Notes on the Gentile Times and 1914
Alan Feuerbacher
Index:
- Part 1: Summary
- Part 2: Discussion of Historical Evidence
- Part 3: Scriptural Arguments
- Part 4: Other Considerations. Conclusions
- Part 5: Appendix A
- Part 6: Appendix B: The Pivotal Date 539 B.C.
Part 1: Summary
Overview:
- Summary
- 1914 Is A Pivotal Date Jehovah's Witnesses Must Adhere To
- Summary of evidence against 607 B.C. for the destruction of Jerusalem
- Some of the Society's Arguments
Summary
The Watchtower Society says it is "God's channel of communication" and the principal dispenser of "the Truth" during "the last days of this old system of things." Its claims hang largely on the assertion that in 1914, Christ came into Kingdom power in the heavens, and in 1919 appointed certain governing members of the Society as a "faithful and discreet slave" to impart spiritual food to the body of believers. This essay examines the basis of the Society's claims about 1914, but is by no means a complete discussion.
The Society's base chronological calculation is as follows: The "Gentile Times" of Luke 21:24 was a period of 2520 years starting in 607 B.C. and ending in 1914 A.D. The Society says the Bible definitely shows Jerusalem fell in 607 B.C. and that any other date for Jerusalem's fall is inconsistent with the Bible. However, multiple, independent secular historical sources, in conjunction with the Bible, show that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C. The Society uses the 539 B.C. date for the fall of Babylon as an anchor for its chronology. See Appendix B for a discussion of the history of the Society's attempts to establish 539 B.C. as an anchor date. However, the same evidence the Society says fixes the 539 B.C. date also fixes 587, not 607 B.C., for the fall of Jerusalem.
It is possible that the views expressed in this essay are incorrect. However, they reflect the best scholarship available today on the subject of Neo-Babylonian chronology. The Watchtower Society discounts all evidence that conflicts with its view, preferring to rely on the chronology Charles Taze Russell borrowed from the Second Adventists in 1876, but most of which the Society abandoned by 1930.
The evidence presented in this essay is presented in a spirit of open communication. This openness is well described in the magazine Technology Review, February/March 1992, published at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The article "Looking for a Few Hungry Samurai" gave general advice to moonlighting authors who want to write for the magazine, and offered suggestions on how an author could succeed in writing:
Don't preach to the converted. Readers want to know your opinions, even those with strong political implications. But it's important to assume that readers are intelligent skeptics who don't already agree with you -- otherwise, why bother to write? -- yet who are willing to be convinced. The key is to present enough material, including a fair rendering of opposing viewpoints, so that readers can decide for themselves. "The best way I know of persuading you of anything," says MIT physicist Philip Morrison, "is not to plead with you to trust me, not to invoke authority in general, not even to call upon some expert, but to show you just what it is that persuaded me." [p. 5]
1914 Is A Pivotal Date Jehovah's Witnesses Must Adhere To
The Watchtower of August 1, 1980, page 14, lists a belief that Christ's presence began in 1914 as fundamental. Similarly, the January 1, 1983 Watchtower said on page 11:
The ending of the Gentile Times in the latter half of 1914 still stands on a historical basis as one of the fundamental Kingdom truths to which we must hold today.
If the Watchtower Society's suppositions regarding Bible chronology are wrong, in particular with respect to 1914, then all doctrines based on such dates are wrong. If the Gentile times did not end in 1914, then Christ did not return in that year, the Governing Body was not appointed "over all his belongings" as "the faithful and discreet slave" in 1919, and the Society has no monopoly on publishing spiritual truth.
As a general principle, faith must be based on facts, historical or otherwise. A study of history is fundamental to faith in the fulfillment of prophecy, because such cannot be demonstrated aside from history. If an interpretation of the Bible conflicts with demonstrated facts the interpretation must be wrong. This has been demonstrated time and time again by those who predicted the end of the world based on a faulty interpretation of scripture, which they had claimed was "scripturally, scientifically, and historically... correct beyond a doubt." (The Watchtower, June 15, 1922)
In print, the Society is adamant that 1914 is a correct prophetic date. Although it presents a firm front in its publications, not everyone in the organization believes that 1914 is so well established. With reference to the uncertainty of time prophecies the Society's late third president Nathan Knorr once said:
There are some things I know -- I know that Jehovah is God, that Christ Jesus is his Son, that he gave his life as a ransom for us, that there is a resurrection. Other things I'm not so certain about. 1914 -- I don't know. We have talked about 1914 for a long time. We may be right and I hope we are.
Summary of evidence against 607 B.C. for the destruction of Jerusalem
The November 1, 1986 Watchtower stated on page 6 that "in 1981 Jehovah's Witnesses published convincing evidence in support of the 607 B.C.E. date. ('Let Your Kingdom Come,' pages 127-40, 186-9)" This book, which we will refer to as KC, used secular historical evidence to establish the key date of the Society's chronology: "Historians calculate that Babylon fell in early October of the year 539 B.C.E." (p. 136). Nevertheless, the book set up a dichotomy between "secular records" and the Bible:
Thankful, indeed, we can be that Jehovah preserved in his inspired Word an accurate picture of the needed details involving the Jews, the Babylonians and the Medo-Persians in the sixth century B.C.E. Otherwise it would be difficult to piece together the exact timing of events back there, for secular records of that period are certainly incomplete. However, based primarily on such secular records, some persons figure that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E and that the Jews came under Babylonian domination in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, which they calculate as being 605 B.C.E. [p. 138]
A footnote referred the reader to an appendix on pages 186-9. We will spend some time on the arguments presented in this "Appendix," and we will show that the evidence the Society presents is biased, incomplete and misrepresentative of the facts. The following list of evidences is an outline of what is available to prove that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C. The symbol (KC) means the line of evidence is mentioned in the Appendix.
1. Chronicles, historical records, and royal inscriptions from the Neo-Babylonian period, beginning with the reign of Nabopolassar and ending with the reigns of Nabonidus and Belshazzar, show it ran from 626 to 539 B.C., not from 645 to 539 B.C. as the Society claims.
a. (KC) Berossus
b. (KC) Ptolemy
c. Various Babylonian chronicles (incomplete) such as the Nabonidus Chronicle
d. Nabonidus No. 18
e. The Hillah stele, Nabonidus No. 8
f. (KC) The Adda-Guppi stele, Nabonidus H1,B
2. Business and administrative documents.
a. (KC) Tablets exist that are dated from each year of the Neo-Babylonian period as established by Berossus, Ptolemy and contemporary stele; no tablets are inconsistently dated. About 5000 have been published out of a total of about 50,000. These are contemporary documents from the Neo-Babylonian period.
3. Astronomical diaries.
a. (KC) VAT 4956 fixes the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar to 568 B.C. by a unique set of astronomical observations, establishing his accession year in 605 B.C.
b. BM 32312 plus the Akitu Chronicle pin the 16th year of Shamashshumukin (a Babylonian king before the Neo-Babylonian period) to 652/1 B.C. This, combined with business documents, Ptolemy's canon, the Akitu Chronicle and the Uruk King List combine to date Nebuchadnezzar's reign to 605/4-562/1, with his 18th (destruction of Jerusalem, Jer. 52:28-30) year in 587/6 B.C.
4. Saros (lunar eclipse) texts.
a. Four independent texts provide absolute dates within the Neo-Babylonian period. Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year is fixed at 587/6 B.C.
5. Synchronisms with contemporary Egyptian chronology show Watchtower chronology consistently off by 20 years.
a. Josiah died during Pharaoh Nechoh's reign, which began in 610 B.C. The Society dates Josiah's death to 629 B.C.
b. Some Jews fled to Egypt under Pharaoh Hophra (Apries) immediately after Jerusalem's destruction. Since he began to reign in 589 B.C., Jerusalem could not have been destroyed in 607 B.C.
c. A fragmentary cuneiform text mentions a battle by Nebuchadnezzar in his 37th year against Pharaoh Amasis, who began to rule in 570 B.C. The Society claims Nebuchadnezzar died in 582 B.C.
Some of the Society's Arguments
Let Your Kingdom Come discounts all the above evidence, saying on p. 187:
.... even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.
This shows that the Society recognizes there is almost no historical evidence supporting the 607 date -- otherwise they would present it and not resort to the lame argument that "people make mistakes, so we're not convinced." A chronology that has to be based on "yet undiscovered material," because it is demolished by the discovered material, is resting on a weak foundation. If an idea, refuted by an overwhelming mass of discovered evidence, is to be retained based on "yet undiscovered material" that might support it, all ideas, however false, could be retained on the same principle. But it should be remembered that such a faith is not founded upon "the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld"; it is founded upon wishful thinking. Let Your Kingdom Come says that its arguments rest on solid Biblical evidence, so that secular chronology must be rejected. We will examine this claim at length.
Under the subjects "Chronology," "Nebuchadnezzar," "Jehoiakim," "Jehoiachin" and "Captivity," in both the Insight book, and the Aid book upon which it is based, no historical evidence from the Neo-Babylonian period is presented showing that the 607 B.C. date for Jerusalem's destruction is valid. Instead, much space is devoted to trying to weaken the credibility of the historical and archeological evidence.
In the Babylon book, the historical evidence is even blatantly misrepresented. On page 134 the book says:
Nebuchadnezzar came against Jerusalem the second time, to punish the rebel king [Jehoiakim]. That was in 618 B.C. -- See Harper's Bible Dictionary, by M. S. and J. L. Miller, edition of 1952, page 306, under "Jehoiakim."
However, Harper's Bible Dictionary actually says that Jehoiakim reigned for 11 years, from 609-598 B.C., and that
Jeremiah's prophecy was fulfilled with the arrival of Nebuchadnezzar (II Kings 24:1), whom Jehoiakim served three years, but against whom he at length rebelled. The might of Chaldea, pressed heavily against the capital and the king died or possibly was assassinated (II Kings 24:6). He was succeeded (598 B.C.) by his young son Jehoiachin, who in his father's stead was carried captive to Babylon (597 B.C., II Kings 24:15), while Zedekiah, brother of Jehoiakim, became Nebuchadnezzar's puppet ruler.
The only evidence Let Your Kingdom Come presents are two excerpts from Josephus and one from the 2nd century writer Theophilus, both of which can be demonstrated to have presented, not valid historical information based an contemporary Neo-Babylonian documents, but their own interpretations of the Bible. One of Josephus's statements is even contradicted later in his works by one that directly supports 587 B.C. as the date of Jerusalem's destruction.
The Society's chronology rests on 539 B.C., the date of Babylon's fall (see Appendix B). If all the objections raised by Let Your Kingdom Come are valid, what reason do we have for accepting any date at all from the Neo-Babylonian era established by historians -- in particular 539 B.C.? If 587 is rejected then 539 must be rejected too. The August 15, 1968 Watchtower said (p. 490-1) concerning Cyrus's overthrow of Babylon:
The fixing of 539 B.C.E. as the year when this historical event occurred is based on a stone document known as the Nabonidus (Nabunaid) Chronicle.... Please note, the Nabonidus Chronicle gives precise details as to the time when these events took place. This, in turn, enables modern scholars, with their knowledge of astronomy, to translate these dates into terms of the Julian or Gregorian calendars.... Recognized authorities of today accept 539 B.C.E. without any question as the year Babylon was overthrown by Cyrus the Great.
Then are listed many other authorities that confirm the 539 date. All these references also list 587/6 B.C. for the destruction of Jerusalem, but the article makes no mention of this. Further, pp. 493-4 says of the date 537 B.C., when Cyrus issued his decree permitting the Jews to return to their homeland:
This date.... according to the best astronomical tables available, [footnote: Brown University Studies, Vol. XIX, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C. -- A.D. 75, (1956) Parker and Dubberstein, p.29] is calculated to be October 5 (Julian) or September 29 (Gregorian) 537 B.C.E. -- Ezra 1:1-4; 3:1-6.
Similarly, Insight, Vol. 1, p. 453, says:
A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. This tablet contains the following astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II:.... [lunar eclipses are described].... These two lunar eclipses can be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E..... Thus, this tablet establishes the seventh year of Cambyses II as beginning in the spring of 523 B.C.E. This is an astronomically confirmed date.
Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. -- A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E.
Similarly, Let Your Kingdom Come states on p. 186: "Historians hold that Babylon fell to Cyrus's army in October 539 B.C.E."
See Appendix B for an extended discussion. Note that the above calculations rely on:
1. Information in a clay tablet, the Nabonidus Chronicle.
2. Astronomical calculations.
3. Business tablets dated to Cyrus's 9th year.
4. The information in various secular historical books.
But both Let Your Kingdom Come and Insight (pp. 448-50, 454-6) reject all these methods of calculating historical dates when they point to the conclusion that Jerusalem fell in 587 B.C., not 607 B.C. What manner of scholarship and reasoning is this?
Part 2: Discussion Of Historical Evidence
Overview:
- Berossus and Ptolemy
- The Society's View of Berossus and Ptolemy
- Royal Inscriptions
- Business and Administrative Documents
- Astronomical Diaries
- Lunar Eclipses
- Synchronisms with Egyptian History
- Life Expectancy and Neo-Babylonian Chronology
- A Few Other Points
Berossus and Ptolemy
Until the late 19th century the reigns of kings in the Neo-Babylonian period had to be determined solely by consulting ancient Greek and Roman historians. Those historians lived hundreds of years after the Neo-Babylonian period, and their statements are often contradictory. The two held to be most reliable are Berossus and Claudius Ptolemy. Since the statements of these two contradict the Society's claim of 607 B.C. for the destruction of Jerusalem, the Society has attempted to discredit the testimony of Berossus and Ptolemy.
Berossus was a Babylonian priest who lived in the 3rd century B.C. In about 281 B.C. he wrote a history of Babylonia known as Babyloniaca or Chaldaica which he dedicated to King Antiochus I. Unfortunately, his writings have been lost, and all that is known about them comes from the twenty-two quotations or paraphrases of his work by other ancient writers and eleven statements about Berossus made by classical, Jewish and Christian writers. The longest quotations deal with the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings and are found in the Chronicle of Eusebius (c. 303 A.D), Flavius Josephus's Against Apion, Antiquities of the Jews and other late works. It is known that Eusebius and Josephus both quoted Berossus indirectly via the Greco-Roman scholar Cornelius Alexander Polyhistor (1st century B.C.).
Where did Berossus get his information on the Neo-Babylonian kings? According to his own words he "translated many books which had been preserved with great care at Babylon and which dealt with a period of more than 150,000 years." These "books" included accounts of the legendary kings before the Flood with their very exaggerated lengths of reign. But it has also been established that he used the very reliable Babylonian chronicles, for example, for the Neo-Babylonian period, and that he translated their contents into Greek.
Claudius Ptolemy (70-161 A.D.) was a scholar, astronomer, geographer, historian and chronologist who lived in Egypt during the reigns of Hadrian and Antoninus Pius. In about 142 A.D. he wrote The Almagest, to which he added his famous canon, a list of kings and their lengths of reign beginning with the reign of Nabonassar in Babylon, 747 B.C., through the Babylonian, Persian, Greek (Ptolemaic) and Roman rulers to his contemporary, Antoninus Pius (A.D. 138-161).
Where did Ptolemy get his king list? The Aid book, under the subject "Chronology," says that "Ptolemy is thought to have used the writings of Berossus (p. 331), but it gives no evidence in support of this claim, which has been dropped from the equivalent discussion in Insight on the Scriptures. The claim is not very likely, because scholars have concluded that Ptolemy's canon represents a Babylonian tradition about the first millennium B.C. that is independent of Berossus as can be seen from the order and forms of the names of the kings. Professor Friedrich Schmidtke explains:
With respect to the dependence of the sources, the Canon of Ptolemy has certainly to a great extent taken its stuff from the Babylonian Chronicle. This is clear from the characteristic abasileuta ete [years of interregnum] 688-681, which is also found in the Chronicle (IV,23), while the King List A at this place introduces Sennacherib instead, as well as for the two abasileuta ete 704-703. The Canon of Ptolemy like the Chronicle reproduces here the Babylonian tradition, which did not recognize Sennacherib as the legitimate king, as he had sacked and destroyed Babylon.
There is also some evidence that Ptolemy used Babylonian king lists. Thus he had access to Babylonian chronicles and king lists, probably through intermediary sources, but evidently independent of Berossus. This is a very important conclusion, as Ptolemy's figures for the Neo-Babylonian kings are in agreement with Berossus's figures. Thus we have two independent witnesses to the length of the Neo-Babylonian era according to the chronicles, and even if these chronicles are only partly preserved on cuneiform tablets, their figures for the lengths of reign of the Neo-Babylonian kings have been correctly transmitted to us via Berossus and Ptolemy.
The reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings, according to Berossus and Ptolemy, are as follows, not counting accession years:
YEARS OF REIGN ACCORDING TO:
BEROSSUS PTOLEMY B.C. DATES
Nabopolassar 21 years 21 years 625 - 605
Nebuchadnezzar 43 years 43 years 604 - 562
Evil-merodach 2 years 2 years 561 - 560
Neriglissar 4 years 4 years 559 - 556
Labashi-Marduk 9 months -- 556
Nabonidus 17 years 17 years 555 - 539
Ptolemy omits Labashi-Marduk, as he always reckons whole years only. Labashi-Marduk's reign of only a few months (probably 2 or 3) was included in Neriglissar's last year (which was also the accession year of Nabonidus). Ptolemy, therefore could leave him out of the king list.
If these lists by two of the oldest and most reliable historians are correct, the first year of Nebuchadnezzar would be 604/3 B.C. and his 18th year, when he destroyed Jerusalem, would be 587/6 B.C. But even if Berossus and Ptolemy both give a true representation of the length of reigns given in the original Neo-Babylonian chronicles, how do historians know that the chronological information originally contained in these chronicles is reliable?
One reason Ptolemy's canon has their confidence is that in his Almagest he records a large number of ancient astronomical observations from the periods covered by the canon. As these observations were dated to different kings mentioned in the king list, Ptolemy could attach the list to a series of astronomically fixed dates, thus turning it into a kind of "absolute chronology" for the periods it covered.
The Society's View of Berossus and Ptolemy
The Society published what it termed "convincing proof" of its chronology in the 1981 book Let Your Kingdom Come. Of Berossus and Ptolemy it said:
Evidently Ptolemy based his historical information on sources dating from the Seleucid period, which began more than 250 years after Cyrus captured Babylon. It thus is not surprising that Ptolemy's figures agree with those of Berossus, a Babylonian priest of the Seleucid period. [p. 186]
In the subsection on "Ptolemy's canon" (p. 455) the Insight book repeats this charge. The evidence presented above shows that this statement is nonsense, as shown by the fact that the authors of these books present no evidence to support their claim. Evidently realizing this, in the subsection on "Berossus" (p. 453) the author of Insight merely stated that Berossus's writings exist only in fragmentary form, and from this concluded: "It seems evident that chronological data supposedly from Berossus could hardly be considered conclusive."
Another reason the Society tries to discredit Berossus is that he says Jewish captives were taken in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, confirming Daniel's statement in Dan. 1:1. If Dan. 1:1 is to be taken at face value, then the 70 years spoken of by Jeremiah could apply to a captivity or a servitude beginning at that time. This in turn means the Society's claim that the 70 years can only be years of complete desolation of Judah could be wrong. If this is true, then the date 587 B.C. for Jerusalem's destruction is allowed, and the Society's argument that it could only have occurred in 607 B.C. is seriously weakened. This is because all other historical evidence points to 587, not 607 B.C. So the Society tries to discredit each point of evidence against its chronology.
Here is what Berossus said about Nebuchadnezzar's taking of Jewish captives in his accession year:
Nabopolassaros, his father, heard that the satrap who had been posted to Egypt, Coele Syria, and Phoenicia, had become a rebel. No longer himself equal to the task, he entrusted a portion of his army to his son Nabouchodonosoros, who was still in the prime of life, and sent him against the rebel. Nabouchodonosoros drew up his force in battle order and engaged the rebel. He defeated him and subjected the country to the rule of the Babylonians again. At this very time Nabopolassaros, his father, fell ill and died in the city of the Babylonians after having been king for twenty-one years.
Nabouchodonosoros learned of his father's death shortly thereafter. After he arranged affairs in Egypt and the remaining territory, he ordered some of his friends to bring the Jewish, Phoenician, Syrian, and Egyptian prisoners together with the bulk of the army and the rest of the booty to Babylonia. He himself set out with a few companions and reached Babylon by crossing the desert.
Thus Berossus gives support to Daniel's statement in Dan. 1:1 that Jewish captives were brought to Babylon in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year. This confirmation of Dan. 1:1 is important because Berossus derived his information from the Babylonian chronicles, or sources close to those documents, originally written during the Neo-Babylonian era itself. The strength of this evidence is great enough that the Society takes pains to discredit Berossus. But it never addresses the fact that Berossus and Daniel support each other. See below for a fuller discussion of this material.
Ptolemy provides dates for the reigns of Neo-Babylonian kings that, if accepted, immediately trash the Society's chronology. So as with Berossus the Society usually tries to discredit Ptolemy -- but not always. Let Your Kingdom Come rejects Ptolemy's canon as an authority for showing that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C., but the May 15, 1971 Watchtower, page 316, uses Ptolemy's canon in support of 539 B.C. as the correct date for the overthrow of Babylon. Is this consistent? Is this Watchtower consistent with what is said in the following earlier one?
The February 1, 1969 Watchtower, in an article on Babylonian chronology, said on page 90:
And this canon of Ptolemy, what is it? We are particularly interested, seeing that historians find it necessary to lean so heavily upon it in connection with their chronology for the Neo-Babylonian period. Claudius Ptolemy lived in Egypt during the second century C.E., or over 600 years after the close of the Neo-Babylonian period. He was not a historian, and is known primarily for his works on astronomy and geography. As E. R. Thiele states: "Ptolemy's canon was prepared primarily for astronomical, not historical purposes. It did not pretend to give a complete list of all the rulers of either Babylon or Persia, nor the exact month or day of the beginning of their reigns, but it was a device which made possible the correct allocation into a broad chronological scheme of certain astronomical data which were then available." -- The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, page 293, ftn.
Essentially the same information appears under the subject "Chronology," subheading "Babylonian Chronology," in the Aid and Insight books.
The Watchtower article states that "historians find it necessary to lean so heavily upon [Ptolemy's canon] in connection with their chronology for the Neo-Babylonian period." This is false, because all the other evidence completely establishes the chronology without recourse to Ptolemy's canon. The fact that the canon agrees with everything else means that it is reasonably accurate after all. Up until the late 19th century Ptolemy's canon was the most relied upon source, but not anymore. The Society's statements are out of date.
The article quotes Bible scholar E. R. Thiele as if he had reservations about the accuracy of Ptolemy's canon. Here is what Thiele actually said concerning this:
What makes the canon of such great importance to modern historians is the large amount of astronomical material recorded by Ptolemy in his Almagest, making possible checks as to its accuracy at almost every step from beginning to end. Over eighty solar, lunar, and planetary positions, with their dates, are recorded in the Almagest which have been verified by modern astronomers. The details concerning eclipses are given with such minuteness as to leave no question concerning the exact identification of the particular phenomenon referred to, and making possible the most positive verification. [The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, p. 46].
Concerning the above Watchtower article, E. R. Thiele, the writer of the book referred to (The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings), said of the Society's use of the quotation of him:
.... it is misleading and unscrupulous. It is misleading in that it would give an entirely different impression concerning this important canon of Ptolemy than I hold. It is unscrupulous, because a procedure of this type is not honest.
If the writer of this article had been honest -- or informed -- he would have known that I use Ptolemy's Canon in an entirely different way than he would have it used.
I have the utmost respect for the Canon, and find myself almost standing in awe of its detailed historical accuracy. The man who wrote it must have had at his finger tips an amazing amount of detail concerning early near Eastern history, and an astonishing amount of astronomical information fitting in at point after point with specific years of the kings. It is accurate and reliable all along the line. Astronomy is one thing upon which we can depend with complete confidence. And when the eclipses of the Canon are so fully in harmony with the years of the kings, we can be certain that the chronology involved is sound. The Canon is right and Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong.
What would I say about the article in general? I would say that such a writer and reader has no business writing about such a subject. He does not know the facts, or if he does, he does not use them in an honest manner. It reminds me of the way an unscrupulous lawyer would deal with facts in order to support a case he knows not to be sound.
Let us be charitable with the man and say that in his reading he does not read as an informed scholar should. In other words, let us accuse him rather of ignorance than dishonesty.
