More issues with Chronology

A critical review of Rolf Furuli’s 2^nd volume on chronology:

 

Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian Chronology. Volume II of Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible

(Oslo: Awatu Publishers, 2007).

 

Part I:  The astronomical “diary” VAT 4956

 

©  Carl Olof Jonsson, Göteborg, Sweden, 2007

 

 

Rolf Furuli’s new book on chronology, Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian Chronology (Oslo: Awatu Publishers, 2007), covers 368 pages. Chapter 6 (pages 94-123) and Appendix C (266-325), which together cover 90 pages or about 25 percent of the book, are devoted to an attempt to overcome the evidence provided by the astronomical cuneiform tablet VAT 4956, dated to the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar II.

 

VAT 4956 is a so-called astronomical “diary” that records the positions of the moon and the five planets visible to the naked eye observed during the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar. About 30 of these records are so well preserved that they can be checked by modern computations. These computations have confirmed that the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar corresponds to year 568/567 BCE (spring-to-spring).

 

For a detailed description of this tablet and its importance for the absolute chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period, see pages 157-164 of my book The Gentile Times Reconsidered, 4^th edition (Atlanta: Commentary Press, 2004).  

 

 

 

 

HAS VAT 4956 BEEN “TAMPERED WITH” IN MODERN TIMES?

 

Furuli dedicates a substantial part of his discussion to arguing that the cuneiform signs on the tablet have been “deliberately tampered with” in modern times. In particular he claims that the signs for “year 37” at the beginning of the text in line 1 on the obverse of the tablet and the signs for “year 38” and “year 37” in the concluding lines at the lower edge on the reverse seem to have been “incised” by someone in modern times. He also claims that the signs for the name “Nebuchadnezzar” in line 1 on the obverse have been manipulated. After a lengthy analysis Furuli presents the following hypothesis on pages 285, 286:

 

“A consideration of the data above together with the unusual publication history of the tablet leads to the following hypothesis: VAT 4956 is an authentic cuneiform tablet that was copied from older tablets in one of the last centuries B.C.E. It came to the Vorderasiatische Museum in Berlin about 1905 as one single entity. Someone discovered that the tablet was extremely important because it was an astronomical tablet with the hitherto oldest astronomical observations. These observations seemed to fit year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II according to the chronology of Ptolemy, but a clear connection with Nebuchadnezzar II was lacking. In order to make this connection perfectly clear, the one working with the tablet used a modern grinding machine on the edge of the tablet, thus incising the signs for ‘year 37’ and ‘year 38.’ The first line with the name of the king was also manipulated. Because of the vibration, the tablet broke into three pieces, which were then glued together. It was discovered that the fit of the signs on both sides of the break on the reverse side was not perfect, and a grinding machine was used to try to remedy this. If this hypothesis is correct, a direct link to years 37 and 38 of Nebuchadnezzar II was not originally found on the tablet, but the lunar observations are genuine, while the planetary positions are probably backward calculations.”

 

On pages 295-324 Furuli discusses the astronomical contents reported on the tablet. He finds that the planetary positions on the whole fit the year 568/567 BCE, but claims that the 13 lunar positions better fit the year 588/587 BCE. At the end of the Appendix on pages 324, 325, therefore, he draws the following conclusions:

 

 “The following principal conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the discussion of VAT 4956: The Diary is most likely a genuine tablet made in Seleucid times, but in modern times someone has tampered with some of the cuneiform signs. Because of the excellent fit of all 13 lunar positions in 588/87, there are good reasons to believe that the lunar positions represent observations from that year, and that the original tablet that was copied in Seleucid times was made in 588/87. Because so many of the planetary positions are approximately correct, but not completely correct, there are good reasons to believe that they represent backward calculations by an astrologer who believed that 568/67 was year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II. Thus, the lunar positions seem to be original observations from 588/87, and the planetary positions are backward calculations for the positions of the planets in 568/67.”

What about the claim that someone in modern times has “tampered” with the signs on the tablet and, by using “a modern grinding machine on the edge of the tablet,” has incised the signs for ‘year 37’ and ‘year 38’ on the tablet? Furuli proposes this idea as a “hypothesis,” as he knows very well that he has not been able to present any evidence in support of the idea.

