruling for two years as king of Babylon. come his successor to the throne of Babylon, was which is about Evil-Merodach was assassinated by his brother-in-law, who succeeded him as king of Babylon from 579 BC for four years.

Actually, 605 BC would have been Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, so that his first regnal year would have been 604 BC and his 18th year would have been 586 BC, and what is more, according to Jonsson's chronology, Nebuchadnezzar's last regnal year -- his 43rd year -- would have been 561 BC. But how can this be the case when Nebuchadnezzar, who died in 582 BC, had been dead for five years, and Evil-Merodach, who died in 579 BC, had been dead for two years, when Baal became the king of Tyre in 577 BC?

According to Josephus, the Phoenician kinglist indicates that Baal succeeded Ithobalos in 577 BC and Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre during Ithobalos' reign, whose reign ended in 577 BC. This means that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre before 577 BC because Josephus clearly refers to Nebuchadnezzar's 13-year-long siege of Tyre, **and this siege occurred during Ithobalos' reign**. If Nebuchadnezzar doesn't survive the end of Ithobalos' reign, which is the beginning of Baal's reign in 577 BC, then Nebuchadnezzar's 43rd year couldn't have been 561 BC, could it? Well, is it possible that Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, when he deposed Jerusalem and destroyed Solomon's temple, was 586 BC? Nope, AnnOMaly. Your dates just don't add up, but mine do:

If Nebuchadnezzar's 43rd year was 582 BC, which I believe it to have been, then subtracting 25 years from 582 BC [-582 + (-25)], we arrive as what would have been Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year, 607 BC. My dates add up and yours do not, so check! I believe that's mate, @AnnOMaly.

@Essan:

**Where are you Ann?**

You cannot be depending on @AnnOMaly to make the case against 607 BC, are you? You have no stake in this pot because it's evident that you've folded your hand and now are hoping that her hand is better than mine. Forget about my allusion to "chess"; poker may be a more fitting one, for if you had cards in your hand that were stronger than mine, you would have called, but instead of calling, you've added not a thing to this discussion and folded your hand, in hope that someone's cards -- @AnnOMaly's, who did call my hand -- were better than mine. Where's @MeanMrMustard? Where's the new guy, @castthefirststone? Where's @Jonathan Dough? Road kill! It was @AnnOMaly that earlier in this thred quoted Josephus' *Against Apion*, I, xxi:

**(@AnnOMaly wrote:)**

**Tsk, tsk, eggie! You really are shameless. The writings of this Pharisee also attested that the temple was desolate for 50 years and this agreed with their Jewish histories.**

**Against Apion, I, xxi: "These accounts agree with the true histories in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years; but that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid, and it was finished again in the second year of Darius."**

You see, @AnnOMaly totally misunderstood this quote from *Against Apion*, I, xxi, by claiming that when "this Pharisee" -- Josephus -- stated that "the temple was desolate for 50 years," that he meant that Solomon's temple had lay desolate for **only** 50 years. She read these words, "the temple was desolate for 50 years," and concluded (as do many others!) that Josephus had contradicted what he had stated in both *Antiquities of the Jews*, X, ix, about Judah and Jerusalem having been "a desert for seventy years," and in *Against Apion*, I, xix, about there having been an "interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus" during which Jerusalem lay desolate.

She's been trying to run away from the fact that she didn't understand what Josephus was saying, that he wasn't contradicting himself at all, but, rather, pointing out in *Against Apion*, I, xxi, that the Phoenician histories were in agreement with the Jewish histories where the kinglists counted back 54 years, not from "the second year of the reign of Cyrus," but counting back from Eiromos' reign, for it was during Eiromos' reign "that Cyrus became ruler of the Persians. So the whole period is 54 years...." These 54 years are the same obscure 50 years to which Josephus referred in *Against Apion*, I, xxi.

Eiromos' 20-year reign spanned the years, 553 BC-533 BC, during which period Cyrus had become "ruler of the Persians." Since Eiromos reigned as king for four years after Cyrus had deposed Babylon in 539 BC, we can take the difference of 16 years (Eiromos), 4 years (Merbalos), 1 year (Balatoros), 6 years (Myttynos and Gerastartos), 1 year (Ednibalos, Chelbes and Abbalos), and 10 years (Baal), which total 38 years, and when we subtract 38 years from 539 BC [-539 + (-38)], we arrive at 577 BC.

What about the other 16 years [-577 + (-16)] of this 54-year period, which then brings us back to 561 BC? What about them? We know that Ithobalos' reign came to an end when Baal's reign began in 577 BC, and we also know, according to Josephus, that it was during or "in the reign of Ithobalos" that Nebuchadnezzar besieged Tyre for 13 years." There is one other thing that Josephus tells us: "After him," Josephus meaning after Ithobalos, "Baal reigned for 10 years." So this tells us that in 561 BC, Ithobalos was the king of Tyre and he was the king of Tyre when Nebuchadnezzar besieged that city for 13 years, which siege ended in 594 BC. Baal became the king of Tyre 17 years later in 577 BC, and as has been pointed out, Nebuchadnezzar and his son, Evil-Merodach were both dead when Baal became the king of Tyre.

This has been a long thread, but this is the "showdown." Our cards are both on the table, and you have to know, don't you, that my "flush" is better than her "pair"?

Do you know a red herring when you see one, @Essan? I assume you know that @AnnOMaly's comment --

594 - 577 = 17 YEARS LONGER THAN JOSEPHUS' CALCULATION!

-- is a red herring, don't you?

If Nebuchadnezzar's 43rd year was 582 BC, then Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year would be 607 BC. We can know this by doing the math: Just subtract 25 years from 582 BC [-582 + (-25) = 607].

Again, my dates add up and @AnnOMaly's dates do not: Nebuchadnezzar didn't survive the end of Ithobalos' reign. (He died in 582 BC, some five years before Baal's reign began in 577 BC.)

FACT 1 - Nebuchadnezzar's 13-year siege on Tyre occurred **during** Ithobalos' reign.

FACT 2 - Ithobalos' reign ended where Baal's reign began: In 577 BC.

Got it? Because Nebuchadnezzar wasn't alive when Baal reigned as king of Tyre, this means Nebuchadnezzar's 43rd year couldn't have been 561 BC, could it, @Essan? (Hint: Nebuchadnezzar had been dead for about 21 years by then.)

@djeggnog