The Society in various places claims that Ptolemy may have invented his king list. The conclusive argument against this theory is, however, the fact that the so-called "Ptolemy's canon" is a misnomer. This is a fact very little known outside the circle of a few experts. As professor of ancient history Otto Neugebauer has pointed out, the king list was compiled from Babylonian sources by Alexandrian astronomers long before Ptolemy, to be used in their astronomical calculations. Ptolemy was simply one in a long line of keepers of astronomical records, and he used the previously compiled king list in conjunction with his astronomical calculations. Attempts to prove that his astronomical data are erroneous, therefore, have no bearing on the king list, since it existed long before Ptolemy. It is an accident of history that the king list was preserved, but since it was preserved in Ptolemy's own writings, it came to bear his name. Many other king lists, none as complete as Ptolemy's, have been found from more ancient times which bear this out.
Royal Inscriptions
Royal inscriptions of various kinds -- building inscriptions, annals, etc. -- have been found in Assyria and Babylonia in great numbers. We will consider three original documents from the reign of Nabonidus.
1. Nabon. No. 18 is a cylinder inscription from an unnamed year of Nabonidus. Fulfilling the desire of Sin, the moon god, Nabonidus dedicated a daughter of his to this god as priestess at the Sin temple of Ur. An eclipse of the moon, dated in the text to Elul 13 and observed in the morning watch, led to this dedication. When, during Nabonidus's reign, did such an eclipse take place?
In 1949 scholar Hildegard Lewy examined the eclipse and concluded that it referred to the eclipse of September 26, 554 B.C (Julian calendar). If Nabonidus ruled for seventeen years and his first year was 555/4 B.C., as is shown by Berossus and Ptolemy, the eclipse and the dedication of Nabonidus's daughter took place in his second regnal year (554/3 B.C.), according to Lewy's calculation. A remarkable confirmation of this dating was brought to light twenty years later, when another scholar, W. G. Lambert, published his translation of four fragments of an inscription from Nabonidus's reign. The inscription established that the dedication of Nabonidus's daughter took place shortly before his third year, and obviously in his second, precisely as Lewy had concluded. The lunar eclipse of Elul 13, then, definitely fixed the second year of Nabonidus to 554/3 B.C. and his first year to 555/4, thus giving a very strong confirmation of Berossus's and Ptolemy's figures for Nabonidus's reign.
2. Nabon. No. 8, or the Hillah stele, was discovered in the neighborhood of Hillah, southeast of the ruins of Babylon, at the end of the 19th century. A transcription of the text was first published in 1896 and a second in 1912. The information given in this stele helps to establish the length of the whole Neo-Babylonian era from Nabopolassar to the reign of Nabonidus. This inscription, too, contains a record of astronomical observations which enables us to fix the reign of Nabonidus. The stele tells of occurrences in Nabonidus's accession year and his first full year, and contains a description of a configuration of planets and stars observed by Nabonidus in an unnamed evening during this period. It is stated that Venus, Saturn, and Jupiter were visible after dusk while Mars and Mercury were absent. Certain bright stars were also mentioned. If, as has been established, Nabonidus ascended the throne in 556 B.C. and his first full year was 555/4 B.C. (Nisan-Nisan), we should find this configuration of stars and planets during that period. The above mentioned Hildegard Lewy calculated the date for this configuration and concluded: "The only time within the given interval when this constellation occurred was the period of 3 days comprised between Simanu 2 and Simanu 6 of Nabu-na'id's first full year (May 31 to June 4, 555 B.C.), during which period, in fact, also the fixed stars enumerated by the king were visible in the evening sky." So again, we find Nabonidus's reign astronomically fixed and his seventeen years of rule confirmed.
In several of his royal inscriptions (Stelenfrgm. III,1 and XI, Nabon. H1,B and Zyl. III,2) Nabonidus says that in a dream in his accession year he was commanded by the gods Marduk and Sin to rebuild the temple e.hul.hul in Harran. In connection with this the text under discussion (Nabon. No. 8) provides a very interesting piece of information: "As to the temple e.hul.hul in Harran which was in ruins for 54 years -- through a devastation by the Manda-hordes the(se) sanctuaries were laid waste -- the time (predestined) by the gods, the moment for the appeasement (to wit) 54 years, had come near, when Sin should have returned to his place." The date when the temple e.hul.hul in Harran was ruined by the "Manda-hordes" is known to us from two different reliable sources: The Babylonian chronicle BM 21901 and the Harran inscription Nabon. H1,B (this is described below). The chronicle states that in the 16th year of Nabopolassar, in the month of Marcheswan, "the Umman-manda (the Medes), [who] had come [to help] the king of Akkad, put their armies together and marched to Harran.... The king of Akkad reached Harran and [...] he captured the city. He carried off the vast booty of the city and the temple." The Nabonidus stele H1,B gives the same information: "Whereas in the 16th year of Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, Sin, king of the gods, with his city and his temple was angry and went up to heaven -- the city and the people that (were) in it went to ruin."
Thus Nabonidus reckons the 54 years to be from the 16th year of Nabopolassar to the beginning of his own reign when the gods commanded him to rebuild the ruined temple. This is in excellent agreement with the figures for the Neo-Babylonian reigns given by Berossus and Ptolemy. As Nabopolassar reigned for 21 years, 5 years remained from his 16th year to the end of his reign. After that Nebuchadnezzar ruled for 43, Evil-Merodach for 2, and Neriglissar for 4 years before Nabonidus came to power (Labashi-Marduk's few months may be neglected). Adding up these regnal years (5+43+2+4) we get 54 years -- exactly as Nabonidus states on his stele. If, as has already been established, Nabonidus's first year was 555/4 B.C., Nabopolassar's sixteenth year must have been 610/609, his first year 625/4 and his 21st year 605/4 B.C. Nebuchadnezzar's first year, then, was 604/3, and his 18th, when he destroyed Jerusalem, was 587/6 B.C. These dates agree completely with the dates arrived at from Ptolemy's king list and Berossus's figures.
Consequently, this stele alone establishes the length of the whole Neo-Babylonian era. It fixes the reign of Nabonidus astronomically, and it gives the total length of the reigns of all the Neo-Babylonian kings prior to Nabonidus. The strength of this evidence from the Neo-Babylonian era itself can hardly be overestimated.
3. Nabon. H1,B, or the Adda-Guppi stele, after the name of queen to which it was dedicated, was discovered in 1956. It is virtually complete and includes a biographical sketch of Nabonidus's mother Adda-Guppi. It recorded the number of years in the reigns of two Assyrian kings, Ashurbanipal and Ashur-etillu-ili, as well as those of the Neo-Babylonian kings Nabopolassar through Neriglissar. The record ends in the 9th year of Nabonidus's reign. Note these excerpts:
From the 20th year of Assurbanipal, King of Assyria, that I was born (in) until the 42nd year of Assurbanipal, the 3rd year of Assur-etillu-ili, his son, the 21st year of Nabopolassar, the 43rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, the 2nd year of Awel-Marduk, the 4th year of Neriglissar, in 95 years of the god Sin, king of the gods of heaven and earth....
Further on in the text a complete summary of her life is given:
From the time of Assurbanipal, king of Assyria, until the 9th year of Nabu-na'id king of Babylon, the son, offspring of my womb, 104 years of happiness, with the reverence which Sin, king of the gods, placed in me, he made me flourish, my own self....
So the reign of every Neo-Babylonian king, except Labashi-Marduk, who ruled only three months, down into the reign of Nabonidus, during which the queen died, is given in this stele, and the figures exactly match Ptolemy's canon and all the other sources of evidence.
Interestingly, the queen actually lived only about 101 or 102 years, because the scribe who recorded this stele apparently did not realize there was an overlap of two years between the last Assyrian king, Assur-etillu-ilani, and the first Neo-Babylonian king, Nabopolassar. The scribe simply summed up the years given for the kings and missed the overlap.
So the stele assigned lengths of reign for the following Neo-Babylonian kings: 21 for Nabopolassar, 43 for Nebuchadnezzar, 2 for Awel-Marduk and 4 for Neriglissar. These correspond exactly to every piece of evidence we have discussed.
Business and Administrative Documents
Hundreds of thousands of cuneiform texts have been excavated in Mesopotamia since the middle of the 19th century. The overwhelming majority of them are economic and administrative items such as contract tablets, official letters from the temple archives, and legal records. These texts are to a great extent dated just as are commercial letters today, giving the year of the reigning king, the month, and the day of the month. A text concerning ceremonial salt from the archives of the temple Eanna in Erech, dated in the first regnal year of Evil-merodach, is given here as an example:
One and one-half talents of salt, the fixed offering of the month Sivan of the god Usur-amatsu, Ina-sillis brought. The sixth day of the month Sivan, the first year of Amel-Marduk, the king of Babylon.
Thousands of such dated cuneiform texts have been unearthed from the Neo-Babylonian period. During the 1920s alone, more than five hundred tablets dated in the reign of Nabonidus were published, according to the work Nabonidus and Belshazzar, by Raymond P. Dougherty, 1929. Thus there exist many such dated tablets from every year during the whole Neo-Babylonian era. Because of this abundance of dated texts modern scholars are able to determine not only the length of the reign of each king, but also the time of the year when each change of reign occurred, sometimes almost to the day. This has been demonstrated by R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein in their work Babylonian Chronology: 626 B.C. -- A.D. 75, 1956.
The last text from the reign of Nabonidus, for example, is dated VII/17/17 (October 13, 539, Julian calendar) although the Nabonidus Chronicle states that Babylon fell VII/16/17, or one day earlier. The last tablet dated to Nabonidus comes from Uruk, about which Parker and Dubberstein give the following comment: "Interestingly enough, the last tablet dated to Nabunaid from Uruk is dated the day after Babylon fell to Cyrus. News of its capture had not yet reached the southern city some 125 miles distant."
Another interesting business document mentions both the 43rd year of Nebuchadnezzar and the accession year of his son, Evil-merodach. A slave girl was placed at the disposal of one Nabu-ahhe-iddina "in the month of Ajaru, forty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon." Some months later, "in the month of Kislimu, accession year of (Amel)-Marduk," full payment was given for the girl. This text, then, fixes the length of Nebuchadnezzar's reign and shows that he was succeeded by Evil-merodach.
Nebuchadnezzar's length of reign and his succession by Evil-merodach are confirmed by the Bible. In 2 Kings 24:8, 12, 15 the 1st year of Jehoiachin is said to be the 8th year of Nebuchadnezzar, when Jehoiachin was exiled to Babylon. 2 Kings 25:27 says that in Jehoiachin's 37th year he was let "out of the house of detention" by the king of Babylon, Evil-merodach. Jer. 52:31 equates the 37th year of Jehoiachin's exile with the accession year of Evil-Merodach. Therefore, Nebuchadnezzar could have reigned for at most 44 years, and, counting from his accession year this means his 43rd year was his last. This is a remarkable example of how well the Bible and secular history agree on Neo-Babylonian chronology.
Other business documents show that Nebuchadnezzar's rule ended at the end of the month Ululu of his 43rd year, which dates his death to the first days of October, 562 B.C. The latest text from Evil-merodach's reign is dated V/17/2 (Aug. 7, 560), and the earliest text from the reign of Neriglissar is dated V/21/acc. (Aug. 11, 560). Evil-merodach's death, then, may be fixed between August 7 and August 11, 560.
The following table is reproduced from Parker and Dubberstein, pp. 10-14. It shows the exact dates of the earliest and latest tablets found from each king's reign:
Reigning First available Last available
Years tablets dated to tablets dated to
accession year last regnal year
B.C. B.C.
Nabopolassar 21 May 17, 626 Aug. 15, 605
Nebuchadnezzar 43 Sep. 7, 605 Oct. 8, 562
Amel Marduk 2 Oct. 8, 562 Aug. 7, 560
Nergal-shar-usur 4 Aug. 11, 560 Apr. 16, 556
Labashi-Marduk 2 mos. May 3, 556 June 20, 556
Nabunaid 17 May 25, 556 Oct. 13, 539
Cyrus 9 Oct. 26, 539 Aug. 12, 530
Cambyses 8 Aug. 31, 530 Apr. 18, 522
Parker and Dubberstein note that "Labashi-Marduk seems to have been recognized as king only in May and June, 556, and even then possibly not throughout Babylonia." "Nabunaid must have been a contender for the throne almost from the death of Nergal-shar-usur. By the end of June, 556, he was sole ruler of Babylonia." This accounts for the presence of two or three tablets dated to Nabunaid during the few months Labashi-Marduk reigned.
What does the Watchtower Society think of all these business documents? Even though documents have been found that refer to every one of the Neo-Babylonian kings' years from 626 B.C. to 539 B.C., and none have been found that conflict with the accepted chronology for this period, Let Your Kingdom Come discounts all of them. If the Society's interpretations are correct, there must be a period of 20 years missing from the Neo-Babylonian period, between the end of Nebuchadnezzar's reign and the beginning of Nabonidus's reign.
The following discussion calculates the odds that the thousands of documents could have missed referring to this 20 year period. The 20 year figure is derived from the difference between 587 and 607 B.C. for the date of Jerusalem's destruction.
According to historians the Neo-Babylonian period covers 88 years from 626 to 539 B.C. inclusive, and some 4950 documents were published prior to 1983 referring to that period. About 50,000 such documents have been found altogether. The Society says the period should actually be 108 years beginning about 646 B.C. If that is true then 20 years are missing from mention in the collection of documents.
The Society says that 582 B.C. was the last year of Nebuchadnezzar (Insight, Vol 2. p. 480), Amel-Marduk (Evil-merodach) reigned for two years beginning in 581 B.C., Neriglissar reigned for the next four, and Labashi-Marduk reigned for 9 months (The Watchtower, January 1, 1965, p. 29). The end of Labashi-Marduk's rule must, therefore, have been about 575 B.C. according to Watchtower chronology. See also Babylon the Great Has Fallen! God's Kingdom Rules!, pp. 182-5. The Society says that Nabonidus began reigning in 556 B.C. (All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial, 1990, p. 139; Insight, Vol. 2, p. 457; The Watchtower, Aug. 15, 1968, p. 491).1 Therefore, according to the Society's own figures, there are about 20 years in the period between these reigns that have no business documents referring to them. Interestingly, in no single publication does the Society put all these dates together and propose a specific Neo-Babylonian chronology.
The probability that these years could have been skipped can be estimated by making the assumption that the 4950 documents conform to a uniform probability distribution, i.e., the 4950 documents should be randomly distributed among the 108 years. Alternatively, any year should be as likely as any other to have some document referring to it.
Under these conditions, and using standard mathematical notation, the problem may be restated thus: We place at random n points in an interval (0, T) corresponding to the 108 years. What is the probability that none of the n points fall outside the 88 year period that has been accounted for? Restating this in a different way, we can ask what is the probability that all the n points fall inside some sub-interval (t1,t2), corresponding to the 88 years?
The placing of a single point in the interval (0, T) has a probability
p = (t2 - t1) / T
The probability of placing all n points within the interval is
pn
Using the actual numbers the total probability turns out to be
P = (88 / 108)4950 = 5.5 x 10 - 441
which is an extremely small number. By this estimate, the odds of skipping a 20 year period are therefore about one in (2 x 10440). For comparison it is estimated that there are about 1080 elementary particles in the known universe.
This is actually a conservative calculation, because the assumption of uniform probability distribution is not actually correct. The bulk of the 4950 published documents actually refer to dates toward the end of the Neo-Babylonian period, so the actual probability is smaller. Further, a substantial number of tablets have been translated but not published. They are all consistent with the accepted chronology, and if they were included in the calculation the probability would be far smaller.
By the Society's own admission these figures mean it is impossible to have happened. The book Life -- How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation refers on page 44, in a similar argument, to the improbability of evolution:
What is the chance of even a simple protein molecule forming at random in an organic soup? Evolutionists acknowledge it to be only one in 10113 (1 followed by 113 zeros). But any event that has one chance in just 1050 is dismissed by mathematicians as never happening.
The above calculation shows how unreasonable it is to argue that the business documents may have missed some Babylonian rulers' years by sheer chance. The only alternative is to propose some sort of extensive conspiracy that eliminated all records of the 20 year period, but this is hardly possible since many of the documents were buried shortly after being written. The only reason they survived is that they were buried.
This conspiracy theory is totally falsified by a set of business documents from a prominent Babylonian banking family, that spans the entire Neo-Babylonian period and then some. Many business documents come from the archives of such "banking houses" in Babylonia. Two of the best known banking houses from the Neo-Babylonian era were owned by the families Nur-Sin and Egibi. "The Family of Egibi," centered in Babylon, appears in documents as early as the end of the 8th century B.C. It prospered from the time of Nebuchadnezzar up to Darius I, controlling the finances of that time. Of this banking house Bible archeologist Bruno Meissner said: "From the firm the Sons of Egibi we possess such an abundance of documents that we are able to follow nearly all business transactions and personal experiences of its head from the time of Nebuchadnezzar up to the time of Darius I." The discovery of the archive of dated transactions of this firm, covering a period of more than a hundred years, has proved to be of great help in establishing the chronology of this period.
The business documents from the Egibi-house were discovered by Arabs in 1875-76 in a mound near Hillah, a town near the ruins of Babylon. Some three to four thousand tablets were discovered enclosed in earthen jars resembling common water jars, covered over with a tile and cemented with bitumen. The discoverers sold them to a dealer in Baghdad, shortly after which the British Museum acquired about 2500 of these important documents.
The tablets were examined during the following months by W. St. Chad Boscawen, and his report appeared in the Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, Vol. VI, January 1878, pages 1-78. The information which follows immediately below is taken from that report.
Boscawen states that the tablets "relate to the various monetary transactions of a Babylonian banking and financial agency, trading under the name of Egibi and Sons." The tablets "relate to every possible commercial transaction; from the loan of a few shekels of silver to the sale or mortgage of whole estates whose value is thousands of manas of silver."
After a short examination Boscawen realized the importance of following the sequence of the heads of the Egibi firm, and soon ascertained the main lines of the succession to be as follows: From the 3rd year of Nebuchadnezzar a person named Sula was the head of the Egibi firm. He continued for 20 years up to the 23rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, when he died and was succeeded by his son, Nabu-ahi-idina. Nabu-ahi-idina ran the firm for 38 years, until the 12th year of Nabonidus, when he was succeeded by his son Itti-Marduk-Balatu. Itti-Marduk-Balatu in his turn remained head of the firm for 23 years, until the 1st year of Darius Hystaspis (521 B.C.; see Insight, Vol. 1, subject "Darius," p. 583).
Adding up these periods from the 3rd year of Nebuchadnezzar to the 1st year of Darius Hystaspis, we find: 20+38+23=81 years. This gives 83 years from Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year to Darius Hystaspis's 1st year. This agrees exactly with Berossus, Ptolemy, the Neo-Babylonian historical records, and the other business documents. Counting back 83 years from 521 brings us to 604 B.C. as the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar, which agrees exactly with all the other lines of evidence presented in this essay.
The Society would have us believe that somehow, conspirators wanting to insert 20 years into the chronology for some mysterious purpose, dug up all these buried archives, made new clay tablets with the data changed by 20 years, and then resealed and reburied all the storage jars -- and this with no errors among tens of thousands of documents! If anyone can swallow this line of reasoning, let him contact the author of this essay -- he has a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
The archive of the Egibi-house alone suffices to establish the length of the Neo-Babylonian period. The archives, containing tablets dated up to the 43rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, the 2nd year of Evil-merodach, the 4th year of Neriglissar and the 17th year of Nabonidus, give a complete confirmation of the chronology as stated by Berossus and Ptolemy. Since the 19th century still other collections of tablets belonging to the Egibi family have been discovered. Yet the Egibi tablets are only a small part of the thousands of business and administrative documents discovered from the Neo-Babylonian era.
The importance of the business and administrative texts for the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period can hardly be overestimated. Without recourse to any other type of evidence they fully establish the chronology, often to within a few days. The fact that they completely agree with and confirm all the other lines of evidence is proof that the accepted chronology is correct, and the Watchtower Society's chronology is wrong.
Astronomical Diaries
Astronomical observations are fundamental to establishing an absolute chronology of ancient time periods. Certain documents called "astronomical diaries" are used to establish Neo-Babylonian chronology. For purposes of this discussion, the "astronomical diaries" are a group of documents recording astronomical observations by astronomers at Babylon, and have been so termed by an authority on astronomical diaries, Professor Abraham J. Sachs. A "diary" usually covers the six or seven months of the first or second half of a particular Babylonian year and gives the position of the moon at its first and last visibility on a specific day, along with the positions of the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. It should be noted that the Babylonian priests kept these records mainly for astrological purposes, since much of their religion was based on astrology. They kept precise records of the heavens in order to practice astrology.
The diaries often add much additional information, such as meteorological events, earthquakes, market prices, etc. More than 1,200 fragments of astronomical diaries of various sizes have been discovered, but because of their fragmentary condition only about a third of the number are datable. Most of these texts had already been discovered in the 1870s and 1880s. Almost all are kept in the British Museum. This is where designations like "BM 32312" come from. Most cover the period from about 385 to 60 B.C. and contain astronomical observations from about 180 of these 325 years, thus firmly establishing the chronology of this period. Half a dozen of the diaries are dated in the 5th, 6th, and 7th centuries B.C.
VAT 4956
The most important text for our discussion is designated VAT 4956, which is kept in the "Vorderasiatischen Abteilung" in the Berlin Museum. This diary is dated from Nisan 1 of Nebuchadnezzar's 37th regnal year to Nisan 1 of his 38th regnal year, recording observations of the moon and the planets from his entire 37th year. A translation and careful examination of the text was published by P. V. Neugebauer and E. F. Weidner in 1915.
Among the many observations recorded on VAT 4956, there are about thirty which are so exactly described that modern astronomers can easily fix the exact dates when they were made. By doing so they have been able to show that all these observations (of the moon and the five planets) must have been made during the year 568/7 B.C. Remember in the following discussion that astronomical calculations include a zero year between 1 B.C. and 1 A.D., so that this date would be written as -567/6. The diary itself clearly states that the observations were made during Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, opening with the words: "37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon. On Nisan 1 the moon became visible behind the Hyades; visibility lasted for 64m...." It ends with Nisan 1 of the "38th year of Nebuchadnezzar," according to Neugebauer and Weidner.
If Nebuchadnezzar's 37th regnal year was 568/7 B.C., then his first year must have been 604/3 B.C, and his eighteenth, during which he destroyed Jerusalem, 587/6 B.C. This is the same date indicated by Berossus, Ptolemy, royal inscriptions and the business documents.
Could all these observations also have been made twenty years earlier, in the year 588/7 B.C., which according to the chronology presented in the Aid and Insight books corresponds to Nebuchadnezzar's 37th regnal year? The March 15, 1969 Watchtower, page 186; Aid, page 331; and Insight, pages 455-6, say: "Modern chronologers point out that such a combination of astronomical positions would not be duplicated again in thousands of years." Let's consider one example. According to this diary, on Nisan 1 and Airu 1 of Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, the planet Saturn could be observed "opposite the Southern Fish [south of the constellation Aquarius] of the Zodiac. Since Saturn revolves around the sun every 29.5 years, it moves through the whole Zodiac in 29.5 years. This means that it can be observed opposite each of the twelve constellations of the Zodiac for about 2.5 years on average. It means also that it could be observed in opposition to the Southern Fish 29.5 years prior to 568/7 B.C., or in 597/6, but certainly not 20 years earlier, in 588/7. Add to this the different periods of revolution of the other four planets mentioned in the text, along with the positions given for the moon, and it is easily understood why such a combination of observations could not be made again in thousands of years. The observations recorded in VAT 4956 must have been made in 568/7 B.C. because they fit no other situation which occurred thousands of years before or after. Thus VAT 4956 gives very strong support to the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian era as established by historians through all the other means we are discussing.
The astronomical evidence is so strong that the Society has to grasp at straws to discredit it. First, Insight, Vol. 1, page 456, says:
The observations made in Babylon may have contained errors. The Babylonian astronomers showed greatest concern for celestial events or phenomena occurring close to the horizon, at the rising or setting of the moon or of the sun. However, the horizon as viewed from Babylon is frequently obscured by sandstorms.
Then Professor O. Neugebauer is quoted as saying that Ptolemy complained about "the lack of reliable planetary observations [from ancient Babylon]."
Although the description of the weather conditions at Babylon is undoubtedly correct, this does not mean that unreliable planetary observations were commonly made. The horizon as viewed from Babylon was not obscured by sandstorms every day, and some planetary events could be observed many days in succession, such as the position of Saturn which, according to VAT 4956 could be observed "opposite the Southern Fish of the Zodiac." As pointed out above, Saturn can be observed opposite each of the twelve constellations of the Zodiac for about 2.5 years on the average. Saturn's positions in the vicinity of the Southern Fish, then, could have been observed for several months in succession, which would have made it impossible for Babylonian astronomers to make any mistake as to where this planet was observed during the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, in spite of frequent sandstorms.
