The only way to reconcile a siege of 18 months leading up to the destruction of Jerusalem relies on the following assumptions:
- Other verses in 2 Kings that establish the use of Tishri/non-accession dating for kings of Judah are unrelated to the dating used for Zedekiah
- The author of 2 Kings used Nisan/accession dating for Zedekiah
- The author of 2 Kings used Nisan/accession dating for Nebuchadnezzar
- The author of 2 Kings starts Zedekiah's accession year from the year that began in Nisan of 597 ('617') BCE
No other combination of the dating systems can reconcile an 18-month siege with Nebuchadnezzar's 19th year and Ezekiel's stated years of exile (with or without accepting a handful of alternative manuscripts that say 11 instead of 12 at Ezekiel 33:21).
However, if the JW teaching is accepted that Nebuchadnezzar's reign (accesion year) began in 625 BCE, those assumptions require that the siege began in January 607 BCE and ended in July 606 BCE. That conclusion is consistent with Russell's teaching that the 'gentile times' ran from 606 BCE until 1914 (because he didn't realise there is no 'year 0'), but destroys the JW interpretation (from 1943 onward). (Unfortunately for 'scholar', though the Watch Tower Society does insist of Nisan dating for Judah in 2 Kings, it also said - way back in 1964 but never changed - that Zedekiah's 1st regnal year began Nisan 617 BCE, so even trying to stretch everything in favour of poor 'scholar', this too is a failure.)
'scholar' will now continue to prattle on about 'interpretation and methodology'.
🤣