Hi VM44.
We now can prove that Xenophon added 58 years of fake history to the Greek period at the request of the Persians. He is linked with editing Thucydides and obviously was preoccupied with Persian history. He got Plato and Plato's students to help with the revisions. He made two adjustments, adding 30 years to the original 20-year period between the Persian and Peloponnesian Wars, and he moved an ecipse in 402 BCE back to 431 BCE, which added 28 fake years, totaling 58 years. Thanks to the eclipse, it is not difficult to correct the Greek timeline. Knowing that, though ANY texts, astronomical or banking records that reflect the final revised timeline or dating is automatically considered evidence of "fraud" and revision.
GENERALLY speaking, any text that would be considered a "target" text for destruction is equally considered a target text for revision. That is, if the timeline was changed then the original astronomical texts would be a "target" for destruction. Which they were. But they are also easy to "copy" and revise with the new timeline, so that took place. Same with the centuries old banking records. The records would show 26 more years than the revised chronology, so they are a "target" for destruction. That means if they survived they were revised. So they can't be used at this level to prove anything other than they would have been destroyed had they not been revised.
TESTING: What has to be done with the Egibi texts is prove that they are original documents from the NB Period over all that time. This should show, therefore, texts written by several different people and in a script reflecting the changes in writing styles over the period. If these are all neatly written records in the modern Seleucid Period style, and thus convenient "copies" of all those banking records then we know it's totally fake.
So if you want to use the Egibi documents as a focus, you'll have to produce some photos of the texts and more details, with the presumption that they are faked having to be overcome.
In the meantime, the VAT4956 contains the original 511 BCE dating for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar. That AUTOMATICALLY means the astronomical texts and other records were aggressively revised to make the Greeks think the revisions are authentic.
But we know too much at this point. Xerxes and Artaxerxes were the same king and that can be proven at Naqshi-Rustam where "Artaxerxes" is buried where Xerxes was supposed to be. Further, to show the extent to which this scam was attempted to be legitimized, a separate but newer tomb for "Xerxes" was carved out at Naqshi-Rustum. But it's newer than the original three tombs, with the scupture work only a "copy" of the original work from the other three tombs. So if the Persian government went to the trouble of faking an extra tomb of Xerxes, changing some banking records to help legitimize the revised chronology is of little consequence. Again, if they were allowed to remain unrevised they would have contradicted the revisions, so it's only of interest that business tablets along with the tombs and astronomical texts were just part of the comprehensiveness of the Persian revisions. They even hired Greek historians to revise the Greek history as well!
Now all this seems quite intellectual until you consider who the chief advisors of the Persians were: The Jews. Someone Jewish would have thought about all of this. That the Jews were cooperative with the revisions is all so apparent when they revised their own records. The canonical "Esdras" which is Ezra/Nehemiah was suppressed during this time and a substitute apocryphal book of the same name, "Esdras" was written to replace it. You only need to compare the Bible's Ezra/Nehemiah, Josephus and the apocryphal "Esdras" to see where the revisions were made.
So again, the VAT4956 confirms a second chronology once existed for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar and it just so happens to completely confirm the Bible's own dating for the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE, so that's too much of a "confirmation" to be a "mere coincidence" at this point, when we have so much evidence now of the revisions and why.
When Xenophon revised the timeline, it pushed the PPW back from 403 BCE to 431 BCE. But Plato had been connected with trying to solve a legendary math problem, how to double the cube. So that survives historically when he was approached at the beginning of the war to solve this math problem. Further, there are details about whom he got to try to solve it which it was, by Archytas! So there is little reason to doubt this "legend". It's amazing but the references don't flinch a bit in claiming Plato was consulted. Problem is 431 BCE is 3 years before Plato was born in 428 BCE. That's the current timeline. When we correct the timeline per the correct, original eclipse, though, Plato is 25. There is a whole list of scenarios like this taken from the famous Greeks who ended up having 58 years added to their lives during this period. Thus even Archytas claims to have had as a student someone who dies before he is born! They can't figure out what is going on. Plato's older brothers were the same age as Socrates who used to come over to the home while Plato was a young lad, probably around 10 years of age. That means Socrates and his brothers were hanging out in the 50's!! Old enough to be grandparents. Further it means Plato's mother was in her 60's when she bore Plato. When the chronology is corrected, Socrates is not 41 years older than Plato but only 7 years older, thus you have some 17-18 year older brothers who knew Plato when he was around 10.
So sorry, there is no critical "fundamental evidence" here when you factor in all the evidence of the specific revisions.