Further, Babylonian astronomers made regular and systematic observations of the moon and planets, following their movements through the Zodiac day by day. By the Neo-Babylonian period they had devised computational methods for predicting certain celestial events; some "observations" recorded in the diaries are actually not observations, but celestial events calculated in advance. These calculations are usually found to be correct when checked by modern astronomers. For example, VAT 4956 records an eclipse of the moon which occurred on the 15th day of the month Sivan. Astronomers had calculated this eclipse with the help of the known 18-year eclipse period and therefore it is designated in the text as atalu Sin which means "calculated lunar eclipse." Then were probably added the words (the text is somewhat damaged): sa etelik (LU), "which did not take place," i.e., it was invisible in Babylon. This has been confirmed by modern computations. The eclipse took place on July 4, 568 B.C (Julian calendar), but as it began in the afternoon it was not visible at Babylon.
This including of "observations" that were really calculations, and noting them as such, and especially indicating when the predicted event did not occur, argues strongly against a modification by scribes several hundred years later in order to fit some sort of altered version of history. If the purpose of the scribe was to alter a historical account, and if the events were not observed, logically he would have left them out. A pure copyist, on the other hand, would simply copy everything, errors and all. This would include translating them to other languages or updating them to current usage as the original language changed through the centuries.
That the observations recorded in VAT 4956 are substantially correct may be seen also from the fact that all of them (except one or two containing scribal errors) fit the same year. This would not have been the case if the observations were erroneous. Furthermore, Professor Neugebauer, who is quoted in Insight, does not himself seem to distrust the information given in the diaries, even though a reader of Insight could get that impression from the quotation of him.
Second, Insight says:
The fact is that the great majority of the astronomical diaries found were written, not in the time of the Neo-Babylonian or Persian empires, but in the Seleucid period (312-65 B.C.E.), although they contain data relating to those earlier periods. Historians assume that they are copies of earlier documents.
But historians do far more than just "assume" they are copies of earlier documents. The earliest dated diaries frequently reflect the struggle of the copyists to understand the ancient documents they were copying, some of which were broken or otherwise damaged. Often the documents used an archaic terminology which the copyists tried to modernize. This is clearly true of VAT 4956, too. Twice in the text the copyist added the comment "broken off, erased," indicating he was unable to decipher a word in the text he was copying. Also, the text reflects his attempt to change the archaic terminology. But did he change the content of the text, too? On this Neugebauer and Weidner conclude: "As far as the contents are concerned the copy is of course a faithful reproduction of the original."
Suppose some of the material in the thirty complete observations recorded in VAT 4956 had been distorted by later copyists. How great is the possibility that all these "distorted" observations would fit into one and the same year, that is, Nebuchadnezzar's 37th regnal year? Remember that this year is corroborated by the royal inscriptions, the business documents, the chronicles, Berossus, and Ptolemy. Accidental errors of this kind do not cooperate to such a great extent. So there is no reason to doubt that the original observations have been correctly preserved in our copy. Vaguely saying "errors may have occurred," without presenting specific supporting evidence, is mere special pleading.
Third, Insight says:
Finally, as in the case of Ptolemy, even though the astronomical information (as now interpreted and understood) on the texts discovered is basically accurate, this does not prove that the historical information accompanying it is accurate. Even as Ptolemy used the reigns of ancient kings (as he understood them) simply as a framework in which to place his astronomical data, so too, the writers (or copyists) of the astronomical texts of the Seleucid period may have simply inserted in their astronomical texts what was then the accepted, or "popular," chronology of that time. That accepted, or popular, chronology may well have contained errors at the critical points dealt with earlier in this article.
As alluded to above, what Insight is saying is that the later copyists may have falsified the documents they were copying, in order to adapt them to their own concepts of the ancient Babylonian and Persian chronology. Similarly, the writer of the May 8, 1972 Awake! article "When Did Babylon Desolate Jerusalem?" (p. 28) imagines that the copyists may have "inserted the 'thirty-seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar'" in the diary VAT 4956. Insight makes a similar accusation. Is this a plausible theory?
As pointed out above, VAT 4956 is dated from Nisan 1 of Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year to Nisan 1 of his 38th year. Further, almost all events mentioned in the text are dated, with the month, day and time of day given. About forty dates of this kind are given in the text, though the year, of course, is not repeated at all these places. All known diaries are dated in the same way. In order to change the years in the text, the copyists would also have been forced to change the name of the reigning king, because if Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year fell in 588/7 B.C., as the Society claims, he must have been dead for many years by 568/7 when the observations of VAT 4956 were made. Is it really likely the Seleucid copyists devoted themselves to such large-scale forgery?
Now let us consider what is known about the "popular" chronology of their time, which is proposed as the database for this deliberate fraud. Does it in fact differ from what contemporary Babylonian documents indicate?
Berossus's chronology for the Neo-Babylonian era was published during the Seleucid period and evidently represents the contemporary, "popular" concept of Neo-Babylonian chronology. Berossus's figures for the reigns of Neo-Babylonian kings place Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year in 568/7 B.C., as does VAT 4956. More importantly, Berossus's Neo-Babylonian chronology, as has been shown above, is in complete agreement with the chronology given by the many documents contemporary with the Neo-Babylonian era itself such as chronicles, royal inscriptions, business documents, and with contemporary Egyptian (see below) documents. The "popular" Neo-Babylonian chronology of the Seleucid era, then, was a true and correct chronology, and there was no need for copyists to alter the ancient documents in order to adapt them to it. The theory that they falsified these documents, therefore, is groundless.
As pointed out above on page 6, and in Appendix B, the Society uses the astronomical diary Strm.Kambys.400 to help fix 539 B.C. for Babylon's fall. The discussion in the Insight book does not make it clear that this is what it is using. On the very next pages Insight begins rejecting all kinds of astronomical evidence because of their support for the date 587 B.C. for the destruction of Jerusalem.
If the Society's criticism of the astronomical diaries were valid, it would also apply to Strm.Kambys.400. Like the astronomical diary VAT 4956, this is a copy of an earlier original. In fact, it may hardly even be termed a copy. The eminent expert on astronomical texts, F. X. Kugler, pointed out as early as 1903 that this tablet is only partly a copy. The copyist was evidently working from a defective text, and therefore tried to fill in the gaps in the text by his own calculations. Thus only a portion of Strm.Kambys.400 contains true observations. The rest are additions by a rather unskilled copyist from a much later period. Kugler commented that "not one of the astronomical texts I know of offers so many contradictions and unsolved riddles as Strm.Kambys.400." Nevertheless, it supports the 539 B.C. date and so the Society uses it. This is entirely proper, because it is supported by many other lines of evidence.
In contrast, VAT 4956 is one of the best preserved diaries, and establishes the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar in 568/7 B.C. Although it is also a later copy, experts agree it is a faithful reproduction of the original. As pointed out elsewhere in this essay, one may work forward from the first year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign, counting through the various kings of Babylon, to get to 539 B.C. His reign is fixed by several other astronomically confirmed dates. But the Society rejects astronomical diaries in general and VAT 4956 in particular; on the other hand it is forced to accept the most problematic one -- Strm.Kambys.400. Surely it would be difficult to find a more striking example of dishonest scholarship.
Shamashshumukin's Reign
There exists relatively new material establishing firmly that Nabopolassar's 1st year was 625/4 B.C. This material matches up the reigns of Babylonian kings from before the Neo-Babylonian era with the first king of that era, Nabopolassar. Note that astronomical dates from B.C. are given as negative numbers, and that a zero year is put between 1 B.C. and 1 A.D., so that 652 B.C. is written -651.
In an article published in 1974, the aforementioned Professor Abraham J. Sachs, considered to be the foremost authority on the astronomical diaries, gives a brief presentation of them. Mentioning that the oldest datable diary contains observations from the year 652 B.C., he explains how he was able to fix its date:
I found the astronomical contents to be just barely adequate to make this date virtually certain. It was a great relief when I was able to confirm the date by matching up a historical remark in the diary with the corresponding statement for -651 in a well-dated historical chronicle.
In a letter, Professor Sachs was asked the following questions:
What information in the diary makes the date -651 virtually certain?
What kind of historical remark in the diary corresponds with what statement in which well-dated chronicle?
In his answer Professor Sachs included information about the diary in question, BM 32312, and added information which fully answered the questions. The astronomical contents of the diary clearly establish the year as 652/1 B.C. when the observations were made. Sachs wrote:
The preserved astronomical events (Mercury's last visibility in the east behind Pisces, Saturn's last visibility behind Pisces, both around the 14th of month I; Mars' stationary point in Scorpio on the 17th of month I; Mercury's first visibility in Pisces on the 6th of month XII) uniquely determine the date.
Interestingly, it cannot be claimed that later copyists inserted the name and regnal dates of the king mentioned, because they are broken away. Yet these data may be supplied because of a historical remark in the diary. For month 12, day 27, the diary states that the king of Babylon was involved in a battle at a place called Hirit. Fortunately, this battle is also mentioned in a well-known Babylonian chronicle.
The chronicle is the so-called "Akitu Chronicle," BM 86379, which covers a part of Shamashshumukin's reign, especially his last five years (the 16th to 20th). Shamashshumukin was the 2nd to last king in Babylon before the Neo-Babylonian kings began to rule. The battle at Hirit is dated in his sixteenth year as follows:
The sixteenth year of Shamash-shuma-ukin ... On the twenty-seventh day of Adar [the 27th day of the 12th month!] the armies of Assyria and Akkad did battle in Hirit. The army of Akkad retreated from the battlefield and a major defeat was inflicted upon them.
Incidentally, this chronicle shows that the Babylonian priests who recorded the information did not shrink from reporting major defeats in battle, in contrast with the Assyrians.
The astronomical events described in the diary fix the battle at Hirit on Adar 27 to 651 B.C., about the middle of March. The "Akitu Chronicle" shows that the battle at this place on this day (Adar 27) was fought in the 16th year of Shamashshumukin. Thus Shamashshumukin's 16th year was 652/1 B.C. His entire reign of 20 years, then, may be dated to 667 - 648 B.C. This is how historians had dated Shamashshumukin's reign for a long time (see Insight, Vol. 1, p. 453), and that is why Professor Sachs concluded his letter by saying:
I should perhaps add that the absolute chronology of the regnal years of Shamash-shuma-ukin was never in doubt, and that it is only confirmed again by the astronomical diary.
Shamashshumukin's reign has been known, for example, through Ptolemy's canon which gives him 20 years and his successor Kandalanu 22 years. Thereafter Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar's father, succeeded to the throne. These figures agree completely with ancient cuneiform sources. Business documents, as well as the "Akitu Chronicle" and the "Uruk King list," all show that Shamashshumukin ruled for 20 years, and that from the first year of Kandalanu to the first year of Nabopolassar was a period of 22 years.
The diary BM 32312, then, again corroborates the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian era:
BABYLONIAN KINGS LENGTH OF REIGN B.C. DATES Shamashshumukin 20 years 667 - 648 Kandalanu 22 years 647 - 626 Nabopolassar 21 years 625 - 605 Nebuchadnezzar 43 years 604 - 562 Evil-merodach 2 years 561 - 560 Neriglissar 4 years 559 - 556 Labashi-Marduk 3 months 556 Nabonidus 17 years 555 - 539
The diary confirms Ptolemy's king list, as well as much other data. A change of Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year from 587 to 607 B.C. would also change Shamashshumukin's 16th year from 652 to 672 B.C. But the diary BM 32312 makes such a change impossible. And, as already pointed out, no one can claim that later copyists inserted "the 16th year of Shamashshumukin" in this diary, because the text is damaged at this point and that datum is broken away. The unique historical information in the text, repeated in the "Akitu Chronicle," fixes the diary to Shamashshumukin's 16th year. This diary, therefore, may be regarded as an independent witness, which upholds the authenticity of the dates given in VAT 4956 and other diaries.
A discussion in Insight, Vol. 1, page 453, admits that historians have long dated the reigns of the pre-Neo-Babylonian kings consistently with the above discussion:
According to Assyriologist D. J. Wiseman, one portion of the so-called Babylonian Chronicle, covering the period from the rule of Nabu-nasir to Shamash-shum-u- kin (a period dated by secular historians as from 747-648 B.C.E.), is 'a copy made in the twenty-second year of Darius... from an older and damaged text.'
The discussion following this quotation attempts to imply that the mere possibility that some of the data might have been altered is enough to make all of it suspect. Insight fails to mention that the many contemporary business tablets mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph fully support the historical and astronomical texts. Since the various texts all support one another, evidence for or against one is evidence for or against all. The Society's scholastic dishonesty is painfully evident in this discussion, for nowhere does Insight mention these correspondences.
Lunar Eclipses
The astronomical evidence we have considered so far is fully supported by other astronomical observations, which are covered below. One such is a lunar eclipse in 621 B.C., said by Ptolemy's canon to have been in Nabopolassar's 5th year. Nabopolassar reigned 21 years, which makes 605 B.C. the year of his death and of Nebuchadnezzar's accession. It also makes 625/4 B.C. the 1st year of Nabopolassar, consistent with what was derived above in connection with Shamashshumukin. If Nebuchadnezzar's accession year was 605/4, then his 1st year was 604/3 and his 37th year was 568/7 B.C., which is what has been independently established by VAT 4956 and other sources. So we have three independently established and astronomically confirmed sets of data that prove Nebuchadnezzar's 18th year was 587/6 B.C. Therefore that was the year of Jerusalem's destruction.
One of the most important types of astronomical observations concerns the regular pattern of lunar eclipses that was discovered by Babylonian astronomers. These observations were recorded in the lunar eclipse records known as the saros texts. They are among the strongest of evidences against the Society's chronology. They contain reports of observations of consecutive lunar eclipses arranged in 18-year groups. It was known in late Babylonian times that the pattern of observable lunar phenomena is repeated at intervals of approximately 18 years and 11 days. This cycle later became known as the saros period. Some of the saros texts record lunar eclipses from as early as the 8th century B.C., while others are from the 7th, 6th, 5th and 4th centuries B.C. Fourteen texts of this type were briefly described by Dr. Abraham Sachs in his catalog of Late Babylonian Astronomical and Related Texts, LBART, Providence, Rhode Island, 1955, pp. xxxi-xxxii. Over 400 years, from Nabonassar's first regnal year (747 B.C.) to the 4th century B.C., are covered by such eclipse dates, giving numerous absolute dates for this period. Again, these often very detailed descriptions of lunar eclipses offer a perfectly satisfactory substitute for the eclipses described by Ptolemy in his Almagest. By themselves, they contain enough information to establish the absolute chronology of this period.
For the 8th century B.C., the saros texts record detailed descriptions of lunar eclipses from six different years (748/7, 747/6, 731/0, 713/2, 703/2, and 702/1 B.C.). For the 7th century, the texts contain descriptions of lunar eclipses, most of them detailed, from about 25 different years, and the number from the 6th century is about 15-20.
The texts recording lunar eclipses from the Neo-Babylonian era are LBART 1418, 1419, 1420 and 1421 in Sachs's catalog. Of these, the last three contain detailed descriptions of lunar eclipses. The observations are dated, with the names of the kings and the specific regnal years given, and provide the following absolute dates:
KING YEAR B.C. DATE
Nabopolassar 15th 611/0
17th 609/8
Nebuchadnezzar 1st 604/3
12th 593/2
13th 592/1
14th 591/0
15th 590/89
30th 575/4
31st 574/3
32nd 573/2
41st 564/3
42nd 563/2
Nabonidus 1st 555/4
LBART 1419 spans the whole period from the 17th year of Nabopolassar (609/8 B.C.) to the 18th year of Artaxerxes (447/6 B.C.). This text contains detailed reports of consecutive lunar eclipses at the 18-year intervals, without interruptions, from the beginning to the end of this period. These observations are dated with the regnal years and the names of the kings. This tablet alone provides a completely reliable network of absolute dates for this period, settles the total length of the Neo-Babylonian era, and establishes the absolute chronology of the period. The following absolute dates at 18-year intervals are given in this text:
KING YEAR B.C. DATE Nabopolassar 17th 609/8 Nebuchadnezzar 14th 591/0 Nebuchadnezzar 32nd 573/2 Nabonidus 1st 555/4 Cyrus 2nd 537/6 Darius 3rd 519/8 Darius 21st 501/0 Xerxes 3rd 483/2 Xerxes 21st 465/4 Artaxerxes 18th 447/6
These observations refer to lunar eclipses, the same type of observations as the ones recorded by Ptolemy in his Almagest. When we compare the handful of observations described by Ptolemy from these three centuries, with the great number of observations found on the cuneiform tablets from the same period, such as the diaries and the saros texts, it is obvious that the absolute chronology of this period is firmly established even without the help of the observations of Ptolemy.
The saros texts provide at least four independent lines of evidence for the length of the Neo-Babylonian period. All four of them give absolute dates from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, and confirm that his 18th year, when Jerusalem was destroyed, was 587/6, not 607 B.C.
It should now be evident why any claim that individual lunar eclipses could be confused with earlier ones is simply wrong, at least where the eclipse has enough supporting evidence to fit it in the saros cycles. Because the 18-year cycles are not exactly 18 years, but 18 years and 11 days, the eclipses are not repeated on the same day in the calendar. The pattern gradually moves forward at each 18-year interval, and cannot even be approximately repeated for about 600 years. Therefore it is impossible to confuse an earlier eclipse with a later one.
So there is a continuous list of kings, tied to astronomical observations, that synchronizes perfectly with the dates given by all the methods mentioned above. Note well that in the last table Cyrus's 2nd year is given as 537 B.C., in harmony with the Society's own figures.
Here is the complete list of Neo-Babylonian kings as given by a combination of secular and biblical history:
NEO-BABYLONIAN KINGS LENGTH OF REIGN B.C.E. DATES Nabopolassar 21 years 625 - 605 Nebuchadnezzar 43 years 604 - 562 Evil-merodach 2 years 561 - 560 Neriglissar 4 years 559 - 556 Labashi-Marduk 3 months 556 Nabonidus 17 years 555 - 539
As another example of the way lunar eclipses can establish ancient dates, let us again look at a lunar eclipse mentioned in Ptolemy's canon. This eclipse has been astronomically dated to 621 B.C., and Ptolemy associates Nabopolassar's 5th year with it. The entry in The Almagest reads: "Morn. 6,22; dig. 2 1/2; fifth of Nabopolassar." This establishes Nabopolassar's 1st year as 625/4 B.C.
According to Ptolemy and a number of other sources Nabopolassar reigned 21 years, so his last year was 605/4 B.C. This was also his son Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, and therefore Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year was 604/3 and his 37th year was 568/7 B.C., as was established from the astronomical diary VAT 4956.
A 19th century Bible chronologer described the various measurable quantities associated with eclipses:
Eclipses are justly reckoned among the surest and most unerring characters of Chronology: for they can be calculated with great exactness backwards as well as forwards; and there is such a variety of distinct circumstances of the time when, and the place where they were seen; of the duration, or beginning, middle, or end of every eclipse, and of the quantity, or number of digits eclipsed; that there is no danger of confounding any two eclipses together, when the circumstances attending each are noticed with any tolerable degree of precision. [A New Analysis of Chronology and Geography, William Hales, vol. 1, 1830, pp. 72-3]
Keeping these things in mind, note how the March 15, 1969 Watchtower, page 187, tried to discredit the dating of the 621 B.C. eclipse, as did the Aid book, page 331. In a discussion of lunar eclipses, Aid said:
The frequency of lunar eclipses certainly does not add great strength to such type of confirmation. For example, while a lunar eclipse in 621 B.C.E. (on April 22) is used as proof of the correctness of the Ptolemaic date for Nabopolassar's fifth year, another eclipse could be cited twenty years earler, in 641 B.C.E. (on June 1), to correspond with the date our chart would indicate as Nabopolassar's fifth year. This earlier eclipse was total (i.e., 12 digits or more) as compared to the very minor one of only 1.6 digits in 621 B.C.E. -- Oppolzer's Canon of Eclipses, pp. 333, 334.
This proves that the eclipse could not have taken place in 641 B.C., because that was a "12 digit total eclipse," whereas Ptolemy recorded a "2 1/2 digit" partial eclipse, in good agreement with the figure Aid cited for the eclipse of 621 B.C. That the Society's argument on this is incorrect has been acknowledged by dropping it from the equivalent discussion of lunar eclipses on page 455 of Insight, Vol. 1. The writers of the Watchtower and Aid articles were so laughably ignorant of what they were writing about that they should not have written anything -- or they were dishonest -- take your pick.
This example shows the truthfulness of what the eminent Bible scholar E. R. Thiele wrote about the eclipses recorded in Ptolemy's canon:
The details concerning eclipses are given with such minuteness as to leave no question concerning the exact identification of the particular phenomenon referred to, and making possible the most positive verification. [The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, p. 44]
Synchronisms with Egyptian History
Neo-Babylonian history synchronizes with Egyptian history extremely well. Three of these are given in the Bible, in 2 Kings 23:29 (where Pharaoh Nechoh and King Josiah appear), Jeremiah 46:2 (Nechoh, Nebuchadnezzar, and Jehoiakim appear), and Jeremiah 44:30 (Pharaoh Hophra, Zedekiah and Nebuchadnezzar are listed). A fourth is given in a cuneiform text, BM 33041, which refers to a campaign against Amasis, king of Egypt, in Nebuchadnezzar's 37th regnal year. This text is obliquely referred to in the Aid book, page 326, paragraph 8, and Insight, top of page 453. The chronology of the 26th dynasty of Egypt has been firmly established by contemporary historical documents, inscriptions, astronomical diaries and the testimony of ancient historians. The evidence is completely independent of that for any other kingdoms. The kings ruled for the following time periods:
YEARS OF REIGN B.C. DATES Psammetichus I 54 664 - 610 Nechoh II 15 610 - 595 Psammetichus II 6 595 - 589 Apries (= Hophra) 19 589 - 570 Amasis 44 570 - 526 Psammetichus III 1 526 - 525 Cambyses's conquest of Egypt May - June 525
Does this chronology square with that of the Neo-Babylonian era or with the chronology the Watchtower Society presents? The Society has been completely silent on the history of this period. Not a word is mentioned in the discussion of "Egyptian Chronology" on pages 450-1 of Insight, Vol. 1, nor in Let Your Kingdom Come. Let us look at the scriptures presented above:
2 Kings 23:29: In his [Josiah's] days Pharaoh Nechoh the king of Egypt came up to the king of Assyria by the river Euphrates, and King Josiah proceeded to go to meet him; but he put him to death at Megiddo as soon as he saw him.
Here it is clearly shown that King Josiah died during the reign of Pharaoh Nechoh. According to the Society Josiah died in 629 B.C. (Aid, p. 968; Insight, Vol. 2, p. 118). But Nechoh's reign did not begin until 19 years later, in 610 B.C. So Josiah could not have died in 629 B.C. The evidence from the generally accepted Neo-Babylonian chronology is that Josiah died in 609 B.C., consistent with the table above. Jehoiakim was Josiah's son, and Nebuchadnezzar's accession year in 605 B.C. was Jehoiakim's 4th year (non-accession system).
Jeremiah 46:2: For Egypt, concerning the military force of Pharaoh Nechoh the king of Egypt, who happened to be by the river Euphrates at Carchemish, whom Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon defeated in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, the king of Judah.
The Society places this battle in the 4th year of Jehoiakim, in 625 B.C., which again cannot be harmonized with the above table. But if this battle took place 20 years later, in 605 B.C., it is in harmony with the reign of Nechoh, 610-595 B.C.
Jeremiah 44:30: This is what Jehovah has said: 'Here I am giving Pharaoh Hophra, the king of Egypt, into the hand of his enemies and into the hand of those seeking for his soul, just as I have given Zedekiah the king of Judah into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, his enemy and the one seeking for his soul'.
These words were uttered shortly after Jerusalem's destruction, when the few leftover Jews had fled to Egypt. At that time Egypt was ruled by Pharaoh Hophra, or Apries, as he is named by Herodotus. If Apries ruled Egypt at the time when the Jews fled there, this desolation cannot be dated to 607 B.C. because Apries did not begin ruling until 589 B.C. But the dates for Apries's reign given in the table are perfectly consistent with the accepted date of 587 for the destruction of Jerusalem.
Finally, the cuneiform tablet BM 33041 mentions a battle against Egypt by Nebuchadnezzar in his 37th year. Although the tablet is badly damaged, the damaged text telling the king's name is consistent only with Amasis. Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year is an astronomically confirmed date, 568/7 B.C., and is consistent with the above table, in contrast to the Society's date of 588/7 B.C.
Again it becomes clear how well secular and Bible history agree with one another, and disagree with the Society's chronology.
