Jeffro
I never actually said that at all, and I initially thought the inept ‘scholar’ was simply lying. But it occurs to me that he was just confused about my correct statement that modern scholarship (as opposed to modern parroting of older scholarship) favours 587BCE because I included a parenthetical clause that this is particularly since the publication of BM 21946 established dating for earlier events in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. He really is quite tedious. 🤦♂️
--
It is like this. You make a claim about the BM 21946 that it supports 587 CE which I reject because I claim that the Babylonian Chronicle supports 607 BCE rather than 587 BCE. Scholarship whether modern or older has no consensus regarding a specific date for the Fall of Jerusalem with such proposed dates as 586, 587 or 588 BCE. Now is that simple for you?
scholar JW