‘scholar’:
Utter nonsense. Scholars today currently endorse 586 BCE rather than 587 BCE
587BCE is preferred among secular sources. 586BCE is preferred by sources simply relying on traditions rather than the specific evidence. No modern analysis of the chronology prefers 586 over 587.
Such business documents necessitate the converting of any regnal data into a modern-day calendar and are subject to a 'fine tuning' in order o accommodate a 'twenty-year gap in the NB Period.
This drivel is nothing more than wishful thinking. The period is very solidly established and confirmed by astronomical observations.
Rolf Furuli has researched this subject and proved that both the planetary observations along with the lunar observations are a better fit for 588 BCE rather than 568 BCE. Furuli is the only scholar to date that has researched and examined VAT 4956 since Neugebauer and Weidner, 1915.
😂 Furuli. 😂 He quite definitely has not ‘proven’ that the planetary observations fit 588BCE, which is impossible. Furuli is neither an astronomer nor a historian, so he’s no more qualified than me for assessing the astronomical observations in VAT 4956, hence a fallacious argument from authority.