Life Expectancy and Neo-Babylonian Chronology
We have seen that the Watchtower Society's chronology requires adding an extra twenty years to Neo-Babylonian chronology. This creates a serious problem with regard to the age of certain people when they died. The problem is illustrated by the following statement from the Insight book, Vol. 2, p. 457, under "Nabonidus":
Cuneiform tablets of the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar (Nisan 617-Nisan 616 B.C.E.) list a certain Nabu-na'id as the one "who is over the city," and some historians believe this is the same Nabonidus who later became king. However, this would mean that Nabonidus was a very young man when placed in such administrative position and would make him extremely aged at the fall of Babylon, some 77 years later (539 B.C.E.).
If the two Nabonidus's are the same man, he would reasonably be about one hundred years old in 539 B.C., since it is unreasonable to suppose that he would be put in charge of an entire city at an age less than his mid-20s. The author of Insight is apparently unaware of how damaging this information is to the Society's claims about Neo-Babylonian chronology. The same problem occurs when we examine the ages of others mentioned in various Babylonian records.
For example, according to the Harran stele Nabonidus H1,B discussed on page 15, Adda-Guppi, the mother of Nabonidus, was born in the 20th year of the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal, 649/8 B.C. In the third year of Ashurbanipal's son and successor, Assur-etillu-ilani, she moved from Harran to Babylon, and served under Babylonian kings until her death in the ninth year of Nabonidus, in 547/6 B.C. She died at 101 or 102 years of age.
If we have to add 20 years to the Neo-Babylonian era, to accord with the Society's chronology, Adda-Guppi would have been 121 or 122 years old when she died. But this is unreasonable. Far more likely is it that she died at not more than the usual maximum life span seen today. This also reduces the problem of Nabonidus mentioned above, because he would only need to be about 80 years old in 539 B.C. Remember that the historical documents say that he was leading the armies of Babylon at that time.
There are other people appearing in the business and administrative documents from the Neo-Babylonian period who would have to have been well over a hundred when they died, if the Society's chronology is correct. Many of them can be traced from text to text almost during the entire period, sometimes even into the Persian era. We find that some of these people -- businessmen, slaves, scribes -- must have been 80 or 90 years old or more at the end of their careers. They would have to have still been active in their careers at more than 110 years of age, if the Society's chronology is correct. Here are a few examples.
A scribe named Apla, son of Bel-iddina, for the first time appears in a text dated to the 28th year of Nebuchadnezzar (577 B.C.). Thereafter, his name recurs in many texts dated in the reigns of Evil-merodach, Neriglissar, Nabonidus, Cyrus, Cambyses and Darius. The last text to mention his name comes from the 13th year of Darius, 509 B.C. This scribe may be followed for a period of 68 years, from 577 to 509 B.C. The Russian Assyriologist M. A. Dandamaev commented: "He should have been, at least, twenty years old when he became a scribe. Even if we assume that Apla died even in the same year when he was referred to for the last time or soon after, he must have lived about 90 years."
But if we have to add 20 years to the Neo-Babylonian era, not only would we have to increase Apla's age to 110 years but would have to conclude that he was still active as a scribe at this advanced age. Really, is this reasonable?
Another example is Iddina-Marduk, son of Iqisha, of the family of Nur-Sin. His name appears for the first time in a text dated to the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar (597 B.C.), where he is engaged in the purchase of slaves. He then remained a director of his business operations for a period of about 70 years. He figures in many documents dated in the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar, Nabonidus, Cyrus, and Cambyses, and the last time in a text from the third year of Cambyses, 527 B.C. Even if we assume that he was only 20 years old when he first appears as a director, he must have been 90 years old or more at the time of his death.
Again, were we to add 20 years to the Neo-Babylonian chronology his age would increase to at least 110 years and he would have been still active as a director of his firm.
The Bible, too, adds its testimony. Haggai 2:1-4 shows that in the 2nd year of Darius (520/19 B.C.), some of the Jews who were building the temple in Jerusalem were old enough to have seen the temple "in its former glory," before it was ruined in 587 B.C. Even if these Jews were only 10 or 15 years old at that time, they were now about 80 years old or more. But if the destruction of Jerusalem had occurred in 607 B.C., these men would have been at least 100 years old in 520/19 B.C. Is it really likely that 100 year old men were rebuilding the temple?
Is it likely that people during the Neo-Babylonian period often lived to 100, 110 or even 120 years? The Russian Assyriologist M. A. Dandamaev has examined the lengths of life of people in Babylonia from the seventh to the fourth century B.C., using tens of thousands of business and administrative texts as the basis for his research. His conclusion is that the average life span of people at that time was no different from what it is now. In his discussion Dandamaev refers to Psalm 90:10: "As for the days of our life, they contain seventy years. Or if due to strength, eighty years." These words were as true in the Neo-Babylonian era as they are today.
Consequently, the extremely old ages created by dating the destruction of Jerusalem to 607 instead of 587 B.C. provide another strong evidence against Watchtower Society chronology.
A Few Other Points
Let Your Kingdom Come quoted one Professor Campbell on the potential traps in historical dating, on page 187:
Evidently realizing such facts, Professor Edward F. Campbell, Jr., introduced a chart, which included Neo-Babylonian chronology, with the caution: "It goes without saying that these lists are provisional. The more one studies the intricacies of the chronological problems in the ancient Near East, the less he is inclined to think of any presentation as final. For this reason, the term circa [about] could be used even more liberally than it is."
This appears to be powerful testimony that Neo-Babylonian chronology is not necessarily well established. But Let Your Kingdom Come misrepresents Professor Campbell. Concerning this Campbell said:
.... I am dismayed at the use made of.... my chronological lists by the Watch Tower Society. I fear that some earnest folk will reach for any straw to support their already-arrived-at conclusions. This is most certainly a case of doing just that.... there was absolutely no intent to suggest that there was leeway [in our charts] of as much as twenty years for the dates relating to Babylonia and Judah.... the 587-6 date can be off by no more than one year, while the 597 date is one of the very few secure dates in our whole chronological repertoire.
The date 597 B.C. is for the first capture of Jerusalem, when Jehoiachin was exiled. Dr. Campbell's co-author, Dr. Freedman said:
This is one of the best-known periods of the ancient world, and we can be very sure that the dates are correct to within a year or so, and many of the dates are accurate to the day and month. There is therefore absolutely no warrant for the comments or judgments made by the Watch Tower Society based on a statement about our uncertainty. What I had specifically in mind was the disagreement among scholars as to whether the fall of Jerusalem should be dated in 587 or 586. Eminent scholars disagree on this point, and unfortunately we do not have the Babylonian chronicle for this episode as we do for the capture of Jerusalem in 597 (that date is now fixed exactly). But it is only a debate about one year at most (587 or 586), so it would have no bearing upon the views of the Jehovah's Witnesses who apparently want to rewrite the whole history of the time and change the dates rather dramatically. There is no warrant whatever for that.
Let Your Kingdom Come states (p. 188) that Josephus says, in his 1st and 2nd works, that Jerusalem was desolate for 70 years. However it leaves out the well known fact that he says this period was fifty years in his 3rd and last work. His last work demonstrably contains corrections of his earlier works.
Let Your Kingdom Come states (p. 188) that Theophilus shows that the 70 years commenced with the destruction of the temple after Zedekiah had reigned 11 years. But it fails to mention that Theophilus follows the Greek Septuagint version, which disagrees with the Hebrew Masoretic text on this chronology. Many other early Christian writers disagree with Theophilus. It seems obvious that these writers did not have access to authoritative sources, and so any information from them should be evaluated in light of its agreement with older sources.
Part 3: Scriptural Arguments
Note on reckoning regnal years: The Babylonians and Daniel apparently used the accession year system to refer to the reigns of kings. The accession year system is similar to the way we reckon ages: 1 year old means a child is between 1 and 2 years; there is no zero age. The zero year was called the accession year, the next the first year, and so on. In the non-accession year system, which was generally used by the Jews, the accession year becomes the first year, etc. The difference is that between cardinal and ordinal numbering. Note that even if the king reigned for just part of the initial year, it was counted as a whole year.
That the Babylonians used the accession-year system is acknowledged by the Feb. 1, 1969 Watchtower, on page 88, which equates Nebuchadnezzar's seventh regnal year to his eighth year from his accession to the throne. It also equates his 18th regnal year with his 19th year from his accession. Since Daniel was a high official in Babylon, it would be appropriate for him to use their system for reckoning regnal years, even when applied to non-Babylonian kings. Jeremiah, and the Jews generally, used the non-accession year system, except Jer. 52:28-30, which was apparently written later, in Babylon, by someone else. Compare Jer. 52:1-27, 34 with 2 Kings 24:18-25:21, 27-30. These passages are nearly identical with the exception of the section corresponding to Jer. 52:28-30. This view is further strengthened by Insight's statement, Vol. 1, p. 452, which says that both Jer. 52:28 and the Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946 both refer to Nebuchadnezzar's taking captives in his 7th (regnal) year. See also Let Your Kingdom Come, p. 188.
Now to the arguments. Jer. 25:11, 12 says:
And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years. And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation (New World Translation).
This scripture does not directly equate the becoming of a devastated place with the serving of the king of Babylon for 70 years. Note that not just Judah, but many nations would serve. Servitude can include vassalage, which certainly befell Judah (2 Kings 24:1), but is not the same thing. Jer. 27:8, 17 says that any nation refusing to serve would later become devastated.
The Society says that the language the Bible uses proves that Jerusalem was to become completely devastated, without an inhabitant. This is based partly on Jer. 25:11, which reads:
And all this land must become a devastated place [Hebrew lechorbah, singular, "to a devastation, to a ruin, to a desert"], an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.
and it is based partly on Dan. 9:2, which reads:
.... I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations [chorbah, plural] of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years.
While Jerusalem ultimately became desolate, these scriptures do not in themselves provide solid evidence that the 70 years refer specifically to total devastation for the entire 70 years. For example, Jer. 25:18 states that Jerusalem and the cities of Judah would become
a devastated place, an object of astonishment, something to whistle at and a malediction, just as at this day.
This prophecy was uttered "in the fourth year of Jehoiakim,... that is, the first year of Nebuchadnezzar" (Jer. 25:1). The phrase "just as at this day" seems to indicate that the devastation, [Hebrew: chorbah] to a certain degree had begun at this time, eighteen years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.
That the word chorbah does not necessarily mean a state of desolation "without an inhabitant" can be seen from other texts which use the word. For example, Ezekiel 33:24, 27 mentions "the inhabitants of these devastated places." Nehemiah wrote his book during a time when Jerusalem was inhabited, yet at Nehemiah 2:17 the city is said to be "devastated."
For another thing the form of the Hebrew word chorbah used in Dan. 9:2 is plural. This could refer to more than one devastation of Jerusalem, Daniel having in mind the successive desolation and depopulation beginning in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year in 605 B.C. and ending with the complete destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. This seems to have been how the translators of the Jerusalem Bible understood the passage, as they render Dan. 9:2 as follows:
In the first years of his reign I, Daniel, was perusing the scriptures, counting over the number of years -- as revealed by Yahweh to the prophet Jeremiah -- that were to pass before the successive devastations of Jerusalem would come to an end, namely seventy years.
Of course, this is not a literal translation of Daniel's words, but an interpretation of his thought.
Of the word chorbah the Interpreter's Bible, Vol. 6, p. 485, gives this comment:
A word often employed to describe the state of a devastated land after the armies of an enemy have passed (Lev. 26:31, 33; Isa. 49:19; Jer. 44:22; Ezek. 36:34; Mal. 1:4; 1 Macc. 1:39).
According to the Babylonian Chronicle Nebuchadnezzar's armies passed through Palestine almost every year after the battle of Carchemish in 605 B.C. These, in addition to the marauder bands that "Jehovah began to send against" Jehoiakim, gradually devastated the cities and the land, until Judah was laid completely desolate and depopulated sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem.
But it is not even necessary to suppose that Daniel had these successive devastations in mind. Chorbah often means "ruins." Thus Daniel could simply have been talking of "Jerusalem's ruins." Raymond Hammer, in The Book of Daniel in The Cambridge Bible Commentary translated Dan. 9:2 thus:
I, Daniel, was reading the scriptures and reflecting on the seventy years which, according to the word of the LORD to the prophet Jeremiah, were to pass while Jerusalem lay in ruins.
It is not necessary to interpret Daniel's words to mean that Jerusalem would lie in ruins for 70 years. What he discovered by reading Jeremiah's prophecy was not that Jerusalem's desolation would last for 70 years (this is nowhere stated in Jeremiah), but that the desolations of Jerusalem would not cease until the 70 years "for Babylon" had been fulfilled. The idea is similar to saying that "I will sleep until morning." This make no implication as to when I started sleeping, but only that when morning comes I will be done sleeping. I could have slept 20 minutes or 20 hours.
Here is the basic problem: the Society always refers to "desolation" -- without an inhabitant -- whereas the New World Translation always uses "devastation" in the critical scriptures that refer to the 70 years. The two meanings are not interchangeable. The problem can be seen in the earliest writings of C. T. Russell.
There is some confusion in this regard, about Jer 29:10, which says in The New World Translation:
For this is what Jehovah has said, 'In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.'
This rendering seems to depict the 70 years as a period of captivity: "seventy years at Babylon." But the use of the word "at" is not necessarily accurate, as shown by most other renderings.
The question hinges on the translation of the Hebrew term le-babel, which is a compound word made up of the inseparable preposition le, which in the most general sense means "with reference to," and the word babel, which means "Babylon." The preposition le more particularly can mean "for, to, at, of, before, toward, in regard to, in reference to, with respect to," etc, and is so rendered by most modern translations. See Appendix A for more information. Use of the word "at" seems to be left over from the King James Version, which reads:
After seventy years be accomplished at Babylon.
The Greek Septuagint version, Sir Lancelot Brenton's translation (1851), appears to lend support to this rendering also:
When seventy years shall be on the point of being accomplished at Babylon.
However, the Greek language has no preposition corresponding to the Hebrew le, and Brenton's Septuagint version's use of "at Babylon" is an interpretation, not a textually required literal translation. Modern scholars render the LXX verse using "for Babylon." Additionally, scholars agree that many parts of the LXX are not translated properly. Under the subject "Jeremiah, Book of," Insight, Vol. 2, p. 32 said:
There are more variations between the Hebrew and the Greek texts of the book of Jeremiah than in any other book of the Hebrew Scriptures.... The majority of scholars agree that the Greek translation of this book is defective.
Modern English translations render Jer. 29:10 as:
When Babylon's seventy years are over. Tanakh -- The Holy Scriptures
When seventy years are completed for Babylon. Revised Standard Version
Only when Babylon's seventy years are completed. New Revised Standard Version
After seventy years are accomplished for Babylon. American Standard Version
When seventy years have been completed for Babylon. New American Standard Version
As soon as Babylon's seventy years are over. The James Moffatt Translation
That as soon as there are fulfilled to Babylon seventy years. The Emphasized Bible
As soon as Babylon has had a full seventy years. The Bible in Living English
Only when the seventy years granted to Babylon are over. The Jerusalem Bible
When a full seventy years has passed over Babylon. The New English Bible
When a full seventy years have passed over Babylon. The Revised English Bible
When seventy years are completed for Babylon. New International Version
When seventy years are ended for Babylon. The Bible in Basic English
As soon as Babylon has finished seventy years. Goodspeed's The Complete Bible
Only when Babylon's seventy years have been completed. The Anchor Bible
Surely at the fulness of Babylon -- seventy years. Young's Literal Translation
When seventy years are completed for Babylon. The Amplified Bible
You will be in Babylon for a lifetime. The Living Bible
When Babylonia's seventy years are over. The Bible in Today's English Version
Only after seventy years have elapsed for Babylon. The New American Bible
Only after seventy years have elapsed for Babylon. The Catholic Douay Bible
As soon as the seventy years are completed for Babylon. The New Berkeley Version
When Babylon's 70 years are over. The Holy Bible: An American Translation
After seventy years be accomplished for Babylon. Moulton's The Modern Reader's Bible
Babylon will be powerful for 70 years. After that time.... New Century Version
When according to My mouth seventy years have been fulfilled for Babylon. The Interlinear Bible
The literal renderings from two interlinear Hebrew-English bibles are:
When as-my-mouth have-been-fulfilled for-Babylon seventy years. The Interlinear Bible
When by-mouth-of-me to-be-completed for-Babylon seventy year. The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament
There is only one other readily available modern translation that uses "at": the New King James Version, which consciously emulated the original King James Version:
After seventy years are completed at Babylon.
Now let's examine the context of Jer. 29:10. As a whole, the above scriptures seem to refer to seventy years of Babylonian supremacy, not to the Jewish captivity or to the desolation following the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C. That this is what the Hebrew text meant to say is also evident from the fact that it is in agreement with Jeremiah's prophecy at Jer. 25:11 on the 70 years' servitude, which is clearly applied not just to Judah, but to all the nations round about. As long as the Babylonian king held supremacy, other nations had to serve him. Also, Jer. 29:1-10, which was written sometime during the reign of Zedekiah, clearly presupposes that the 70 years were already in progress.
This conclusion is confirmed by other scholars. Avigdor Orr, in his article "The Seventy Years of Babylon," Vetus Testamentum Vol. VI, 1956, p. 305, says:
The sense of the Hebrew original might even be rendered thus: "After seventy years of (the rule of) Babylon are accomplished, etc." The seventy years counted here evidently refer to Babylon and not to the Judeans or to their captivity. They mean seventy years of Babylonian rule, the end of which will see the redemption of the exiles.
It is important to note when and to whom Jeremiah's words at Jer. 29:10 were uttered. In verse 2 the time is said to be "after Jeconiah the king and the lady and the court officials, the princes of Judah and Jerusalem, and the craftsmen and the builders of bulwarks had gone forth from Jerusalem." This would date the prophecy to the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah and probably about the same time as the preceding chapter, i.e., to the fourth year of Zedekiah. (Jer. 28:1) The background situation seems to have been the same in both chapters: The widespread revolt plans which stirred up hopes of liberation from the Babylonian yoke in Judah and the surrounding nations also reached the exiles at Babylon. As in Judah, false prophets arose among the Jews at Babylon and promised release in a short time. (Jer. 29:8, 9) This was the reason why at this time, several years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, Jeremiah sent a letter to the exiles at Babylon, calling their attention to the prophecy of the 70 years "for Babylon":
Do not be deceived by the prophets among you or by your diviners.... For Yahweh says this: Only when the seventy years granted to Babylon are over, will I visit you and fulfill my promise in your favour by bringing you back to this place. (Jerusalem Bible)
This utterance clearly presupposed that the 70 years "for Babylon" were in progress at the time. If the period had not commenced, why did Jeremiah connect it with the exiles' staying on at Babylon? If the 70-year period was not already in progress, what relevance is there in Jeremiah's reference to it? Jeremiah did not urge the exiles to wait until the 70 years would begin, but to wait until the period had been completed. As Jeremiah sent his message to the exiles some six or seven years before the destruction of Jerusalem, it is obvious that he reckoned the beginning of the 70 years from a point prior to that event. Jer. 29:10, therefore, further supports the earlier conclusion that the 70 years should be reckoned from a point some years before the destruction of Jerusalem.
Another way to look at this is to note that Jeremiah wrote his letter "to all the exiled people," who had been exiled some six or seven years prior to Jerusalem's destruction. He told them that Jehovah's will was for them to build houses, have children and prosper in the city. They shouldn't be deceived by false prophets who told them they would be coming home soon, because, according to Jer. 25:11, 12, not until "seventy years have been fulfilled" during which "these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon" would the exiles come home. Those exiles, those to whom Jeremiah wrote his letter, were clearly among those included in the reference to 70 years. So, even if the 70 years are thought to be years of captivity "at Babylon," they must have started before the destruction of Jerusalem.
Jeremiah 27 provides indirect evidence that the 70 years were prophesied to be years of servitude, not of captivity or desolation. It will be admitted that Jehovah would not make to someone a conditional offer that had no possibility of being fulfilled. In this chapter he told the Jews and the surrounding nations that if they served the king of Babylon, they would be allowed to remain on their land. Well after the fundamental prophecies in Jeremiah 25 had been given, Jehovah told Jeremiah to speak his words with respect to Judah and the lands round about:
I myself have given all these lands into the hand of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon, my servant... And all the nations must serve even him and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes.... And it must occur that the nation and the kingdom that will not serve him, even Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon; and the one that will not put its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, with the sword and with the famine and with the pestilence I shall turn my attention upon that nation... until I shall have finished them off by his hand.... And as for the nation that will bring its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and actually serve him, I will also let it rest upon its ground... and it will certainly cultivate it and dwell in it. -- Jer. 27:6-8, 11, 12.
Then Jeremiah told Zedekiah the king of Judah:
Bring your necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serve him and his people and keep on living. Why should you yourself and your people die by the sword, by the famine and by the pestilence according to what Jehovah has spoken to the nation that does not serve the king of Babylon?.... Do not listen to the words of your prophets.... Do not listen to them. Serve the king of Babylon and keep on living. Why should this city become a devastated place? -- Jer. 27:16, 17.
So if the Jews and the surrounding nations would serve the king of Babylon they could remain on their lands. If they did not serve him, they would be killed and taken into captivity, and their lands would be devastated. No matter what course they chose, the prophecy given in Jer. 25:11, 12 would still be fulfilled -- Babylon would be supreme for 70 years. But if Jer. 25:11, 12 actually referred to the captivity of all the people of the lands, or to their complete desolation, then Jehovah would be disingenuous in offering them the choice. Who would accuse Jehovah of making an offer he never intended to fulfill?
The 16th and 17th chapters of Jeremiah provide additional indirect evidence that the prophecy meant 70 years "for Babylon," rather than for captivity. The 16th chapter tells of the punishment and restoration Jehovah would bring upon the Jews. But the 17th chapter qualifies this. In verses 19-27 Jehovah through Jeremiah tells the Jews to obey the sabbath (vss. 19-23). If they would, Jerusalem "will certainly be inhabited to time indefinite" (vss. 24-26). But if they wouldn't, he would destroy them (vs. 27). Babylon would have its 70 years no matter what the Jews did, but what that meant for the Jews depended upon their own actions.
A direct comparison of Jer 29:10 with related passages shows that the Watchtower Society's interpretation is not consistent with the order of events that are very clearly presented in Jer. 25:11, 12 and Dan. 9:1-22.
Jer. 25:11, 12 says in The New World Translation:
And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years. And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation.
Note the order of events that had to take place: (1) many nations, including Judah, would serve Babylon 70 years. (2) When the 70 years were fulfilled, or completed, (3) Jehovah would call Babylon to account.
Jer. 29:10 says in The New World Translation:
For this is what Jehovah has said, 'In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.'
Note again the order of events: (1) 70 years were to be fulfilled, or completed. This would cause (2) Jehovah to give attention to the Jews, and then (3) he would bring the Jews home. The key point is that first the 70 years would be over, and then this would allow the Jews to come home, consistent with Jer. 25:11, 12. But if the Watchtower Society's interpretation is correct, the 70 years could not be over until the Jews had returned home, which event would cause the desolation of Judah to cease and the exiles no longer to be "at Babylon." In that case the order of events would be: (1) Jehovah would give attention to the Jews, and then (2) the Jews would come home, causing (3) the 70 years to be fulfilled. But this contradicts what the Bible said would happen and did happen!
The literal rendering of Jer. 29:10 also lends support to this view. It goes something like this: "whenever by-my-mouth have-been-completed for-Babylon seventy years." The Hebrew word for "have-been-completed" is in the perfect tense, which implies completion of the action of the verb. If the sense was "about to be completed" the Hebrew word would have to be in the imperfect tense, which implies that the action of the verb is continuing or not yet completed.
Dan. 9:1-22 shows that the prophecies were fulfilled in precisely the right order:
I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years.... And I began to pray to Jehovah my God and to make confession and to say.... may your anger and your rage turn back from your city Jerusalem....
About one year after Daniel's entreaty the Jews returned to their homeland, in 537 B.C. So both the prophecies and their fulfillments showed that the 70 years ended by Jehovah's calling Babylon to account in 539 B.C., and then he brought the Jews home.
Another point to consider is that Jer. 25:10-12 and 29:10 contain the prophecy of the 70 years. Daniel 9:2 and 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21, are just brief references to Jeremiah's prophecy. Neither of them pretends to be a thorough discussion of the prophecy nor gives a detailed application of the period. Every attempt to find an application of the 70-year period, therefore, must proceed from the prophecy, not from the references to it. It is only the prophecy that gives detailed information on the 70 years: that they refer to "these nations," that they were to be a period of servitude for "these nations," that they refer to the period of Babylonian supremacy, and that the period would be fulfilled when the king of Babylon was punished is evident. Such detailed information is missing in the latter references to the prophecy by Daniel and Ezra. The discussion of these references, then, should always be done in the light of what the prophecy actually is about.
