Your pretty chart is a good overview of orthodox chronology as presented by many scholars but the' devil is in the detail' and that is where your scheme fails. If one was to compare your scheme with that offered by Mc Fall, Young and Thiele amongst many others then there would be many differences of opinion as to the dates and the events for to date the only scheme that has gained universal acceptance is that of Thiele. Scholar however in saying this, that in making such a comparison between your chronology and that of others there may well be a difference of only one year in some instances for your scheme simply mirrors the 'popular' chronology of today.
I produced my chart independently of other sources, so the fact that it is consistent with other sources is only testament to its accuracy.
You are entitled to view our chronology as a 'bad joke' and I am quite sure that most scholars would agree with you especially Thiele who had not time for our chronology. For my part I believe the 'joke' is on modern scholarship because we have a scheme that is simple, faithful to Scripture, harmonizes the 390 year period of Ezekiel, user-friendly and breathes life into Bible History, Theology and Prophecy.
Nothing but tedious rhetoric there.
I believe that the use of 'interregnum' to describe the earlier kingship of Hoshea based on 2Kings 15;30 is most appropriate even though it does not currency in our publications today. Of course our chronology for the Divided Kingdom differs to what was published in 1944 but so what for all scholarship is a work in progress and no doubt if you checked Thiele's work which was published in three editions there would have been changes and adjustments.
The specific problem here is not that revisions have been made (setting aside the fact that all Watch Tower revisions are futile attempts to defend their tenuous numerology), but that you desperately insist on citing an abandoned revision to defend their current chronology.
I am glad to see that you acknowledge the fact of my responses but you have simply not proved your case especially in regard to Hoshea's reign alleging that we have a problem. There is no problem for us but your problem is how to adequately deal with 2Kings 15:30. and this you have not done adequately. Further, you have not dealt adequately with the translation issues of 2Kings 17:1 proving that Hoshea's reign ended rather than began in that year as we interpret matters. You need to work much harder on this!!!! LOL
Not only have I explained the problem, but I have also specifically indicated why the Watch Tower Society inserts the spurious periods prior to the reigns of Hoshea and Zechariah. Specifically, to make up the difference of twenty years when aligning the reigns for the kingdom of Israel with their distorted expansion of the kingdon of Judah.
Your claim that our chronology is 'languishing with trite statements' is rather amusing for you assume that chronology for the Divided Monarchy is so ever easy and simple without any technical hurdles. Certainly our scheme proves that there is a twenty year difference or gap in certain points of contact between Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian history but so what? All that a competent chronologist needs to do is 'fine tune' or to quote Rodger C Young to use a Corrective in reconciling the biblical data with the secular data. Celebrated WT scholar over many decades have used Jeremiah's 'seventy years' as that Corrective.
What a joke! Independent Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian records all indicate that the Watch Tower Society chronology is out by twenty years, and the Watch Tower Society even admits that fact. The records for the period in the Bible are completely consistent with the records of Assyria, Babylon and Egypt. It is only the Watch Tower Society's distorted interpretations that are in conflict.
In conclusion, Bible chronology differs between scholars particularly in the period of the Divided Monarchy for the biblical data in the form of numbers are mysterious providing a continuous challege for scholarship. Our scholars have triumphed and succeeded in providing a simple but workable scheme so I am duly proud of what we have accomplished as an organization.
The Bible on its own disproves the Watch Tower Society's superstitious chronology. With the revised translation of Jeremiah 29:10 in the NWT, this is now even more obvious. Even with the incorrect use of "at Babylon" (even though in the JW belief the Jews exiled in 607 were only "at Babylon" for, at most, 69¼ years), it is obvious from the context of verses 10-15 (even without considering the fact of the broader context that it's a letter to exiles already in Babylon about 7 years prior to Jerusalem's destruction) that "seventy years" refers to a period that ends before 'turning attention' to their return. Replacing the intentionally ambiguous "in accord with", the bumbling translators now clearly state that attention would be given to their return "When 70 years at Babylon are fulfilled". In the delusional JW belief, the 70 years end when the Jews arrive in Jerusalem (supposedly in October 537 BCE), so there would hardly be any point in having attention turned to their return after they're already there. (The fact that many Jews remained in Babylon is also irrelevant, because that did not change in 537 either.) In reality, the passage indicates that 70 years would end (when Babylon's king was called to account in 539 BCE), and then the Jews would be allowed to return after that (in Cyrus' first regnal year, 538 BCE). And this is only one of many problems with the JW chronology directly from the Bible. Extra-biblical sources are in fact an unnecessary nail in the coffin of JW chronology, because the Bible already makes the coffin air-tight.