‘scholar’:
Why is that important? At least the footnote describes the method used and the names of the astro tables and while we are at it what is the source of your data?
The poor addled JW apologist doesn’t understand why something he considers scholarly should cite its source for a claim that disagrees with all scholarship. The ‘method’ described is obviously flawed, so it would be nice to know who the ‘researchers’ were if for no other reason than to laugh at them, but at least they would also have an opportunity to explain their dishonesty. And anyone paying attention would already know my source for this topic is Parker and Dubberstein’s tables, from which I even provided an extract. 🤦♂️
I find it interesting that one observes an intercalary month associated with the PD table for the same year- 588 BCE and similar an intercalary month assigned for Neb's 37th year in VAR 4956.
Except there isn’t an intercalary month in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year. 🤦♂️ Adar II before Nisan of 568 BCE falls in Nebuchadnezzar’s 36th year.
The intercalary month at the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s 17th year only further demonstrates that that year could not have started in May (which is already impossible because Nisan never starts in May).