Jer. 46:2 says Nebuchadnezzar defeated Egypt at the battle of Carchemish, in the 4th year of Jehoiakim (non-accession year system). This was also Nebuchadnezzar's accession-year, according to cuneiform inscriptions in the British Museum (see Insight, Vol. 2, p. 480). The prophecy of the 70 years was given in the same year (Jer. 25:1). Daniel 1:1-6 says Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem and took captives to Babylon in the third year of Jehoiakim (accession year system; same as 4th in non-accession system). Jehoiakim was given into his hand, i.e., made a vassal. Daniel 2:1 on indicates Daniel was in Babylon in the 2nd year of Nebuchadnezzar. Berossus confirms that Jewish captives were taken at that time.
With regard to the Society's claim that after Jerusalem's destruction in 607 B.C., Judah was completely "desolated, without an inhabitant," we find that Jer. 52:28-30 strongly suggests that the land was not completely stripped of inhabitants until five years after the fall of Jerusalem:
28 These are the people whom Nebuchadrezzar took into exile: in the seventh year, three thousand and twenty-three Jews.
29 In the eighteenth year of Nebuchadrezzar, from Jerusalem there were eight hundred and thirty-two souls.
30 In the twenty-third year of Nebuchadrezzar, Nebuzaradan the chief of the bodyguard took Jews into exile, seven hundred and forty-five souls.
All the souls were four thousand and six hundred.
The Society says in Babylon the Great Has Fallen! God's Kingdom Rules! on page 167, that the last Jews, referred to in verse 30,
were not taken off the land of Judah but were captured when Nebuchadnezzar, as Jehovah's symbolic cup, made nations that bordered on the desolated land of Judah drink the bitter potion of being violently conquered.
On page 416 Insight, Vol. 1, says pretty much the same thing.
But the passage in Jeremiah does not justify this understanding. The whole of Jeremiah 52 stresses events in Jerusalem and Judah. The three deportations are preceded by the statement: "Thus Judah went into exile from off its soil." Verse 28 mentions "Jews," verse 29, "Jerusalem," and verse 30, "Jews." The captives of the three exiles are then totaled as a unit in verse 30. Nations or peoples other than from Judah are foreign to the chapter.
Virtually all commentators apply Jer. 52:30 to another deportation from Judah. All the evidence shows that the Babylon book makes its statement for no other reason than it has no choice but to do so, to avoid contradicting the Society's understanding of the 70 years as a desolation beginning in 607 B.C.
Let Your Kingdom Come cites Jeremiah 52:28-30 as proof that Dan. 1:1 could not have been talking about a deportation in the third regnal year of Jehoiakim. It said on page 188:
More significantly, Jeremiah 52:28-30 carefully reports that Nebuchadnezzar took Jews captive in his seventh year, in his 18th year and his 23rd year, not his accession year.
But this argument presupposes that Jeremiah 52:28-30 contains a complete record of the deportations, which it clearly does not. The sum total of Jewish captives taken in the three deportations referred to in the passage is given in verse 30 as "four thousand and six hundred." However, 2 Kings 24:14-16 gives the number of those deported during only one of these deportations as 18,000. Different theories have been proposed to explain this discrepancy, none of which may be regarded as more than a guess. The Aid book, page 297, and Insight, Vol. 1, page 415, for instance, say that the figure "apparently refers to those of a certain rank, or to those who were family heads." Another clue may be Jer. 52:29, which mentions exiles from Jerusalem. It may be that verses 28-30 literally refer to only the captives taken from Jerusalem, not all of Judah. All the commentators seem to agree that Jer. 52:28-30 does not give a complete number of those deported, and some also suggest that not all deportations are mentioned in the text. At the very least the one referred to in Dan. 1:1 in the "third year" of Jehoiakim is not mentioned -- which does not prove it did not take place. It was probably not mentioned in Jer. 52 because it was a very small one, consisting only of Jews from among "the royal offspring and of the nobles" (Dan. 1:3, 4) with the intention of using them as servants at the royal palace.
This is consistent with Jeremiah's repeatedly warning the Jews not to rebel against the king of Babylon, because if they did they would be severely punished (Jer. 27:5-11). This implies that Jehovah was giving them rope to hang themselves, and therefore, only a token number of captives would be taken when Jerusalem first came under the Babylonian yoke, so that they would have the chance to obey Jehovah's warning.
In order to avoid contradictions with its chronology the Society is forced to interpret certain scriptures as meaning something other than what they clearly say. This is illustrated by the Society's handling of Dan. 1:1 and Dan. 2:1. It says that Dan. 1:1 actually refers to Jehoiakim's 3rd year of vassalage to Nebuchadnezzar, not to his 3rd regnal year. Likewise, it says that the reference in Dan. 2:1 to Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd year actually means his 2nd year of reigning in a special capacity as the first ruler in the line of Gentile kings. This would have been his 20th regnal year. This is done because the Society's other interpretations require Daniel to have been deported to Babylon in Nebuchadnezzar's 7th year, but Dan. 2:1 refers to Daniel being in Babylon in Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd year. So the Society does not take the Bible at its word, but reinterprets clear statements so that its other interpretations are not contradicted. This is, in fact, the only reason that Dan. 1:1 and Dan. 2:1 are reinterpreted, as there is no evidence elsewhere in Daniel that this is justified, nor does the Society present such.
There is excellent reason for rejecting the Society's reinterpretation of the reference to Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd year in Dan. 2:1. This reinterpretation is based on the further interpretation that Nebuchadnezzar's dream recorded in Dan. 4, of the tree that was cut down, is a prophecy referring to the Gentile Times. But this dream occurred well after the events of Dan. 2 (at least, as implied in Dan. 2), so how could Daniel have meant Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd year as king in a special capacity when the prophecy announcing that special capacity had not yet been uttered? Also, Dan. 12:8, 9 recorded Daniel's lack of understanding: "Now as for me, I heard, but I could not understand.... And he went on to say: 'Go, Daniel, because the words are made secret and sealed up until the time of [the] end.'" The prophetic words were not understandable to Daniel, so how could he have called Nebuchadnezzar's 20th year his 2nd year if he did not understand the prophecy? It is clear that Daniel, in chapter 2, was recording the events in connection with Nebuchadnezzar's prophetic dream, events that contemporary readers would understand and could date for themselves, because they knew contemporary history. Daniel's reference to Nebuchadnezzar's 2nd year, if it was really his 20th year, would have been unintelligible to contemporary readers.
The Society's argument that the statement in Dan. 1:1 refers to Jehoiakim's 3rd year of his vassalage, rather than of his reign, and that his vassalage ended with his death in his 11th year (Insight, Vol. 1, p. 1269), which would have been Nebuchadnezzar's 7th regnal year, are further weakened by the following argument:
The Society's chronology requires that Jehoiakim's vassalage would have begun in his 8th regnal year, since 2 Kings 24:1 says he was a vassal for three years, and the Society says that his vassalage ended in his 11th year. But 2 Kings 23:34-37 indicates that Jehoiakim became a vassal to Egypt's Pharoah Necho, with no indication that he came out of that vassalage until Necho's defeat by Nebuchadnezzar at the battle of Carchemish. Therefore Jehoiakim would have been Pharoah Necho's vassal until his 8th year. However, Jer. 46:2 says that Nebuchadnezzar defeated Pharoah Necho at the battle of Carchemish in the 4th year of Jehoiakim, after which Jehoiakim must no longer have been a vassal of Egypt. Therefore the Society's interpretation of Dan. 1:1 must be in error.
These considerations are so obvious that the Society admitted part of the above conclusion in Equipped for Every Good Work (1946), pp. 225-226:
Jehoiakim was put on the throne by Egyptian decree and was tributary to Egypt for several years, but when Babylon defeated Egypt Jehoiakim came under Babylonian control and so remained for three years, after which three-year period as tributary to Babylon the Judean king rebelled (2 Ki. 24:1). [italics added] That third year as tributary king to Nebuchadnezzar was the eleventh and last of his total kingship.
The discrepancy between this explanation's requiring Jehoiakim's vassalage to end in his 8th year, and Jeremiah's implication that it ended in his 4th year, is not mentioned. The Society implies, but nowhere states, in any publication I can find up through 1989, that Jehoiakim was not a vassal of Egypt or Babylon for about five years, from 625 B.C. through 620 B.C. But there is no evidence for this.
Insight, Vol. 1, p. 452, mentions the Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946. This chronicle very strongly indicates that Jehoiakim's vassalage to Babylon began in Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, or his first year, and that the 4th year was the year in which he revolted against his Babylonian vassalage. The chronicle explicitly states that all of Syro-Palestine became tributary to Nebuchadnezzar from his accession year, and that by his first year all the kings were tributary to him, which cannot reasonably have excepted Jehoiakim. Nebuchadnezzar's 4th year was most probably the year in which Jehoiakim revolted against Nebuchadnezzar, because in that year Nebuchadnezzar battled with Egypt, and both seem to have suffered great losses but with no clear victor. This battle probably encouraged Jehoiakim to throw off the Babylonian yoke, thus ending his three years of vassalage to Babylon.
Furthermore, Jeremiah chapters 27, 28 and 35 indicate Jehoiakim was made a vassal early in his reign, not at the end. 2 Kings 24 shows that Jehoiakim's vassalage must have ended, not upon his death but earlier, as many marauder bands came against him:
And Jehovah began to send against him marauder bands.... and he kept sending them against Judah.
This implies an extended time period. If Jehoiakim's vassalage ended with his death in his 11th year, as the Society says, there is insufficient time for all the events recorded in 2 Kings 24 to have taken place, as it only allows a few months from his rebellion to his death. This further confirms the error of the Society's interpretation that Dan. 1:1 actually refers to the 3rd year of Jehoiakim's vassalage.
Taking Daniel at his word, and using the appropriate method of counting regnal years, Jehoiakim's 4th year in Jer. 46:2 corresponds to his 3rd year in Dan. 1:1 and this results in no inconsistencies. Thus the first deportation of Jews to Babylon took place in the same year as, and shortly after, the battle of Carchemish, in 605 B.C. This corresponds to Nebuchadnezzar's accession-year. Therefore it is seen that Dan. 1:1 strongly supports the conclusion that Judah became a vassal to Babylon eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C., confirming the conclusion that the 70 years (Jer. 25:11; 29:10) should be understood as a period of servitude, not of desolation. Since all the scriptures are consistent with one another as they stand, taking into account the difference between the accession and non-accession year systems of counting years of a king's rule, the Society's reinterpretations rest on shaky ground.
Berossus supports the most direct reading of Dan. 1:1 when he specifically states that Nebuchadnezzar took Jewish captives in his accession year, shortly after the battle of Carchemish. This is also supported by the Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946, which mentions that, in his accession-year, Nebuchadnezzar "marched unopposed through the Hatti land" (Syria-Palestine), and that "he took the heavy tribute of the Hatti territory to Babylon." Most probably captives from the Hatti territory were included in this "heavy tribute," as is also pointed out by Professor Gerhard Larsson:2
It is certain that this "heavy tribute" consisted not only of treasure but also of prisoners from the conquered countries. To refrain from doing so would have been altogether too alien from the customs of the kings of Babylon and Assyria.
Against these statements Let Your Kingdom Come refers to Josephus, who says that Nebuchadnezzar, in the year of the battle of Carchemish, conquered all of Syria-Palestine "excepting Judea." Note that Josephus wrote this more than 600 years after Daniel and almost 400 years after Berossus. Even if he were right, this would not contradict the claim that the 70 years of servitude began in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, as Jeremiah's prophecy clearly applies the servitude to "these nations" (Jer. 25:11), that is, the nations surrounding Judah and not just Judah alone. In fact, Josephus even supports the conclusion that these nations became subservient to Nebuchadnezzar in his accession year, as he states that "the king of Babylon took all Syria, as far as Pelusium, excepting Judah," at that time. Pelusium was on the border with Egypt.
Also, there is no reason to believe that Josephus's statement is more trustworthy than the information given by Berossus, and certainly by Daniel. Josephus here is probably presenting a conclusion of his own, based on a misunderstanding of 2 Kings 24 similar to the Society's. See the discussion below of when the three year vassalage of Jehoiakim to Babylon took place. A close look at Josephus's description of the events of the destruction of Jerusalem indicates strongly that he was simply paraphrasing the Bible and giving his opinion or interpretation of the events it describes.
The well-known early 19th century Bible scholar Dr. Hengstenberg, in a thorough discussion of Daniel 1:1, gives the following comment on the expression "excepting Judah" in Josephus's Antiquities:
It should not be thought that Josephus got the parex tes Ioudaias [excepting Judah] from a source no longer available to us. What follows shows clearly that he just derived it from a misunderstanding of the passage at 2 Kings 24:1. As he erroneously understood the three years mentioned there as the interval between the two invasions, he thought that no invasion could be presumed before the 8th year of Jehoiakim.
Josephus's statement, therefore, cannot be given much weight compared to the statement of Berossus, who evidently got his information from sources preserved from the Neo- Babylonian period. It especially cannot be given much weight compared to what Daniel said, who was personally involved in the deportation he described, and was inspired to write what he did. Also, Josephus wrote three works, among which not all the information is consistent and some of which is demonstrably incorrect.
Contrary to what the Society says, Ezra 1:1-4 and 2 Chron. 36:21-23 do not show that the 70 years ran until the first year of Cyrus. With respect to 2 Chron 36: 21-23, Jeremiah contains no reference to fulfilling of sabbaths; this scripture actually refers to Lev. 26:34, 35. Therefore Ezra's words, "until the land had paid off its sabbaths; all the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath," could not be a fulfillment of "Jehovah's word by the mouth of Jeremiah." Rather it was Ezra's comment tying Leviticus's words to fulfillment of prophecy. Also, Ezra's words about fulfilling the word by the mouth of Jeremiah are better understood to apply to the second half of Jer. 29:10, i.e., "I shall turn my attention to you people, and I will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back to this place."
With regard to Zech. 1:7, 12 and Zech. 7:1-5, there is no evidence that they apply to the 70 year prophecy of Jeremiah; this is only the Society's interpretation. Actually these texts support the 587 B.C. date for Jerusalem's destruction. The scriptures refer to the mourning and fasting that began during the siege of Jerusalem in 589-587 B.C. and were still going on when Zechariah referred to them in 518-519 B.C. If the fasting and mourning began in 607 B.C., ninety years would have passed, yet Zechariah says 70. This can be seen easily enough by analyzing the discussion in the 1972 book Paradise Restored to Mankind -- By Theocracy!, pp. 235-237, which simply glosses over the discrepancy.
As for the fact that from 605 to 539 B.C. is a period of sixty six years, not 70 as the scriptures talk about, the 70 years could be a round number. A much better alternative is that it is an exact number and applies from 609 B.C., when Babylon finally overthrew Assyria. This would be consistent with Jer. 25:8-11 and 25:19-26, which speak of many nations besides the Jews as having to "serve the king of Babylon seventy years," and Jer. 29:10 which speaks of the fulfilling of 70 years "for Babylon." After all, Babylon became the 3rd world power in the seven listed in Revelation 17, starting from the downfall of the 2nd, Assyria. The Assyrian capital, Nineveh, fell to Nabopolassar and the Medes in 612, and Babylon definitely became the successor to Assyria when the last Assyrian king, Ashur-uballit, and Pharoah Necho failed to recapture the Assyrian city of Harran from Nabopolassar in 609 B.C. In this way the 70 years, without strained interpretations and in full harmony both with the Bible and secular historical facts, may also be regarded as an exact number.
What about the claim that the 70 years were ones of captivity? In spite of the above arguments, it could still be claimed that the 70 years were years of captivity, not of servitude, starting when Nebuchadnezzar first took captives in 605 B.C. in his accession year. With regard to this claim, Let Your Kingdom Come argues, p. 188, that there is no way to reconcile the fact that 70 years from 605 B.C. end in 535 B.C., and that there is a discrepancy of three years, therefore, since Cyrus's decree was in 538 B.C. However, a close examination of the dates shows that this argument is nonsense.
Historians date the accession of Nebuchadnezzar to the throne as the summer of 605 B.C., since the Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946 specifically states that Nebuchadnezzar took the throne on "Elul 1, accession year," which corresponds to Sept. 7, 605 B.C. Therefore his accession year in Babylonian reckoning was the year running from spring to spring of 605-604 B.C. The Jewish religious calendar covered the same time period. However, the Jews used a civil calendar running from fall to fall (starting mid-September) to date civil events and the regnal years of kings. Using the civil calendar, Nebuchadnezzar's accession year ran from fall to fall, 606-605 B.C. So, compiling the statements of Jer. 46:2, Dan. 1:1, etc., with the Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946, we find that Nebuchadnezzar laid siege to Jerusalem and took some captives and temple utensils in his accession year, which corresponded to the Jewish civil year running from fall to fall, 606 to 605 B.C. Assuming the 70 years were years of captivity for the Jews, they would have started then.
Most commentators, including the Society, date the return of the Jewish exiles to Jerusalem in the seventh month, Tishri, of 537 B.C. Ezra 3:1 specifies this month. Tishri is the seventh month of the Jewish religious calendar, but it is the first month of the civil calendar. Therefore another year of the Jewish civil calendar would have just rolled around when the Jews arrived back in Jerusalem about the beginning of October. Then, counting years in the Jewish civil calendar from 606/5 B.C. to 537/6 B.C., inclusive, we obtain 70 years.
Given the above material, you can see that the argument in Let Your Kingdom Come is fallacious. Either way one reckons, with the 70 years as years of servitude for Judah and the surrounding nations, running non-inclusively from 609 to 539 B.C., or as years of captivity, running from 606/5 B.C. to 537/6 B.C., is consistent with all Biblical and secular historical statements. As the Bible makes no explicit statement on when the 70 years began or ended, nor on whether they were years of servitude or captivity, this is the best one can do. In any case, since the Society's chronology conflicts with historical records, and requires re-interpretation of explicit Biblical statements, it is far less likely to be correct.
Part 4: Other Considerations. Conclusions
Overview:
- Other Considerations
- Are the Gentile Times seven times of 2520 years?
- Does parousia as used at Matt. 24:3 mean "presence" or "coming"?
- Conclusions
Other Considerations
The Society presently argues that Jerusalem fell in 607 B.C. However, C. T. Russell's predictions about 1914, based on those of N. H. Barbour, put the fall in 606 B.C. They arrived at this by using a date for the first year of Cyrus that was accepted by some scholars at the time, but not most, 536 B.C. (The Time is at Hand, p. 42). Counting forward 2520 years from 606 B.C. we actually arrive at 1915 A.D. Barbour and Russell had neglected to account for the lack of a "zero" year between 1 B.C. and 1 A.D. The Society did not begin using 607 B.C. as the start of the Gentile Times until 1943, with the publication of The Truth Shall Make You Free. On page 238-239, in a hand-waving sort of explanation,3 the Gentile Times are explained as actually having begun in 607 B.C. due to a difference in the way the beginning of the year was reckoned in ancient and modern calendars. This interpretation has been retained ever since. Note that the date of Jerusalem's destruction was explicitly retained as the summer of 606 B.C. This event was not dated to 607 B.C. until the following year, where the change is explained away in a footnote at the bottom of page 171 of The Kingdom Is At Hand. The footnote essentially claims that The Truth Shall Make You Free changed the date, but this is simply not true.
So the original 1914 prediction was based on an incorrect date. It should also be pointed out that not one visible thing that Russell had predicted about 1914 came true. All the Society's doctrines that are advanced today about 1914, except for the invisible end of the Gentile Times, came after 1914, and as a result of the failure of the original predictions.
Interestingly, the book Revelation -- Its Grand Climax At Hand!, on p. 105, mentions the conversion of the date, but makes it appear as if God were somehow directing things, and calls the change an "adjustment":
"It was in B.C. 606, that God's kingdom ended, the diadem was removed, and all the earth given up to the Gentiles. 2520 years from B.C. 606, will end in A.D. 1914.*" -- The Three Worlds, published in 1877, page 83.
* Providentially, those Bible Students had not realized that there is no zero year between "B.C." and "A.D." Later, when research made it necessary to adjust B.C. 606 to 607 B.C.E., the zero year was also eliminated, so that the prediction held good at "A.D. 1914." -- See "The Truth Shall Make You Free,"...
Note that the Revelation book is not clear on exactly what went from 606 to 607 B.C. The Truth Shall Make You Free talked only about the start of the Gentile Times changing from 606 to 607, and it explicitly stated that Nebuchadnezzar "destroyed Jerusalem in the summer of 606 B.C." This seems to be another case where the Society simply glosses over embarrassing information with vague references.
It is entirely clear that the only reason The Truth Shall Make You Free changed the date is that the Society realized that neglecting the zero year in counting the 2520 years could no longer be ignored. Interestingly, this miscount had been known by both C. T. Russell and J. F. Rutherford. The Revelation book's referring to this reason by the vague term "research" confirms my contention that the Society would prefer that Witnesses not know how the 607 B.C. date actually evolved. See my essay on "The Evolution of 606 B.C. to 607 B.C. In Watchtower Chronology" for much more information about this change. Also see "The Watch Tower Society and Absolute Chronology" by Karl Burganger, 1981, for related information.
Are the Gentile Times seven times of 2520 years?
There is no positive proof that the seven times of Daniel 4 apply to anything other than the events related to Nebuchadnezzar's madness. There is no proof that the reference to the "appointed times of the nations" in Luke 21:24 apply to these seven times. The claim that the seven times actually refers to seven periods of 360 years each requires a long chain of shaky reasoning, pulling texts from here and there, with no justification whatsoever. The Society and others have made many attempts to put together chronologies based on using the day-year principle with various numbers mentioned in the Bible: 1260 days, 1290 days, 1335 days, 2300 days, three and a half times, etc. All have been abandoned for the simple reason that they did not work. All predictions based on them failed.
Certain scriptures indicate that Jesus was enthroned shortly after his resurrection in 33 A.D., not 1914. "To the one that conquers I will grant to sit down with me on my throne, even as I conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne." (Rev. 3:21) "he [Jehovah] raised him up from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above every government and authority and power and lordship." (Eph. 1:20, 21) "All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth." (Matt. 28:18) How, then, can it be held that "Jerusalem," understood as being the Kingdom of God, was trodden down by the Gentiles right up to 1914? The Society has never satisfactorily explained how the Gentile trampling of Jerusalem stopped in 1914.
Does parousia as used at Matt. 24:3 mean "presence" or "coming"?
Matthew 24:3 has been the object of much discussion among Bible scholars. The disciples asked Jesus (New World Translation):
When will these things be, and what will be the sign of your presence and of the conclusion of the system of things?
The word "presence" is translated from the Greek parousia, and is usually translated "coming." So the usual understanding is that the "sign" would precede or accompany Christ's coming or arrival. The interlinear translation The Emphatic Diaglott translated parousia as "presence," about 1870, and the Society has used the interpretation that this has been an "invisible presence" since its inception.4 If this translation of parousia is correct, the disciples did not ask for the sign preceding or accompanying Christ's arrival, but for the sign which would follow his arrival and mark his (invisible) presence. But does parousia really mean "presence?"
Parousia has the literal meaning of "presence" or "a being alongside," but also has the secondary meaning of "arrival" or "coming," and it has the technical meaning of "the visit of a ruler." The well-known Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Kittel and G. Friedrich, devotes fourteen pages to a discussion of the word parousia, thirteen of which are given to the "Technical Use of the Term." It presents very strong evidence for the conclusion that parousia, when used in connection with Christ's second coming, is used in its technical sense.
There is very little support among Bible translators for rendering parousia as "presence." In all but a few translations they render the word as "coming," "advent," "arrival," or by similar terms. They do this despite the fact that all of them agree that "presence" is the primary meaning. Why? Is it logical to believe that so many experts on the original language of the Greek Scriptures have somehow failed to grasp the true sense of parousia?
The earliest translators, going back to the 1st century, did their work while the koine Greek was still a living language. In nearly every verse relating parousia to the coming of Christ they render it as some form of "coming" or "arrival." For example the Latin Vulgate and even older Latin translations used the word adventus (literally "a coming to") from which the English word "advent" is derived. They did so despite the fact that the primary meaning of parousia is "presence." For centuries the reason they did this was somewhat of a mystery, until excavations around the turn of the century turned up hundreds of thousands of inscriptions and texts that revolutionized the understanding of koine Greek. For example, it was found that the Bible was written in the language of the common people.