JOSEPH includes a 70-year period of "servitude" from the last deportation to the 1st of Cyrus. That's the TRADITIONAL Jewish timeline here. That contradicts the shortened NB Period. But we KNOW precisely what is going on with the chronology now. Xenophon added 58 years of fake history under the rule of Artaxerxes II, in response to the history of Thucycides which exposed the shorter Persian timeline. It made the rule of Xerxes overlap the rule of Artaxerxes. Which is correct, since they did since they were the same king. This got adjusted down to 56 years since it threw off the Olympic cycle for Xerxes' invasion. But this was the second revision made by the Persians. First they added 30 years to the 6-year rule of Darius I. But they tried to compensate for these extra years by stealing years from the Neo-Babylonian kings. That's why the Bible and Josephus have a longer NB Period. But they didn't remove all the 30 years, only 26 years. So the extra 26 years from the NB Period plus the extra 56 years from the Greek revision amounted to 82 years of distortion for the 1st of Cyrus. That's the distortion we see, where secular history dates the return of the Jews in 537 BCE but the Bible dates the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE per the "70 weeks" prophecy. 82 years! Martin Anstey had always suspected the Persian Period was 82 years too long. And it is. There is no problem removing the 82 years: -30 years from Darius I, -30 years for Artaxerxes II, 21 years of concurrent rule for Xerxes with Artaxerxes since they are the same king. That's 81 years right there, easily removed, with nothing archaeological or from Persian records to contradict this. One year is removed for a co-rulership year of Kambyses with Cyrus. So it's done.
What the Egibi documents must overcome is being not revised during the Seleucid Period. But we know they were if they reflect the revised timeline. What would help, as I noted, if we could get some original references on the banking records to see if they were all copied at the same time by the same writer. That alone should disqualify their value.
Again, ANYTHING that would be a target of contradiction is equally a target for revision. That holds true with the three main texts from the NB and Persian Period, the famous Cyrus Cylinder, the Nabonidus Chronicle and the Babylonian Chronicle. The Babylonian Chronicle itself notes it was "copied" in the 22nd year of Darius!! So not an original. Archaeologists go by the writing style to determine when it was written and the WTS had long pointed out none of the documents can be dated earlier than the end of the Persian Period potentially, though obviously the Babylonian Chronicle was specifically copied during the reign of Darius II.
So it's a little more complex. Of course, I completely understand why the focus would move to the next most convincing piece of evidence, the banking records, since the VAT4956 and SK400 are complete washes as far as the current timeline, both containing "errors" that link to the SAME timeline where year 7 and 37 fall in 541 and 511 BCE, respectively!!!
So ALL we have here is more evidence of what the Persians considered important to revise along with all the other records. So they were comprehensive, it would seem initially, but not really, because if they didn't change the record, they would have had to destroy it, like they did tens of thousands or original astronomical texts from the rule of Nebuchadnezzar! We know the documents existed because of the extensive references in the VAT4956. But none of the original tablets survived.
So, well, it's TIME TO FACE REALITY now. It's not that we don't know what happened and why, we also can easily reconstruct the original timeline based upon just a few key eclipse references. Pretending now that the 587 BCE chronology is legit, when it contradicts the Bible, Josephus and double-dating in the VAT4956 and SK400 is just not going to go. Further, at this point it is not necessary to PROVE the original chronology. What is significant is that persons like myself, who are Biblicalists have a CHOICE to interpret certain secular records in line with the Bible.
In the meantime, those holding onto the 587 BCE chronology need to come up with an excuse as to why Artaxerxes is buried between Darius I and Darius II, and why Plato is being consulted in 431 BCE when he wasn't born until 428 BCE? The information in the Egibi tablets only CONFIRMS they were part of the revision documents. Nothing more. We have already corrected the NB timeline and linked it with indepedent RC14 dating for Shishak's invasion c. 871 BCE that is now in place. The RC14 dates that invasion to 871 BCE. The Bible dates Shishak's invasion late in the rule of Solomon, year 5 of Rehoboam who was his co-ruler. If you date the 1st of Cyrus to 455 BCE, the Exodus occurs 19 jubilees earlier in 1386 BCE. That means the 4th of Solomon falls in 906 BCE when the temple began to be built. His rule would be from 910-870 BCE and so 871 BCE per the RC14 dating falls in his 39th year. So even science confirms the NB and Assyrian Periods are dated too early! The legitimate eclipse dating the Assyrian Period is the 709 BCE eclipse not the 763 BCE eclipse. Using the eclipse redating, alternatively to date Shishak's invasion, it changes from 925 BCE to 871 BCE. So the eclipse and the 455 BCE dating are totally in sync with the RC14 dating now.
Now again, I suspect you will close your eyes and put your hands over your ears. Fine. But the rest of us out here see what is going on, so it doesn't matter now if you are not convinced. We can "write our own ticket" so to speak by combining what we know about Xenophon's revisions, the double-dating in the VAT4956 and SK400, the better dating of the 3rd-month eponym eclipse to 709 BCE, and the RC14 confirmation, now accurate to within 10 years, of Shishak's invasion, all completely harmonious.
So my question is: WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO FACE REALITY and just admit the Persians were good at revisionism? All this would be quite convincing had the VAT496 betrayed the revisions by including the 511 BCE cryptic references. That text alone, therefore, dismisses every other text, astronomical or otherwise, including banking records that absolutely reflect the revised timeline which removes 26 years from the Neo-Babylonian Period. Did you think Josephus just made that up? 70 years from the last deportation? C'mon! These are direct CONTRADICTIONS in the chronology and the clear explanation is somebody simply revised their records. Either the Bible and Josephus are lying or the Persians are. Of course, we know which.
Since you brought up the Egibi tablets, do you have a direct reference to them? I would be very curious to see if they reflect 200 years of writing styles or whether they are all neatly copied records from the Seleucid Era? Remember the final revisions were not made until Xenophon came along. All the revisions occur before the reign of Artaxerxes III in 358 BCE.
Thanks.
JC
