Lady Liberty
Post 1982
No I have never made a chart in the manner that you prescribe and that I think is a good idea. I have thought in making a similar chart that compares the NB chronology with that of the 'celebrated ones' biblical chronology as presented in our publications. Such a tabulation would clearly show that differences between the two schemes amount to mere twenty years. As I have long argued on this forum that NB chronology as currently understood can serve to prove the validity of a corrected scheme with the Fall of Jerusalem being adjusted to 607 BCE instead of the error of 586/87 BCE.
In other words I can quite happily accommodate NB chronology as it stands and then by 'figuring in' the seventy years, an adjustment of twenty years can be made which pushes back the traditional dates. Or I can choose ignore the traditional chronology where appropriate and construct a chronology dependent on the Bible alone thus achieving the same result, validating 607 BCE. I can choose either road.
Regarding the matter of Archaeology there is in fact new research over the last five years dealing with the history of the Late Judean Period and this new material is certainly favourable to our position for awareness is now realized about the problem of the 'Babylonian Gap' and the desolation of Judah. So, this looks quite promising so the jury is still out in regard to these matters.
I do and have not ignored the 'so-called' evidence against 607 because I have made this a academic project for some thirty years. I have read all of the commentaries and journal articles on the subject and I repeat there is no evidence that disproves 607 BCE. This date is proven thus by the seventy year period and the fulfillment of 1914. So, if you like the date is proven up front and behind.
scholar JW