The word parousia had light shed on its meaning in the classic work by Professor Adolf Deissmann in 1908, Light from the East. His discussion of parousia opened with the following explanation:
Yet another of the central ideas of the oldest Christian worship receives light from the new texts, viz. parousia [parousia], 'advent, coming,' a word expressive of the most ardent hopes of a St. Paul. We now may say that the best interpretation of the Primitive Christian hope of the Parousia is the old Advent text, 'Behold, thy King cometh unto thee.' [Matthew 21:5] From the Ptolemaic period down into the 2nd cent. A.D. we are able to trace the word in the east as a technical expression for the arrival or the visit of the king or the emperor.
Thus there is a general consensus among modern scholars that parousia in the Greek Scriptures, when used of the second coming of Christ, is used in its technical sense of a royal visitation. Such a visitation of course results in a subsequent presence, but the emphasis is on the arrival.
The Society has given several explanations of why it always renders parousia as "presence." After acknowledging the above points about the technical meaning, The Kingdom Interlinear Translation, 1969, said:
However, this does not deny or disprove that in the Christian Greek Scriptures the word has the meaning of presence where it is used in connection with Jesus Christ and others. To prove what a word means the Scriptural context is more decisive than any outside papyrus usage of the word in a technical way.
Unfortunately the line of argument is dropped and no examples of how the context proves the point are given.
A more recent discussion of parousia is given in the 1984 New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures with References, pp. 1576-7 (Appendix 5b), which starts by citing four Bible translations that render parousia as "presence" at Matt. 24:3. However, the first three were published before the discoveries of Deissmann and his colleagues, and the fourth is The New World Translation. The major reference work quoted, The Parousia by Israel P. Warren, dates from 1879.
Several modern Greek lexicons are referred to, which all give "presence" as the primary meaning of parousia. But readers are not told that these same lexicons emphasize that the word is used in its technical sense when the Greek Scriptures refer to the parousia of Christ. The TDNT (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament) that is referred to uses 13 out of 14 pages explaining this use.
Insight, Vol. 2, p. 676, refers to Vine's Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words in support of its translation of parousia. While this is generally an excellent reference work, W. E. Vine was a member of a subgroup of the Plymouth Brethren, and was one of the most outspoken advocates of the "secret rapture" doctrine in our century. This apparently caused him to define parousia in a way that supported his theological views, but this brought conflicts with other scholars.
The Kingdom Interlinear Translation referred to earlier said that one must look at the context of a word in the scriptures to ascertain its correct meaning. What does the context of Matt. 24:3 show?
First, it cannot be denied that Christ's second coming is "the visit of a king." That the disciples used the word parousia in its technical sense is clearly indicated by Matthew 24 as a whole. The Society even admits this in the 1973 book God's Kingdom of a Thousand Years Has Approached on pages 168-9. Did the disciples have in mind an invisible presence and want to know the sign of it, in Matthew 24:3? The Watchtower of January 15, 1974, gives the answer on page 50:
When they asked Jesus, "What will be the sign of your presence?" they did not know that his future presence would be invisible. (Matt. 24:3) Even after his resurrection they asked: "Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?" (Acts 1:6) They looked for a visible restoring of it.
Now, if they thought that Jesus's future presence would be visible, why did they ask for a sign in proof that he would be present invisibly? Would not his visible presence be sign enough? Evidently they wanted to know the sign accompanying or preceding his arrival, as is confirmed by the way Jesus answered their question. After having mentioned wars, food shortages, earthquakes, the great tribulation, and his coming on clouds, he said:
Now learn from the fig tree as an illustration this point: Just as soon as its young branch grows tender and it puts forth leaves, you know that summer is near. (Matt. 24:32)
Note that he did not say: "as soon as its young branch grows tender and it puts forth leaves, you know that summer is present." Then he continues:
Likewise also you, when you see all these things, know that he is near at the doors. (Matt. 24:33)
"All these things," therefore, would prove that he "is near at the doors," not that he has already come through the doors and is now invisibly present, just as the young branch of the fig tree growing tender and putting forth leaves proves that the "summer is near," not present. So the comparison is in time, not space -- between the summer as being near, and Christ as being near. It would make no sense to claim the illustration meant that summer was "alongside," because the point of the illustration was that summer was not yet there. Evidently "all these things" mentioned by Jesus would precede his arrival, not follow it. This view puts a very different perspective on the rest of Matthew 24 than the Society has always advanced. It should also be kept in mind that none of the visible events C. T. Russell predicted to occur by 1914 actually happened.
That this is the correct understanding is verified by the way the account in Mark 13 frames the disciples's question. The question for the "sign" refers to the destruction of the temple only. It certainly is impossible to think that they needed some "sign" to convince them that the temple had been destroyed or that its destruction was taking place. They wanted some indication in advance of that event. The New English Bible shows clearly this is the intent in its rendering of Mark 13:4:
'Tell us,' they said, 'when will this happen? What will be the sign when the fulfillment of all this is at hand?'
The New World Translation renders Matthew 24:37-39 thus:
For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be.... they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be.
The New World Translation with References, in Appendix 5b, p. 1576, says:
From the comparison of the parousia of the Son of man with the "days of Noah," in Mt 24:37-39, it is evident that this word means "presence."
It is not at all evident from Matthew that this is what it means. On the contrary, Jesus is not comparing the parousia with the period preceding the Flood, but with the surprising coming of the Flood itself. Note how the New American Standard Version renders these verses:
For the coming of the Son of Man will be just like the days of Noah.... they did not understand until the flood came and took them all away; so shall the coming of the Son of Man be.
The coming of the Son of Man is paralleled with the coming of the Flood. Like the Flood his coming will be a revolutionizing event, a divine intervention that will immediately and unmistakably change the situation for all mankind. Just as in the days of Noah men were swiftly taken unawares in the middle of their daily occupations, so it will be also in the "day when the Son of man is to be revealed." (Compare Luke 17:30 and Matt. 24:39)
Other scriptures indicate his parousia will come without warning. The verses following Matthew 24:37-39 show this clearly:
Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken along and the other be abandoned; two women will be grinding at the hand mill: one will be taken along and the other be abandoned.
The events are clearly portrayed as happening swiftly and without warning. How could they logically be applied to a period that has already lasted nearly eighty years?
In certain parables Jesus emphasized the need for his servants to be alert and on the watch, and he presents his judgment as like that which follows a master's returning to his household. The master's coming or arrival, not some invisible presence, is what he describes. It is not as if the master slipped into the area and invisibly proceeded to pass judgment on what his servants were doing, only later revealing himself to them. On the contrary, the master's return, though perhaps unexpected, is quickly evident to all his servants, the faithful and the unfaithful. It is manifest from the beginning of his arrival, and his judgment is not made from some invisible hiding place but in a most open manner.
What about the "composite sign" that the Society says is so much a part of Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21? This sign is said to include world wars, famines, pestilences, earthquakes and increasing lawlessness. The opinion of many Bible commentators today is well summarized by several statements from early Watch Towers. Most Jehovah's Witnesses would be surprised to know that C. T. Russell held exactly the opposite opinion to what the organization holds today.
The March, 1884 Watch Tower printed a reader's question and Russell's answer:
Does Matt. 24:6 teach that "Wars and rumors of wars" are a sign of the end of the Gospel Age?
A. No; we think not. Wars and rumors of wars have characterized earth's history, with varying frequency and cruelty, ever since the fall of man. But the Scriptures assure us that the time of the end of the Gospel Age, or end of the dominion of the "prince of this world," will witness a more general and widespread warfare than was ever known before, involving all the powers of earth....
So also famines and pestilences and earthquakes are not to be regarded specially as signs of the end. Though they will doubtless be frequent, and perhaps more so in the time of the end, like wars have been a part of Satan's policy from the first.
An article in the September, 1884 Watch Tower, by H. Grattan Guiness, said:
Now consider the subject of the signs of the times. Remarks on this subject are too often made which betray a want of intelligent comprehension of the nature of the signs that are according to Scripture to indicate the "time of the end." A careless reading of our Lord's prophetic discourse on the Mount of Olives seems to be the cause of much of this misapprehension. His predictions of wars and rumors of wars, famines, pestilences, and earthquakes, are quoted as if they and such like things were to be the signs of the end of the age. A little accurate attention to the order of his statements would at once show that, so far from this being the case, he mentions these as the characteristic and common events of the entire interval prior to his coming. Wars and calamities, persecution and apostasy, martyrdom, treachery, abounding iniquity, Gospel preaching, the fall of Jerusalem, the great tribulation of Israel, which has, as we know, extended over 1,800 years; all these things were to fill the interval, not to be signs of the immediate proximity of the second advent. How could things of common, constant occurrence be in themselves signs of any uncommon and unique crisis? What commoner all through the ages than wars and rumors of wars, famines, pestilences, and earthquakes? These, as marking the course of the age, can never indicate its close....
.... No, there was nothing special to alarm the antediluvians before the day that Noah entered into the ark; nothing special to startle the men of Sodom ere the fire from heaven fell; and like as it was in those days, so will it be in these. All going on just as usual, no single sign to attract the world's attention. "None of the wicked shall understand" the true state of affairs, only the "wise" enlightened by the word of prophecy.
It should be clear that if such signs are capable of such flexible interpretations and applications as the Society and others have given, certainly they cannot be used to prove that Christ has been invisibly present since 1914 and that the "time of the end" began at that time.
Conclusions
From all the evidence presented in this essay, and a great deal more that is not, it is clear that the Watchtower Society's interpretations conflict with both the Bible and with historical facts. If the historical evidence that Jerusalem fell in 587 B.C., rather than the Society's claimed 607 B.C., contradicted some clear statement in the Bible, the choice would be clear on what should be accepted. But the contradiction is with the Society's interpretation of portions of the Bible, which gives them a meaning not stated in the Bible itself. The uncertainties in such human interpretations are certainly equal to the uncertainties in unraveling ancient history.
Now, all these arguments would go up in smoke if, as the November 1, 1986 Watchtower said, on p. 6:
When Did the "Seven Times" Really End?
Some people argue that even if the "seven times" are prophetic and even if they last 2,520 years, Jehovah's Witnesses are still mistaken about the significance of 1914 because they use the wrong starting point. Jerusalem, they claim, was destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E., not in 607 B.C.E. If true, this would shift the start of "the time of the end" by some 20 years. However, in 1981 Jehovah's Witnesses published convincing evidence in support of the 607 B.C.E. date. ("Let Your Kingdom Come," pages 127-40, 186-9) Besides, can those trying to rob 1914 of its Biblical significance prove that 1934 -- or any other year for that matter -- has had a more profound, more dramatic, and more spectacular impact upon world history than 1914 did?
The answer to the Society's question is a definite Yes. Many historians state that the year of the French Revolution, or other years, were more significant than 1914 in terms of world history. A detailed study of what the Society claims is happening with regard to earthquakes, pestilences, famines, and the other features of the "composite sign" shows that the 20th century is no worse, and in some cases much better, than preceding centuries. For example, historian Barbara Tuchman, in the book A Distant Mirror, shows how the 14th century was similar in many ways to the 20th, and in some cases much worse. The black plague, for instance, killed about one third the population of the entire world. Nothing even remotely like that has yet happened in the 20th century.
The most conclusive evidence that the "composite sign" is a myth is the fact that the 20th century has experienced a tremendous population explosion. If famines, pestilences and wars had been killing people at the rate they did before the 20th century we would not have a population problem today. It was only the fact that all these things were so rampant before the 20th century that prevented the population explosion from occurring earlier. That is why world population was about the same in 1000 A.D. as at the time of Christ.
As far as earthquakes are concerned, research into a data base of worldwide earthquakes going back to 2100 B.C., obtained from the U.S. Geological Survey's Earthquake Data Base System, shows that the 20th century is pretty much the same as any other, both in terms of number of quakes per year and in number of people killed per year. In fact the two decades prior to 1914 had about twice the average number of magnitude 8 and up quakes as any decade since. The Society's figures in these regards are based on incomplete data and a gross misuse of statistics. Reading between the lines in some of the later Watchtowers, it is clear the Society is aware of all of this, but it has no choice but to continue to claim what it has since the 1920s.
As shown above, a detailed analysis of The Watchtower's claim that "in 1981 Jehovah's Witnesses published convincing evidence in support of the 607 B.C.E. date" in Let Your Kingdom Come, shows that this, too, is nonsense. The book ignored or misrepresented much evidence, lamely stating:
.... even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.
Clearly, the Society realizes there is no historical evidence supporting the 607 date. A chronology resting on "yet undiscovered material," yet demolished by the discovered material, has no foundation. All false ideas could be retained on the same principle. A faith founded upon such ideas is not based on "the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld" but upon blind credulity.
It should be unacceptable to honest persons to know that they have been misinformed. It would be even worse for them to knowingly misinform others. The 1974 book Is This Life All There Is?, on page 46, sums it up nicely:
Knowing these things, what will you do? It is obvious that the true God, who is himself "the God of truth" and who hates lies, will not look with favor on persons who cling to organizations that teach falsehood. (Psalm 31:5; Proverbs 6:16-19; Revelation 21:8) And, really, would you want to be even associated with a religion that had not been honest with you?
Part 5: Appendix A
Gesenius' Hebrew -- Chaldee Lexicon to the Old Testament gives, among others, the following general meanings for the pronoun le, on pages 421-425:
(A) It denotes proper motion, or at least direction, and turning towards something.
(1) to, towards, unto.
(2) to, even to.
(3) into, used of something passing into another condition.
(4) It is the mark of the dative....
(5) as to, with regard to.
(6) on account of.
(7) concerning, about, of, used of a person or thing made the object of discourse.
(8) on behalf of any one, for any one. Isa. 6:8 "who shall go for us."
(9) as applied to a rule or standard, according to. Gen. 1:11, "according to its kind."
(B) More rarely le is used:
(1) of rest, or tarriance at a place, or in a place.
Several examples are given of this. Hosea 5:1 is given as "at Mispah," which the New World Translation renders as:
a trap is what you have become to Mizpah.
This shows that even the translators of the NWT recognize there are several meanings for le. Curiously enough the King James Version renders this as:
ye have been a snare on Mispah.
This is odd because Gesenius is keyed off the King James Version. Other translations render Hos. 5:1 as:
But you have been a snare to Mizpah. Tanakh -- The Holy Scriptures
a snare ye have been on Mizpah. Young's Literal Translation
you have been a snare to Mizpah. The Interlinear Bible
Bible versions that say "at Mizpah" are:
You have been a snare at Mizpah. New International Version
you have been a snare at Mizpah. The Revised English Bible
you have been a snare at Mizpah. New Revised Standard Version
you have been a snare at Mizpah. New American Standard Bible
you have been a snare at Mizpah. The Jerusalem Bible
So here we have a case where le is rendered "at," "to," and "on." The context and translator's preference are clearly major factors in determining a rendering.
Gesenius gives many more possibilities for rendering le, but they are not relevant to this discussion.
Other bible verses are more straightforward in showing that le can be translated "for" or "at" or many other ways. Numbers 11:10 is rendered "at the entrance of" in all the above translations except the King James Version, which says almost the same thing, "in the door of."
In Ezra 2:1 le-babel is rendered "to Babylon" in most translations, whereas The New World Translation uses "at Babylon" to give the same thought:
Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon had taken into exile at Babylon. NWT
King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had carried into exile to Babylon. Tanakh
See also Ezra 5:12.
The phrase "for us" in Hebrew is le-nul, which the New World Translation renders in Psalm 124:1 as: "Jehovah proved to be for us."
Other places where The New World Translation renders le as "for" are:
Jer. 2:28 "for yourself" le-ka
Jer. 7:33 "for the flying creatures" le-'oph
The passage at Jer. 51:49 is a particularly good example where a vague meaning in Hebrew is translated in many slightly different ways. Here, the NWT again renders the Hebrew le-babel as "at Babylon," and gives its own unique meaning to the verse.
Not only was Babylon the cause for the slain ones of Israel to fall but also at Babylon the slain ones of all the earth have fallen. New World Translation
The literal renderings from two interlinear Hebrew-English bibles are:
As-Babylon is-to-fall (for)-the-slain-of Israel, so- for-Babylon shall-fall the-slain-of all the-earth. The Interlinear Bible
Indeed Babylon to-fall ones-slain-of Israel indeed because-of-Babylon they-fell ones-slain-of all-of the- earth. The NIV Interlinear Hebrew-English Old Testament
Other renderings are:
As Babylon hath caused the slain of Israel to fall, so at Babylon shall fall the slain of all the earth. King James Version
Yes, Babylon is to fall [For] the slain of Israel, As the slain of all the earth Have fallen through Babylon. Tanakh -- The Holy Scriptures
As Babylon is to fall for the slain of Israel, so for Babylon the slain of all the earth shall fall. The Interlinear Bible
Babylon must fall for the slain of Israel, as the slain of all the earth have fallen because of Babylon. New Revised Standard Version
Indeed Babylon is to fall for the slain of Israel, As also for Babylon the slain of all the earth have fallen. New American Standard Version
Not only hath Babylon caused the fall of the slain of Israel, By Babylon also have fallen the slain of all the earth. The Emphasized Bible
Babylon both was for the falling of the killed of Israel, and at Babylon fell the killed of all the earth. The Bible in Living English
Babylon in her turn must fall because of those who were slaughtered in Israel, just as through Babylon there fell men slaughtered over all the world. The Jerusalem Bible
Babylon, too, must fall, O slain of Israel, as at the hands of Babylon have fallen the slain of all the earth. The New American Bible
Babylon must fall for the sake of Israel's slain, as the slain of all the world fell for the sake of Babylon. The New English Bible
Babylon in her turn must fall because of Israel's slain, as the slain of all the world have fallen because of Babylon. The Revised English Bible
Babylon must fall because of Israel's slain, just as the slain in all the earth have fallen because of Babylon. New International Version
Babylonia caused the death of people all over the world, and now Babylonia will fall because it caused the death of so many Israelites. The Bible in Today's English Version
As Babylon hath caused the slain of Israel to fall, so at Babylon shall fall the slain of all the land. American Standard Version
As Babylon had the dead of Israel put to the sword, so in Babylon the dead of all the land will be stretched out. The Bible in Basic English
And Babylon also must fall for the slain of Israel, As for Babylon have fallen the slain of all the earth. Smith & Goodspeed's The Bible: An American Translation
Just as Babylon killed the people of Israel, so must she be killed. The Living Bible
As Babylon caused the slain of Israel to fall, so at Babylon shall fall the slain of all [her] land. The Amplified Bible
Even Babylon is to fall, ye pierced of Israel, Even they of Babylon have fallen, Ye pierced of all the earth. Young's Literal Translation
and in Babylon the slain men of all the earth shall fall. Brenton's Septuagint
From all the above renderings it is evident that there is much room for variation in translating the phrase le-babel from Hebrew. It can be rendered by many words, including "for" and "at." On a textual basis only, there seems to be no definitive reason for preferring one rendering over another, as the various renderings above of "at, to, on Mizpah" and "at, for, of, because of, in, through, by Babylon" show.
Part 6: Appendix B: The Pivotal Date 539 B.C.
The Watchtower Society's current Bible dictionary Insight on the Scriptures has stated a fine principle to guide the Bible scholar who is interested in chronology. On page 450 of Volume 1, in the major section "Chronology," subsection "Bible Chronology and Secular History," the book states:
There is no reason to feel doubt about the accuracy of the Biblical chronology simply because certain secular records are at variance with it. On the contrary, it is only when the secular chronology harmonizes with the Biblical record that a person may rightly feel a measure of confidence in such ancient secular dating.
The Society has revised its version of biblical chronology many times since Nelson Barbour and Charles Taze Russell published the first version of it in 1877, in a joint work called Three Worlds, and the Harvest of this World. This early chronology used 536 B.C. as an anchor date. Barbour and Russell said that this year was the date of Babylon's fall to Cyrus the Great, and was the year of the Jews' return from exile. The dates for these events were disputed among Bible scholars at that time, but Barbour and Russell chose the ones that made their calculations of what they called "parallel dispensations" look attractive and symmetrical.
By the 1940s, it had become evident to those writing the Society's publications that these dates were untenable in the face of much historical evidence. During the 1940s the Society changed the dates for various important events several times, and even since then the evidence on which those dates were claimed to be based has been changed dramatically. Here we examine how the Society has changed its view of the pivotal date for the fall of Babylon, 539 B.C., from the 1940s onward.
In the early 1940s the Society held that Babylon fell to the Medes and Persians in 538 B.C., and that the Jews returned from exile in 536 B.C. In the chapter "The Count of Time," the 1943 book The Truth Shall Make You Free said on pages 151-2:
It is well established that two years after the overthrow of Babylon in 538 B.C. by Darius the Mede and his nephew, Cyrus the Persian, the first year of Cyrus' exclusive rule began, which year was 536 B.C.
However, the 1944 book The Kingdom Is At Hand said on page 195, with respect to the date for Babylon's overthrow:
According to the most accurate histories, Darius the Mede and Cyrus the Persian, his nephew, jointly took the capital of the Babylonian empire in 539 B.C. After Darius' brief rule there, Cyrus came to power, in 537 B.C.
Here it is said that Babylon fell in 539 rather than 538 B.C., and that Cyrus came to power in 537 rather than in 536 B.C. While this is quite correct, the book engaged in no discussion of why the dates were revised by one year. How can it be said that dates that in 1943 were "well established" had become obsolete a year later?
Until 1952 the Society published no evidence to back up its new date of 539 B.C. Instead, scholars were quoted to support the date. The first attempt at providing specific support came in the May 1, 1952 Watchtower, page 271, which said:
Almost all early Bible chronology ties in with secular history at the year 539 B.C., in which year the fall of Babylon to Darius and Cyrus of the Medes and the Persians occurred. In late years several cuneiform tablets have been discovered pertaining to the fall of Babylon which peg both Biblical and secular historic dates. The one tablet known as the "Nabunaid Chronicle" gives the date for the fall of Babylon which specialists have ascertained as being October 12-13, 539 B.C., Julian Calendar, or October 6-7, 539 B.C., according to our present Gregorian Calendar.
It should be noted that the "Nabunaid Chronicle" had not become known "in late years," but had been discovered in 1879 and translations made available since the 1890s. The Watchtower's motives in saying this are clearly to avoid raising questions in readers' minds about why it took so long for the Society to recognize the evidence published in "the most accurate histories." This duplicity is again evident in what the February 1, 1955 Watchtower said on page 93:
The Watch Tower Society has endeavored to keep its associates abreast with the latest available scholarship on Bible chronology.
This same Watchtower said on page 94, concerning 539 B.C.:
The outstanding Absolute date for the B.C. period of the Hebrew Scriptures is that for the fall of Babylon as the capital city of the third world power at the hands of Cyrus, king of the Persians.... This date is made Absolute by reason of the archaeological discovery and deciphering of the famous Nabunaid Chronicle, which itself gives a date for the fall of Babylon and which figure specialists have determined equals October 13, 539 B.C., according the the Julian calendar of the Romans.
The Society's next discussion of "absolute dates" is found in the 1963 book All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial. Paragraph 2 on page 85 quotes three secular sources that support the 539 B.C. date. The last of these is from The Encyclopedia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, Vol. 7. It is not clear from this reference that the Eleventh Edition was published in 1910 and 1911. Not many readers would know this, so the information is concealed from the reader. Why is this important? Because it establishes that the correct information had been known by historians for a long time, and the Society did not want to stimulate its readers into thinking about the implications. The reference did not have to be concealed, for it could have been cited in the manner the Insight book did on page 457 in two places: "The Encyclopedia Britannica, 1911, Vol. XVI," etc.
The quoted material leaves out another clue as to how long the Society had been concealing information about 539 B.C. All Scripture quotes from Britannica:
Why the war with Babylon, which had become inevitable, was delayed until 539, we do not know. Here too Cyrus in a single campaign destroyed a mighty state. The army of Nabonidus was defeated; Babylon itself attempted no resistance, but surrendered on the 16th Tishri ... 539, to the Persian general Gobryas.
The last sentence is immediately followed in the Encyclopedia by a parenthetical reference to another name for Gobryas: "(Gaubaruva, see the chronicle of the reign of Nabonidus....)" This is a clear reference to the Nabonidus Chronicle, which shows that the Chronicle was well enough known in 1910/11 to be referred to in an encyclopedia. It proves that the Society has not always tried "to keep its associates abreast with the latest available scholarship on Bible chronology." Significantly, this discussion was dropped from the 1990 edition of the All Scripture book.
The 1963 All Scripture book also discussed what it termed "absolute dates." On page 85, paragraph 3, it said:
This date 539 B.C.E. is an absolute date, that is, a date fixed, proved and accepted by secular history.
Compare this to the wording of the 1990 edition, page 85, paragraph 3:
This date 539 B.C.E. is a pivotal date, that is, a date that may be harmonized with both secular and Biblical history.
The later edition gives no hint as to how a date might be so harmonized.
It should be noted that the Society has dropped the term "absolute date" in favor of "pivotal date," and that these terms are seldom used outside of Watchtower publications. A comparison of the 1963 All Scripture book with the 1990 edition demonstrates why the terminology has changed. The earlier book said on page 281, under the sub-title "Absolute Dates":
Reliable Bible chronology is based on certain absolute dates. An absolute date is a calendar date that is proved by secular history to be the actual date of an event recorded in the Bible.
The 1990 edition said on page 282, under the sub-title "Pivotal Dates":
Reliable Bible chronology is based on certain pivotal dates. A pivotal date is a calendar date in history that has a sound basis for acceptance and that corresponds to a specific event recorded in the Bible.
Although the earlier book allows that secular history may prove the actual date of a biblical event, the later edition leaves the question open by giving no criteria for determining what is a "sound basis for acceptance." This allows the Society the option of picking and choosing among secular evidences for those that support its notions -- the smorgasbord approach to scholarship.
The matter of the switch from 538 to 539 B.C. not having been discussed for eleven years, the author of the 1963 All Scripture book now feels free to tell the date the Nabonidus Chronicle was discovered, and discuss its significance, on page 282, paragraph 29:
A prominent event recorded both in the Bible and in pagan secular history is the overthrow of the city of Babylon by the Medes and Persians under Cyrus.... The pagan record was made by King Nabonidus, and it has been dated by him in what is known as the Nabonidus Chronicle, discovered in 1879.... Modern authorities have set this absolute date for the fall of Babylon as... 539 B.C.E.
The 1990 edition, on pages 282-3, kept the first sentence pretty much intact, but changed the second sentence thus:
Various historical sources (including Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, Ptolemy, and the Babylonian tablets) support 539 B.C.E. as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus. The Nabonidus Chronicle gives the month and day of the city's fall (the year is missing). Secular chronologers have thus set the date for the fall of Babylon as... 539 B.C.E.
Note particularly two things that are stated to support the 539 date: Ptolemy and the Babylonian tablets. It is not entirely clear what "the Babylonian tablets" refer to, since there are many categories of such, like business and administrative documents, historical narratives, astronomical diaries, etc. "Ptolemy" refers to the writings in Claudius Ptolemy's famous astronomical work, the Almagest (c. 150 A.D.). Included as a sort of appendix was a list, or canon, of kings and the lengths of their reigning years, which served as a chronological scale for his astronomical data. The list has come to be called "Ptolemy's canon," and includes kings that ruled Babylon, Persia, etc., down to Ptolemy's time in the 2nd century A.D.
The noted Bible scholar E. R. Thiele cleared up a point that has misled a number of people who misunderstood the purpose of the canon: "Ptolemy's canon was prepared primarily for astronomical, not historical, purposes. It did not pretend to give a complete list of all the rulers of either Babylon or Persia, nor the exact month or day of the beginning of their reigns, but it was a device which made possible the correct allocation into a broad chronological scheme of certain astronomical data which were then available. Kings whose reigns were less than a year and which did not embrace the new year's day were not mentioned in the canon." This is why, for example, the Babylonian king Labashi-Marduk, who reigned only two or three months, is not mentioned in the canon.
The Society gave the Nabonidus Chronicle top billing for many years as the most important single piece of evidence confirming the 539 B.C. date for Babylon's fall, but never gave any details about the supporting evidence. It was only stated that recognized authorities supported the date. The above quotations illustrate this practice, and it was continued for many years. For example, the 1963 book Babylon the Great Has Fallen -- God's Kingdom Rules spoke about the fall of Babylon, and on page 227 explained:
The date given in this paragraph is according to pages 170, 171 of the book Nabonidus and Belshazzar, by R. P. Dougherty, which sets out data according to the famous Nabonidus Chronicle dealing with the fall of Babylon.... See also page 14, P1, under "Cyrus," of Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75, by Parker and Dubberstein, 1956 Edition.
On page 366 the Babylon book said:
We accept from secular historians the year 539 B.C. as a fixed date, marking the downfall of Babylon.
The 1965 book Make Sure of All Things said on page 84, under the subject "Chronology":
Secular chronologers generally agree Babylon fell in October of 539 B.C.E.
It then quoted two secular historical books in support of the date, and quoted from a translation of the Nabonidus Chronicle. The 1985 equivalent of this book, "Reasoning from the Scriptures," on page 93, under the subject "Dates," said:
In secular sources there is disagreement on dates given for events in ancient history. However, certain key dates, such as 539 B.C.E. for the fall of Babylon, and hence 537 B.C.E. for the Jews' return from captivity, are well established.
Interestingly, the September 15, 1965 Watchtower forgot about the intermediate calculations leading from the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C. to the return from exile in 537 B.C., and called 537 B.C. a "pivotal date." The article later stated that Babylon fell in 539 B.C., but never offered supporting data.
About the middle of 1965 work was started on a new Bible dictionary, to be called Aid to Bible Understanding, which was published first in 1969, subjects A through E only, and the complete version in 1971. A major topic of research was chronology. A lengthy article on "Chronology" was eventually produced, along with articles on many related subjects. Much of this material was published in Watchtower articles from 1968 through 1971. The Society changed many of its ideas as a result of the research. However, there were still many holes in the arguments on chronology.
For example, the May 1, 1968 Watchtower published two articles focused on the chronology leading up to the claim that 1975 would mark the end of 6000 years of human history. On page 268 it discussed "absolute dates" and said:
For calculating Hebrew Scripture dates, the absolute date of October 5 to 6 in the year 539 B.C.E. is essential. This was the year that the Medes and Persians overthrew Babylon and it was definitely established in secular history when a record was found of King Nabonidus, the father and coregent of King Belshazzar. This remarkable clay document established that Babylon fell on October 5 to 6, in the year 539 B.C.E. according to the Gregorian calendar.
The August 15, 1968 Watchtower published a series of three articles that amounted to a major position statement on chronology in connection with establishing 1975 as the end of 6000 years of human history. On page 488 the first article stated a fine principle:
Honest investigators... recognize the truly genuine worth of the Bible as unimpeachable testimony, confirmed by all the discoveries that have been unearthed.
On page 490 the article began discussing "absolute dates":
[An absolute] date must be one where sacred and secular historical events coincide and are linked in perfect agreement with current methods of measuring time distances.... One such fixed or absolute date is in connection with the events recorded in the fifth chapter of Daniel.... That was concerning the time when the Medes and Persians under Cyrus the Great... captured the city of Babylon, and overthrew the Third World Empire. The year was 539 B.C.E.
The fixing of 539 B.C.E. as the year when this historical event occurred is based on a stone document know [sic] as the Nabonidus (Nabunaid) Chronicle. This important find was discovered in ruins near the city of Baghdad in 1879, and it is now preserved in the British Museum. A translation of this finding was published by Sidney Smith in... 1924, and reads in part:....
Then the Nabonidus Chronicle is quoted. The article correctly states that the fixing of 539 is based on the Chronicle, not that the Chronicle directly states the date. This point was missed in all of the earlier publications. However, the next paragraph in the article neglects this point, and attributes the deciphering of the date to modern scholars in a most interesting way:
Please note, the Nabonidus Chronicle gives precise details as to the time when these events took place. This, in turn, enables modern scholars, with their knowledge of astronomy, to translate these dates into terms of the Julian or Gregorian calendars.
Note the approving tone of the reference to "modern scholars, with their knowledge of astronomy." The article then refers to two books that confirm the 539 date, Light from the Ancient Past, by a well-known Bible scholar, Jack Finegan, and a major work of the mid-20th century on this subject, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C. -- A.D. 75, Parker and Dubberstein, 1956.
Finegan is quoted about the Nabonidus Chronicle, but he clearly states in his book that the "exact dates" he refers to are the day and month, not the year. The year is not stated in the Chronicle, because the very place on the cuneiform tablet where the key reference to Nabonidus's 17th year would have been was broken off, and "reference to the 'seventeenth year' of Nabonidus... has been inserted by translators." [May 15, 1971 Watchtower, p. 316; see below].
Here are some other references: The 1990 All Scripture book said on page 283 that "the Nabonidus Chronicle gives the month and day of the city's fall (the year is missing)." The Aid book mentioned on page 1197 (subject "Nabonidus") that "it may be noted that the phrase 'seventeenth year' does not appear on the tablet, that portion of the text being damaged." The Insight book, Vol. 2, page 459, under the subject "Nabonidus," also makes this clear.
Oddly enough, the Aid book misstated this on page 409 (subject "Cyrus"): "According to the Nabonidus Chronicle, in the seventeenth year of Nabonidus's reign (539 B.C.E.) in the month of Tishri... Cyrus attacked the Babylonian forces at Opis and defeated them." The Insight book also was vague about the issue, under the subject "Cyrus," on page 569 of Vol. 1. It stated that "by means of this inscription, the date of Babylon's fall can be fixed as Tishri 16, 539 B.C.E.," but gave no clear indication of the supporting data that allows historians to fix the date. This supporting data comes from sources such as Berossus, who is mentioned in the preceding paragraph on page 567 of the article.
Next, in paragraph 18, the 1968 Watchtower article states:
Recognized authorities of today accept 539 B.C.E. without any question as the year Babylon was overthrown by Cyrus the Great. In addition to the above quotations the following gives a small sampling from books of history representing a cross section of both general reference works and elementary textbooks. These brief quotations also show that this is not a date recently suggested, but one thoroughly investigated and generally accepted for the past sixty years.
Then are listed about 20 quotations from "recognized authorities," going back to about 1908, supporting the 539 B.C. date. It should be noted that the date was accepted by many, but not all, scholars, at least as far back as the 1864 edition of Smith's Bible Dictionary. After the quotations, in paragraph 19 the article further states:
With the date 539 B.C.E. so firmly fixed and agreed to by so many scholars, we are quite confident where we stand today in relation to the fall of Babylon twenty- five centuries ago.
So up to this point the article accepts the firmly fixed and unquestionably correct date of 539 B.C. for Babylon's fall, based on (1) the Bible, (2) the Nabonidus Chronicle, (3) astronomy, (4) documentation from history books and the weight of historical scholarship, (5) "recognized authorities" such as Jack Finegan, and Parker and Dubberstein. In preparation for a discussion of the Society's date of 607 B.C. for the fall of Jerusalem, the paragraph then begins the interesting process of discounting similar findings of such "recognized authorities." Because these authorities peg that date to 587 or 586 B.C. (the ambiguity is due to the Bible itself, not secular evidence), the paragraph now calls them the "traditional chronologers of Christendom." This includes the authors Jack Finegan, Parker and Dubberstein, and those who wrote the history books and comprise the weight of historical scholarship -- all of whom the Society extensively quotes in support of 539 B.C. elsewhere in publications on chronology. The typical Watchtower reader is not aware that the two sets of people are one and the same.
The February 1, 1964 Watchtower, page 80, similarly uses the complimentary term "Bible chronologers" rather than "chronologers of Christendom" for "secular historians" when speaking of their fixing of the dates of Cyrus's overthrow of Babylon and of his first regnal year.
The complete Aid book was published in 1971, and in the article on "Chronology" it discussed "pivotal dates." Quite a few details of the Society's view of "absolute dates" had changed from when All Scripture Is Inspired was published in 1963. On page 328, Aid makes its key argument for establishing the authority of the 539 date:
A number of important Biblical events took place during the Persian period: the fall of Babylon, followed by Cyrus' release of the Jews.... As with much of the Neo-Babylonian period, chronology for the reigns of the kings of the Persian Empire is dependent largely on the Ptolemaic canon and also other "classical" sources. With some exceptions, it harmonizes well with the Biblical chronology. The date of 539 B.C.E. for the fall of Babylon can be arrived at not only by Ptolemy's canon but by other sources as well. Historians such as Diodorus, Africanus and Eusebius show that Cyrus' first year as king of Persia corresponded to Olympiad 55, year 1 (560/59 B.C.E.) while Cyrus' last year is placed at Olympiad 62, year 2 (531/30 B.C.E.). Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a rule of 9 years over Babylon, which would therefore substantiate the year 539 as the date of his conquest of Babylon.
So here the Aid book for the first time in the Society's history puts forth more specific details of the historical data that confirm the 539 date, rather than simply accepting the word of "recognized authorities." With this piece of the chronological puzzle in place, Aid can discuss other aspects of chronology. The equivalent discussion can be found in Insight, Vol. 1, page 454, but the details are quite different.
At this point it must be asked, Why did the Society reject astronomical dating in general, but accept the word of some ancient scholars to establish 539 B.C. as a solid date? The answer is that it wanted to circumvent the certainty with which the astronomical evidence establishes Neo-Babylonian chronology. Put simply, if the astronomically established dates are right, the Society's dates are wrong. Therefore the above article tries to establish the 539 date by referring to the Olympiads.
Let us examine what is involved in this dating. It will be seen that these ancient writers are not independent of one another. Diodorus of Sicily, a Greek historian writing in the first century B.C., claims to have gotten his information for the Olympiadic dating of Cyrus from other second- and third-century Greek historians. If his claim is true, his sources were at least 300-400 years removed from the days of Cyrus.
Africanus, writing in the third century A.D., says his source for dating Cyrus by Olympiads is Diodorus. Following Diodorus, he dates Cyrus's first regnal year to Olympiad 55, year 1 -- 560/59 B.C.
Eusebius of Caesarea, a church historian writing in the late third and early fourth centuries A.D., got his information on the Olympiadic dating of Cyrus's first regnal year from Diodorus and Africanus. Then he consulted a reliable king list to determine that Cyrus reigned over Persia for 30 years. On this basis, he then computed the Olympiadic dating for the end of Cyrus's reign to be Olympiad 62, year 2 -- 531/0 B.C.
The Society then takes this information and consults cuneiform tablets (what information the tablets provide is not described) to determine how long Cyrus reigned over Babylon. From this the date for the fall of Babylon is computed. Note that the best sources available for the Olympiadic dating are at least 300-400 years removed from the actual reign of Cyrus. Then a king list and cuneiform tablets must be consulted before the Olympiadic dates can be translated into calendar dates for the fall of Babylon.
The reader should compare these arguments to those given to discredit Berossus, Ptolemy, the astronomical evidence, ancient historians, etc., in various Watchtower articles published in 1968-9, and in Aid and Insight. The Society's duplicity will become painfully evident.
On page 333, under the subheading "The Biblical Count of Time," Aid spoke of making a count back through time to the beginning of human history:
To make the count in terms of modern calendar dating we must use some fixed point or pivotal date with which to commence, that is, a date in history that has sound basis for acceptance and that corresponds with a particular event recorded in the Bible.
The 1990 All Scripture book borrowed from this (and the corresponding section in Insight, page 458). Aid continues:
Another date that can be used as a pivotal point is the year 539 B.C.E., supported by various historical sources as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian. (As has been shown, secular sources for Cyrus' reign include Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius and Ptolemy, as well as the Babylonian tablets.)
The Aid book provided other supporting data as well. Under the subject "Nabonidus" a certain amount of mixed feelings on the part of the authors is evident with respect to the dates of Nabonidus's rule. Why would they have such mixed feelings? Somewhere before 539 B.C. there is a 20 year gap that the Society must account for, but has never been able to do. So at this time the Society did not want to commit itself to supporting 17 years for Nabonidus, but wanted to leave the door open for extending his reign back by some years. On page 1195 Aid said Nabonidus was the
Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire and father of Belshazzar. On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some seventeen years (556-539 B.C.E.). (However, see CHRONOLOGY.)
Let's see what the subject "Chronology" has to say about the years of Nabonidus's rule. Under the subsection "Babylonian Chronology" Aid says on page 327 that Ptolemy's canon assigns "17 years to Nabonidus." It states on page 328:
In view of all these factors it is certainly not wise to insist that the traditional figures for the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings be received as definite, nor that Ptolemy necessarily had access to reliable and accurate sources for all his dates.... Syncellus, who is, however, far removed from the time [late 8th or early 9th century A.D.], would give Nabonidus a rule of 34 years instead of 17.
Further showing why Aid throws cold water on the dating of Nabonidus's rule, the next paragraph on page 328 says:
Both the lack of contemporary historical records and the ease with which data could be altered definitely allow for the possibility that one or more of the Neo-Babylonian rulers had a longer reign than the Ptolemaic reckoning shows.
This is said to try to allow for the 20 year gap between Watchtower Society chronology and that of "recognized authorities" in the early part of the Neo-Babylonian period. The problem is that if Nabonidus's accession year was 556 B.C., Nebuchadnezzar's last year must have been 582 B.C. (under "Nebuchadnezzar" Aid says 581, but Insight says 582), rather than the 562 B.C. date that everyone else accepts. The lengths of the reigns of kings in between these monarchs, according to the vast bulk of historical data, account for the 6 years from 562 to 556 B.C., and so this 20 gap appears.
However, if Nabonidus did not reign for 17 years, then the synchronism with certain other classical documents is lost. The chronological problems that arise if this synchronization is lost are nowhere addressed in the article. Under "Cyrus" on page 409 Aid says that the two classical writers Africanus and Diodorus
place the start of Cyrus' reign in the first year of the 55th Olympiad, or 560/559 B.C.E. Herodotus relates that Cyrus thereafter revolted against the Median rulership.... This was in the sixth year of Nabonidus' reign (550 B.C.E. in secular history) according to the Nabonidus Chronicle....
Jewish historian Josephus records an account of Cyrus' conquest written by the Babylonian priest Berossus... as follows: "In the seventeenth year of his [Nabonidus's] reign, Cyrus came out of Persia with a great army.... Hereupon Cyrus took Babylon...."
So if Nabonidus's reign did not begin in 556/5 B.C. then Cyrus's reign did not begin in 560/59 B.C., according to the Nabonidus Chronicle, and then Diodorus, Africanus and Eusebius cannot be used to support 539 B.C. for the fall of Babylon.
Somehow the authors of Aid do not think that Josephus's mention of Nabonidus's 17th year as his last is a problem, for on page 1197, while discussing the phrase "17th year," that is missing from the Nabonidus Chronicle, the book states:
It may be noted that the phrase "Seventeenth year" does not appear on the tablet, that portion of the text being damaged. This phrase is inserted by the translators because they have not found any other cuneiform tablets dated beyond Nabonidus' seventeenth year. So they assume that the fall of Babylon came in that year of his reign and that, if the tablet were not damaged, those words would appear in the space now damaged. Even though Nabonidus' reign were of greater length than generally supposed, this would not change the accepted date of 539 B.C.E. as the year of Babylon's fall, for there are other sources pointing to that year. (See CYRUS.)
The paragraph is wrong when it implies that the fall of Babylon is assumed to be in Nabonidus's 17th year because of the lack of cuneiform tablets dated after that year. The phrase "seventeenth year" is inserted because of explicit statements such as Josephus's, and those of other ancient historians. The fact that no cuneiform tablets are dated later than this merely confirms these statements.
Aid next says, on page 1197, that it accepts the calculations of "secular chronologers":
While the year is missing, the month and day of the city's fall, nevertheless, are on the remaining text. Using these, secular chronologers calculate the sixteenth day of Tashritu (Tishri) as falling... in the year 539 B.C.E. Since this date is an accepted one, there being no evidence to the contrary, it is usable as a "pivotal date" in coordinating secular history with Bible history.
The May 15, 1971 Watchtower article "Testimony of the Nabonidus Chronicle," pages 315-6, said virtually the same thing as the above material from Aid, and added:
It may also be noted that the Jewish historian Josephus [quoting Babylonian priest Berossus (of the third century B.C.E.)] reports that Cyrus took Babylon in the seventeenth year of Nabonidus' reign.
The article added the testimony of Ptolemy's canon and ancient historians Diodorus, Africanus and Eusebius, and cuneiform tablets, in support of the 539 B.C. date, and said that this evidence is "sufficient for accepting 539 B.C.E. as the date for Babylon's fall."
At this point it should be noted that very little real data has been given by any of the Society's publications in support of the 539 B.C. date. Instead, "recognized authorities" have been quoted in support, and in the one place where more data is given (Aid, p. 328, subject "Chronology") it still does not say exactly what the various sources say. Aid does not say what the ancient historians Diodorus, Africanus and Eusebius reported that supports the date. The above description of how those historians obtained their dates (page 85) gives some indication why. Aid does not tell the reader anything about the cuneiform tablets that "give Cyrus a rule of 9 years over Babylon," and "which would therefore substantiate the year 539 as the date of his conquest of Babylon."
Why not? The reason becomes clear when the real historical evidence is examined. If the testimony of, say, Ptolemy's canon is accepted because it agrees with that of Berossus, Diodorus, Africanus and many cuneiform tablets, then there is very good reason for accepting its testimony about other dates when it agrees with all these sources. The Society's difficulty stems from the fact that all these sources, and others like them, show that not only did Cyrus conquer Babylon in 539 B.C., but Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in 587 B.C., not 607 B.C. The Society cannot afford to build up the evidence too much in this direction, but must always leave the door open to be able to knock down evidence against the 607 date. This can only be done by keeping the reader in the dark. Clearly the Society is willing to accept or reject historical evidence based on, not just the facts, but on its own traditional interpretations, which were borrowed from the Second Adventists in the mid-1870s.
Why has the Society tried so hard to discredit Ptolemy's canon? Because, as with so much other evidence, if it is right the Society is wrong about the 607 B.C. date for Jerusalem's destruction. A few statements about the trustworthiness of Ptolemy's canon, from publications after the Aid book came out, illustrates some of the difficulties. The December 15, 1977 Watchtower, on page 747, had this to say:
How certain can we be of the presently accepted chronology of the ancient Babylonian Empire? For many years, chronologists have put heavy reliance on the king list of Claudius Ptolemy, a second-century Greek scholar often considered the greatest astronomer of antiquity.
However, in his new book "The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy," the noted physicist Robert R. Newton of Johns Hopkins University offers proof that many of Ptolemy's astronomical observations were "deliberately fabricated" to agree with his preconceived theories "so that he could claim that the observations prove the validity of his theories."
In its comments on Newton's book, "Scientific American" magazine notes: "Ptolemy's forgery may have extended to inventing the length of reigns of Babylonian kings. Since much modern reconstruction of Babylonian chronology has been based on a list of kings that Ptolemy used to pinpoint the dates of alleged Babylonian observations, according to Newton 'all relevant chronology must now be reviewed and all dependence upon Ptolemy's [king] list must be removed.'" -- October 1977, p. 80.
These findings illustrate why secular history and chronological reckoning cannot be relied upon when they conflict with the Bible. Unlike secular historians, the Bible writers had nothing to gain by misrepresenting the facts.
The question must be asked, What has the Society to gain by its demonstrated misrepresentation of the facts?
Answer: The retention of its chronological system including the 'magic' year 1914.
The above quotations by The Watchtower make two main points: (1) Many of Ptolemy's astronomical observations were fabricated, and (2) Ptolemy may have invented his king list.
With regard to the first point, several astronomers and historians agree that Ptolemy may have fudged some of his data to support his astronomical theories. But the larger portion of them are valid, as Insight admits (Vol. 1, p. 455): "A modern astronomer found three fifths of Ptolemy's dates correct." So the astronomical verification of the king list Ptolemy gives cannot be accepted without some other form of verification. This has been done in spades, as shown below and in the main part of this essay.
With regard to the second point, is there any evidence that Ptolemy really invented the king list? If no other information besides Ptolemy's canon existed this would be a real problem. But the fact that the king list agrees extremely well with the testimony of many other ancient sources makes it a moot point. The evidence presented in this essay shows that what Robert Newton recommended be done, namely, "all relevant chronology must now be reviewed and all dependence upon Ptolemy's king list must be removed," had been done long before Newton examined the canon. Neo-Babylonian chronology can be firmly established without reference to Ptolemy, using other ancient historical sources and astronomical observations recorded in cuneiform tablets. The fact that his king list agrees with this independently established chronology simple adds more weight to the view that the chronology is correct, and shows that even if Ptolemy forged many of his observations, it has no bearing on the validity of his king list.
There are a couple of things that must be pointed out about The Watchtower's use of the writings of Robert Newton. Newton is a noted physicist, but is not a historian or expert in Babylonian chronology. In his book quoted in The Watchtower he admits that he has not studied sources other than Ptolemy for the years prior to Nebuchadnezzar, so that he is unfamiliar with all the other evidence we have examined in this essay. An examination of the arguments about Babylonian chronology he presents shows that some of them are identical to those of the Aid book. In the introduction to his book he said (p. XIV): "I thank Mr. Phillip G. Couture of Santee, California for correspondence which led me to understand some of the relations between chronology and the work of Ptolemy." Mr. Couture has been one of Jehovah's Witnesses since 1947.
Given the above facts, note how much force another comment by the Society loses. The May 22, 1984 Awake! had a blurb on page 9, knocking Ptolemy. Apparently referring to the work of Robert Newton, it said:
Claudius Ptolemy, of the second century C.E., whose geocentric view of the universe held sway for 1,400 years, was considered "the greatest astronomer of antiquity." Today scholars believe that he obtained his data, not by observations, but by copying the work of an early Greek astronomer, Hipparchus of Rhodes. He was also suspected of having obtained some data by working backward from the results he expected.
Whoever wrote this is woefully ignorant of the purpose of Ptolemy's canon. Much of the data in The Almagest consists of ancient observations, such as the eclipse of 621 B.C., so of course Ptolemy could not have observed it. He copied the observations from many ancient astronomers. We have already demonstrated in this essay that Ptolemy's king list was merely the latest update to one that had long been kept by astronomers for establishing a chronological framework in which to put their observations. Perhaps the Awake! writer thinks Ptolemy was more than 900 yeas old when he wrote The Almagest, and should have remembered the days of his youth better.
If Ptolemy's canon is really so unreliable, why does it agree so well with all other historical sources, in particular with respect to 539 B.C.? In the "Chronology" section the Aid book had a lengthy subsection on Ptolemy's canon, which discussed the difficulties for the Society's chronology that the canon presents. This discussion first appeared in the February 1, 1969 Watchtower, pages 90-1. On page 327 Aid completely neglects its statements about how well the canon agrees with other ancient historical data in support of the 539 B.C. date. The first paragraph in the subsection says:
Due to the lack of information from Babylonian sources, modern historians base their chronology for the Neo-Babylonian Empire largely upon what is known as the canon of Ptolemy.
As we have seen, this is utter nonsense. Modern historians use a wide variety of sources, including Ptolemy, other ancient historians, a variety of cuneiform tablets and various sorts of astronomical data. This argument is known as a "straw man." Set up a false notion, knock it down, and ignore the real problem. Aid continues:
Claudius Ptolemy lived in Egypt during the second century C.E., or over 600 years after the close of the Neo-Babylonian period. His canon assigns 21 years to the rule of Nabopolassar, 43 years to Nebuchadnezzar, 2 years to Evil-merodach, 4 years to Neriglissar, and 17 years to Nabonidus, or a total of 87 years. Counting back from Nisan of 538 B.C.E., historians therefore date Nabopolassar's first year as beginning in 625 B.C.E., Nebuchadnezzar's first year in 604, and the destruction of Jerusalem is placed by some in 586, by others in 587.
Note how the fact that the discrepancy is partly due to ambiguous statements in Jeremiah the 52nd chapter is concealed and chalked up against historians. The difficulty can be reconciled quite simply, but why should the Society burden the reader with confusing information?
These dates are some 20 years later than those presented in the chart accompanying this article.... This is because we accept the Biblical information, particularly as regards the seventy-year desolation of Judah (running from 607 to 537 B.C.E.), as accurate and as superior in reliability to the ancient secular records.
Of course, Aid does not point out that the interpretation of the 70 years is only that of the Watchtower Society and has no support in the Bible itself. Aid's author is unable to see that a difference might exist between what the Society says and what the Bible says.
In addition to the evidence already presented on the weaknesses manifest in the non-Biblical records, the following may be noted:
Ptolemy was not a historian and is known primarily for his works on astronomy and geography.
Then Bible scholar E. R. Thiele is quoted in support, but this misrepresents Thiele's position. Edwin R. Thiele wrote the book Aid refers to, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. In response to an inquiry of his opinion on the February 1, 1969 Watchtower's use of this quotation, Thiele said:
.... it is misleading and unscrupulous. It is misleading in that it would give an entirely different impression concerning this important canon of Ptolemy than I hold. It is unscrupulous, because a procedure of this type is not honest.
If the writer of this article had been honest -- or informed -- he would have known that I use Ptolemy's Canon in an entirely different way than he would have it used.
I have the utmost respect for the Canon, and find myself almost standing in awe of its detailed historical accuracy. The man who wrote it must have had at his finger tips an amazing amount of detail concerning early near Eastern history, and an astonishing amount of astronomical information fitting in at point after point with specific years of the kings. It is accurate and reliable all along the line. Astronomy is one thing upon which we can depend with complete confidence. And when the eclipses of the Canon are so fully in harmony with the years of the kings, we can be certain that the chronology involved is sound. The Canon is right and Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong.
What would I say about the article in general? I would say that such a writer and reader has no business writing about such a subject. He does not know the facts, or if he does, he does not use them in an honest manner. It reminds me of the way an unscrupulous lawyer would deal with facts in order to support a case he knows not to be sound.
Let us be charitable with the man and say that in his reading he does not read as an informed scholar should. In other words, let us accuse him rather of ignorance than dishonesty.
So it is clear that The Watchtower and Aid misrepresented the views of a bible scholar to support the Society's chronology. The Aid book and the 1969 Watchtower say pretty much the same thing from this point on.
Aid implies, on page 327, in paragraphs 5-9, as does the February 1, 1969 Watchtower, on page 90, that a gap in Assyrian chronology throws doubt on the entire Neo-Babylonian chronology. The book invokes guilt by association -- problems with Assyria spill over to Babylon. But the argument is of little value, because many independent lines of evidence point to the correctness of Neo-Babylonian chronology. The problems with Assyrian chronology do not cast doubt on this evidence any more than they cast doubt on the ancient historical documents known as the Bible.
In paragraph 6 Aid points out that the Babylonian Chronicle BM 21901 assigns the fall to Babylon of Assyria's capital Nineveh to Nabopolassar's 14th year, and that secular historians use Ptolemy to date this to 612 B.C. Then it talks about 763 B.C. as an absolute date in Assyrian chronology, and states that secular historians "should be able to count forward from that year and show that Assyrian rule at Nineveh did indeed extend down to 612 B.C.E." While it would be very nice if historians could do that, it does not follow that they should be able to do that. Does the fact that most of the history of the world is missing from the record affect historians's ability to date some events with precision? Aid drags around another red herring.
Nevertheless, the following information shows that historians can count from the start of Ashurbanipal's reign in 668 B.C. to the fall of Nineveh in 612 B.C. Let us now look at four sources of evidence that allow one not only to "count forward from" certain years to arrive at 612 B.C. for the fall of Nineveh, but to count backward as well.
From the statement in Aid, that "the Babylonian Chronicle BM 21901 puts the fall to Babylon of Assyria's capital Nineveh in Nabopolassar's 14th year, and that secular historians use Ptolemy to date this to 612 B.C.," we conclude that Nabopolassar's 1st year must have been 625/4 B.C. Let us establish this four ways.
First, Ptolemy's canon is used to date Nabopolassar's reign in the following way: Ptolemy mentions a lunar eclipse that has been astronomically dated to 621 B.C., and he associates Nabopolassar's 5th year with it. See Part 2 of this essay for details of this eclipse. This establishes Nabopolassar's 1st year as 625/4 B.C.
According to Ptolemy and a number of other sources Nabopolassar reigned 21 years, so his last year was 605/4 B.C. This was also his son Nebuchadnezzar's accession year, and therefore Nebuchadnezzar's 1st year was 604/3 and his 37th year was 568/7 B.C. We now have the first piece of evidence established, along with some corollary dates.
Second, we have the astronomical diary VAT 4956, which describes numerous astronomical events and states that these occurred in Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year. The events have been astronomically dated to 568/7 B.C., which is what we calculated above by working forward from the eclipse in Nabopolassar's 5th year. This diary is discussed in detail on page 23 of this essay. We now have two sources pointing to 625/4 B.C. as Nabopolassar's 1st year.
Third, there exists material matching up the reigns of Babylonian kings from before the Neo-Babylonian era with the first king of that era, Nabopolassar. It shows that the 16th year of Shamashshumukin was 652/1 B.C. His entire reign of 20 years is then dated to 667-648 B.C.
Shamashshumukin's reign has long been known from Ptolemy's canon, which gives him 20 years and his successor Kandalanu 22 years. Therefore Kandalanu's reign was from 647-626 B.C. Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar's father, succeeded Kandalanu to the throne. See the discussion of the Babylonian king Shamashshumukin on page 28 for details.
So now we have a third independent source pointing to the 1st year of Nabopolassar in 625/4 B.C. Aid's argument that Assyrian chronology has difficulties can now be seen to have nothing to do with Neo-Babylonian chronology. This particular argument does not appear in the corresponding discussions in Insight, Vol. 1, pages 450-6.
The fourth piece of evidence is not conclusive by itself, but strongly supports the evidence presented so far. The Neo-Babylonian stele that was discovered in 1956 and designated Nabonidus H1,B (also known as the Adda-Guppi stele after the name of the queen), recorded the number of years in the reigns of two Assyrian kings, Ashurbanipal and Ashur-etillu-ili, as well as those of the Neo-Babylonian kings Nabopolassar through Neriglissar. The record ends in the 9th year of Nabonidus's reign. See page 15 for a fuller quotation from this stele. The stele assigned lengths of reign for these kings: "the 42nd year of Assurbanipal, the 3rd year of Assur-etillu-ili, his son, the 21st year of Nabopolassar, the 43rd year of Nebuchadnezzar, the 2nd year of Awel-Marduk, the 4th year of Neriglissar." The stele stated that the queen was born in the 20th year of Ashurbanipal and that she died in the 9th of Nabonidus. Adding these up, we get 104 years, but this is not quite the right thing to do because there was an overlap of 2 years between the Assyrian king Assur-etillu-ili and the Babylonian king Nabopolassar. The scribe who recorded the stele added up the lengths of reign given in the stele in this way, and came up with 104 years for the life of the queen, but he missed the overlap. This means that the stele gives, with at most a two year uncertainty, the year 668 B.C. for the start of the reign of Ashurbanipal (625/4 for Nabopolassar's 1st; 623/2 for Assur-etillu-ili's 3rd; 626/5 for Ashurbanipal's 42nd and 668/7 for the start of his rule). Again the Society's claim that these historical accounts are in error bites the dust.
Finally, let us tie this information back to the beginning of our discussion of paragraph 6 on page 327 of Aid: We have three solid pieces of evidence proving that Nabopolassar's 1st year was 625/4 B.C. and a fourth piece consistent with this. Using Aid's quotation of BM 21901, that Nineveh fell in the 14th year of Nabopolassar, that year must have been 612 B.C. Therefore, Aid's attempt to discredit the accepted chronology of the period is wrong, and has been shown to rest on nothing more than the Society's desire to support its own chronology. Furthermore, we have shown that the Society does not hesitate to conceal and distort evidence to accomplish this.
Let Your Kingdom Come on page 186 admits that most modern historians -- the same ones the Society has variously called "recognized authorities" and "the chronologers of Christendom" -- "accept Ptolemy's information about the Neo-Babylonian kings and the length of their reigns." A similar statement may be found in Insight, Vol. 1, page 455. It also admits that "Ptolemy's figures agree with those of Berossus, a Babylonian priest of the Seleucid period." Of course, it attempts to minimize the significance of this agreement by saying that "evidently Ptolemy based his historical information on sources dating from the Seleucid period, which began more than 250 years after Cyrus captured Babylon." But it produces no data showing why this is evident, nor does it argue why this is significant.
In reality Let Your Kingdom Come says this merely because it wants to minimize the strength of support Ptolemy's canon gives for dating Jerusalem's destruction to 587 B.C. It is "evident" to Watchtower Society chronologers that Ptolemy got his sources from the Seleucid period only because of the problems it causes them, and they cannot find any evidence against the data in the canon aside from their own prejudices. Actually, Ptolemy's canon is a compilation of data handed down from astronomer to astronomer over a long period. They kept a running total of kings and updated it whenever a new king began to rule. The running total was kept in order to have a framework in which to put astronomical observations, and was just another way of keeping track of time over long periods, like our calendar does today. The best information we have is that Ptolemy's canon was compiled from Babylonian sources by Alexandrian astronomers long before Ptolemy, to be used in their astronomical calculations. It should be no surprise that most of the documents that got down to Ptolemy's era (mid-2nd century A.D.) were copies and translations, because Ptolemy and his contemporaries spoke Greek, not Babylonian. The point is whether the historical information available to Ptolemy was reliable, and since the canon and Berossus agree with each other and with a host of other documents, including astronomical ones, it is extremely likely they are correct.
In its arguments claiming that documents from the Seleucid era are highly suspect, such as in Let Your Kingdom Come, the Society has been extremely inconsistent. At times certain documents are said to be reliable, and at other times the same documents are rejected. The standard, however, has nothing to do with evidence, but only with how well the Society can use the document to support its argument of the moment. This smorgasbord approach to scholarship is unworthy of an organization claiming to represent the God of truth.
The above material shows how the Society rejects various documents because they may have been copies made in the Seleucid era. However, note the approval a document from that era receives when it supports the Society's chronology. On pages 1196-7 the Aid book describes the Nabonidus Chronicle.
Though it was no doubt originally from Babylon and written in Babylonian cuneiform script, scholars who have examined its script style say it may date from some time in the Seleucid period (312-65 B.C.E.), hence two centuries or more from Nabonidus' day. It is considered almost certainly to be a copy of an earlier document... the work of a Persian scribe.... However, while such may be the case, authorities feel that the "circumstantial data" it contains is nonetheless reliable.
It is a bit odd that even as late as 1981, when Let Your Kingdom Come was published, the Society had still not put out any detailed information as to why the 539 B.C. date was valid, but still relied on the word of secular authorities. It is still more odd when the book explicitly discounts their word when they disagree with the Society's chronology, but enthusiastically supports their word when they agree. The book said on page 136:
Historians calculate that Babylon fell in early October of the year 539 B.C.E.
When this statement is compared to the way these historians are completely discredited in the Appendix to Chapter 14 on pages 186-9, the Society's duplicity becomes clearly evident. Note also, in the quotation below from Insight, how the authors Parker and Dubberstein are treated with respect to establishing 539 B.C.
When the Insight book was published in 1988, the Society for the very first time wrote down a detailed description of how the 539 B.C. date for the fall of Babylon can be determined from the raw historical data. On page 453, under the subject "Chronology," subsection "Babylonian Chronology," the book said:
A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. This tablet contains the following astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II: "Year 7. Tammuz, night of the 14th, 1 2/3 double hours [three hours and twenty minutes] after night came, a lunar eclipse; visible in its full course; it reached over the northern half disc [of the moon]. Tebet, night of the 14th, two and a half double hours [five hours] at night before morning [in the latter part of the night], the disc of the moon was eclipsed; the whole course visible; over the southern and northern part the eclipse reached.".... These two lunar eclipses can be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer's Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) Thus, this tablet establishes the seventh year of Cambyses II as beginning in the spring of 523 B.C.E. This is an astronomically confirmed date.
Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.-A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E.
Oddly, the last year of Cyrus and the accession year of Cambyses II are given as 529 B.C. in the January 15, 1986 Watchtower, page 7. Compare the discussion in Insight with the equivalent discussion in the Aid book.
Insight then proceeds to knock holes in and reject all the types of information that also establishes the validity of 539 B.C. for Babylon's fall: Egyptian, Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian chronology; Berossus, Ptolemy and other ancient historians; tablets that are claimed to be defective later copies of originals; various sorts of astronomical calculations based on solar and lunar eclipses; astronomical diaries; archaeological dating. It said (p. 454): "In view of all these factors it is certainly not wise to insist that the traditional figures for the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings be received as definite."
To show how inconsistent this reasoning is, let's consider exactly what evidence Insight presents in support of the 539 date. First, it talks about a "clay tablet" that "is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology." The reader is not told that this tablet, known as Strm.Kambys.400, is a type of astronomical diary. Referring to two lunar eclipses mentioned in this text, Insight concludes: "Thus, this tablet establishes the seventh year of Cambyses II as beginning in the spring of 523 B.C.E. This is an astronomically confirmed date."
To arrive at the date 539 B.C., however, we also need to know the length of the reign of Cambyses's predecessor, Cyrus. For this, the Society is forced to accept the information found in another type of cuneiform text, the business documents known as the contract tablets: "The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year.... his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E."
So Insight is saying that the lack of tablets dated after Cyrus's 9th year is proof it was his last. Compare this easy acceptance of the evidence of the tablets to what Insight said on the very next page, 454:
Both the lack of contemporary historical records and the ease with which data could be altered definitely allow for the possibility that one or more of the Neo-Babylonian rulers had a longer reign than the traditional figures show. The fact that no tablets have been discovered that would cover the later years of such reign cannot consistently be used a strong argument against this possibility. There are cases of kings whose reigns come much farther along in the stream of time and for whom no such confirming tablets have been found.
Such contemporary business tablets are needed to establish the date of Cyrus's last year because there are no contemporary cuneiform historical documents that mention the length of his reign, nor are there any astronomical records that enable scholars to set any fixed date during his reign. One can be sure that if such documents were known the Society would mention them. The length is given however, by a number of ancient historians and by Ptolemy's canon, but because these also support 587 B.C. for Jerusalem's destruction Insight does not mention them. The tablets and ancient historical sources confirm one another.
So, to establish the date 539 B.C., the Society needs to rely on:
1. An astronomical diary.
2. Lunar eclipses.
3. Business tablets.
Yet on the next pages the Society rejects all these kinds of evidence because of their support for the date 587 B.C. for the destruction of Jerusalem.
If the Society's criticism of the astronomical diaries were valid, it would also apply to Strm.Kambys.400. Like the astronomical diary VAT 4956, this is a copy of an earlier original. See Part 2 for details. But the Society rejects astronomical diaries in general and VAT 4956 in particular; on the other hand it is forced to accept the most problematic one -- Strm.Kambys.400. Surely it would be difficult to find a more striking example of dishonest scholarship.
Let's now look at how the Society rejects the astronomical evidence disproving its claim that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C. On page 454 of Insight, Vol. 1, in the subsection "Astronomical Calculations," we find the following:
The claim is made that "astronomical confirmations can convert a relative chronology [one that merely establishes the sequence of events] into an absolute chronology, specifically, a system of dates related to our calendar."
The next paragraph downgrades the value of such data:
Many of the so-called synchronizations of astronomical data with events or dates of ancient history are based on solar or lunar eclipses. However, any "particular town or city would on the average experience about 40 lunar eclipses and 20 partial solar eclipses in 50 years, [although] only one total solar eclipse in 400 years.".... So, only in the case of a definitely stated total solar eclipse visible in a specific area would there be little reason for doubt in the fixing of a particular historical date by such means. In many cases the material from the ancient cuneiform texts (or other sources) concerning eclipses does not provide such specific information.
Compare this to Insight's description as an "astronomically confirmed date" "the seventh year of Cambyses II as beginning in the spring of 523 B.C.E." These arguments against the validity of such astronomical calculations are surely grasping at straws, as the following statement from the last paragraph on page 455 of Insight shows. After explaining that astronomical diaries contain a variety of descriptions of the unique position of the planets, sun and moon with respect to the stars, it said:
Modern chronologers point out that such a combination of astronomical positions would not be duplicated again in thousands of years. These astronomical diaries contain references to the reigns of certain kings and appear to coincide with the figures given in Ptolemy's canon. While to some this might seem like incontrovertible evidence, there are factors greatly reducing its strength.
Note how the paragraph grudgingly admits that references to the length of "the reigns of certain kings appear to coincide with" Ptolemy's canon. This is mere rhetoric: either they coincide or they do not coincide. In the case of Neo-Babylonian chronology the figures coincide exactly for the entire period, except that Ptolemy only mentions kings that reigned longer than one year, and so makes no mention of Labashi-Marduk, who only reigned a few months. The paragraph's use of "appear to coincide" is nothing but a smoke screen to divert the reader's attention from the fact that for the Neo-Babylonian period they DO coincide.
The next paragraphs enumerate the "factors greatly reducing" the strength of the astronomical observations. See the rest of this essay and others in this series for more details.
The first factor cited "is that the observations made in Babylon may have contained errors." To see how lame this is, note that if there really were significant errors for the period in question, no correspondence with the calculated positions of the celestial bodies would be possible at all. Any attempt to find such coincidences would fail completely. Since they succeed, the observations must be correct. The paragraph lamely implies that the occasional lack of clear days for observation means that valid observations could not be made at all.
The second factor "greatly reducing its strength" is said to be the fact that the majority of astronomical diaries are not contemporary with the original observations. What is not stated is precisely how this is supposed to be evidence against them. Nor is it made clear that the diaries that are contemporary fully support the accepted chronology. Nor is anything mentioned about the copious data contained in the lunar eclipse texts covering the 18-year period known as the saros (see Part 2). Since the texts cover the entire period from the middle of the 8th century B.C. through the 4th, without a break, and confirm the 539 B.C. date for the fall of Babylon, they cannot be ignored in establishing the chronology of the period, and it does not matter when they were written.
The paragraph misdirects the reader by saying that "contemporaneous astronomical texts are lacking by which to establish the full chronology" of the periods. While this is technically a true statement it is thoroughly misleading, because the contemporaneous texts which do exist are completely in agreement with everything else. It is not necessary that a complete set of texts establishing the "full chronology" of the Neo-Babylonian period exist, for the contemporaneous texts that do exist to support the chronology established by various other means. Nor are contemporaneous texts completely lacking, as a casual reading of the paragraph might suggest.
For example, as mentioned above on pages 15 and 96, the Adda-Guppi stele mentions the reign of every Neo-Babylonian king except Labashi-Marduk, down into the reign of Nabonidus, in which the queen died. There are also the Hillah stele, Nabonidus No. 8, and another designated Nabonidus No. 18 (see Part 2).
In summary, the paragraph establishes a standard of absolute completeness and perfection, and then claims that since this unattainable standard has not been met, the evidence is no good. This is yet another straw man. An attempt is made to mislead the reader into believing there is no contemporary historical evidence, but archeological discoveries show this is wrong.
The third paragraph on astronomical evidence, about factors "greatly reducing its strength," degenerates into pure speculation and is totally without content.
In this appendix we have examined the various evidences the Watchtower Society has used over the years to support the 539 B.C. date for the fall of Babylon. We have seen that until very recent times the Society relied exclusively on the word of "recognized authorities" to establish the date, and that it is still forced to do so with respect to astronomical dating, lunar eclipses and cuneiform business tablets. Yet the Society rejects all these historical evidences when they conflict with its date of 607 B.C. for the destruction of Jerusalem. As Edwin Thiele said, the way the Society discusses chronology "reminds me of the way an unscrupulous lawyer would deal with facts in order to support a case he knows not to be sound."
(For a more thorough examination of these issues, see The Gentile Times Reconsidered by Carl Olof Jonsson.)
Footnotes
1 Interestingly, the Babylon book, p. 184, says that Nabonidus took the throne immediately after Labashi-Marduk, implying a reign of 36 years for Nabonidus. This conflicts with the 17 years assigned by historians and in the later Watchtower references. The Aid book also says this on page 1196: "Nabonidus' ascension to the throne followed the assassination of Labashi-Marduk, son of Neriglissar."
2 Gerhard Larsson, "When Did the Babylonian Captivity Begin?" in Journal of Theological Studies, Vol. 18 (1967), p. 420.
3 Page 238: "Beginning in 606 B.C., and being seven in number, when would these 'times' end and the righteous overlordship of God's kingdom be established?"
Page 239: "In Nebuchadnezzar's time the year began counting from the fall of the year, or about October 1, our time. Since he destroyed Jerusalem in the summer of 606 B.C., that year had its beginning in the fall of 607 B.C. and its ending in the fall of 606 B.C."
"Inasmuch as the count of the Gentile "seven times" began its first year at the fall of 607 B.C., it is simple to calculate when they end."
4 The idea of an invisible presence goes back to the 1820s, when it was first suggested by a London banker, Henry Drummond. The "invisible presence" or "two-stage coming" theory, better known today as the "secret rapture" theory, was adopted by many other expositors of the prophecies. These included the British Irvingites, the followers of John Nelson Darby (the Plymouth Brethren), and various other millenarian groups. The well known Bible commentators W. E. Vine, C. I. Scofield, and in his later years, J. B. Rotherham, had their roots in these groups, and their reference works reflect this bias.
In 1876, under the influence of the Adventists Nelson H. Barbour, George Storrs, and others, Charles Taze Russell adopted "presence" as the only acceptable meaning of parousia to explain how Christ could have come in 1874, as Barbour had predicted, without being noticed by anyone. Russell's adopting this view, then, was due to a failed prediction and it was used as a means of explaining away the 1874 failure. This explanation was retained by the Watchtower Society until 1943, when the book The Truth Shall Make You Free shed "new light" on the subject and said that Christ's "invisible presence" had begun in 1914 instead of 1874.