 

According to Furuli’s hypothesis, the supposed modern forger did not only incise the signs for “year 37” and “year 38” at the edge of the tablet. He also incised the signs for “year 37” and “manipulated” the signs for the name of the king, Nebuchadnezzar, in the beginning of line 1 on the obverse. The first question is how he could have done this, as there would have been no space at all at the beginning of the line for adding anything?

 

If there was another date and a different royal name on the original tablet, the modern forger had first to remove these signs (with the supposed grinding machine?) before the signs of the new date and the signs of the changes of the royal name could be incised on the tablet. But such a replacement of the first signs of line 1 could never have been done without leaving clear traces (e.g., depressions in the tablet) at the beginning of the line. No such traces exist. The signs look quite genuine. As one specialist on cuneiform points out:  

 

“Anyone acquainted with cuneiform can see that ‘year 37’ and ‘year 38’ are written by an experienced scribe. No modern person could have achieved to scratch (into dried clay!!) true-looking signs.” (Communication Hermann Hunger–C. O. Jonsson, Jan. 8, 200

 

Another problem with Furuli’s hypothesis is the identity of the supposed modern forger of the dates and the royal name on the tablet. The first translation of the tablet was that of Paul V. Neugebauer and Ernst Weidner, whose translation together with an astronomical examination and a discussion of it was published back in 1915. (“Ein astronomischer Beobachtungstext aus dem 37. Jahre Nebukadnezars II. (– 567/66),” Berichte über die Verhandlungen der königlich sächlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Philologisch-historische Klasse. 67. Band. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1915)

 

As the article by Neugebauer and Weidner clearly shows, the date and the royal name (“year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar”) were already on the tablet in 1915 when they were examining it. Are we to believe that these two scholars were forgers, who co-operated in removing some of the original signs on the tablet and replacing them with signs of their own preference? Even Furuli admits that he “cannot imagine that any scientist working with the tablet at the Vorderasiatische Museum has committed fraud.” (Furuli, p. 285) He has no idea about who the supposed forger may have been, or how he/she managed to change the signs on line 1 without leaving any traces of it on the tablet.  

 

Finally, Furuli’s hypothesis is self-contradictory. If it were true that the planetary positions “represent backward calculations by an astrologer who believed that 568/67 was year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II,” and if it were true that “the original tablet that was copied in Seleucid times was made in 588/87,” which Furuli argues was the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar, then the astrologer/copyist must have dated the tablet to the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar from the very beginning! No modern manipulation of the date would then have been necessary.

 

Furuli’s hypothesis is simply untenable. The only reason for his suggesting it is the desperate need to get rid of a tablet that inexorably demolishes his “Oslo [= Watchtower] chronology” and firmly establishes the absolute chronology for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BCE).

 

As discussed in chapter 4 of my book The Gentile Times Reconsidered (Atlanta: Commentary Press, 2004), there are at least nine other astronomical tablets that perform the same service. Furuli’s futile attempts to undermine the enormous burden of evidence provided by these other astronomical tablets will be discussed in another, separate part of this review.

 

The question that remains to be discussed here is Furuli’s claim that the lunar positions that were observed in the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar and are recorded on VAT 4956 fit the year 588/587 better than 568/567 BCE.

 

 

DO THE LUNAR POSITIONS RECORDED ON VAT 4956

FIT 588/587 BETTER THAN 568/567 BCE?

 

On the back cover of his new book Rolf Furuli states that the conclusion of his study is that “the lunar data on the tablet [VAT 4956] better fit 588 than 568 B.C.E., and that this is the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar II.” What about this claim?

 

A careful examination of all the legible lunar positions recorded on this astronomical “diary” proves that the claim is false. Almost none of the lunar positions recorded on VAT 4956 fit the year 588/587 BCE, while nearly all of them excellently correspond to lunar positions in the year 568/567 BCE.

 

The astronomy program used for this examination is Chris Marriott’s SkyMap Pro 11.04, which uses the modern complete ELP2000-82B lunar theory. The “delta-T” value used for the secular acceleration of the Moon is 1.7 milliseconds per century, which is the result of the extensive research presented by F. Richard Stephenson in his Historical Eclipses and Earth’s Rotation (Cambridge, 1997). The program used, therefore, maintains high accuracy far into the past, which is not true of many other modern astronomy programs. 

 

About a year before Furuli’s book had been published in the autumn of 2007 I had examined his claim (which he had published officially in advance) and found that none of the lunar positions fit the year 588/587 BCE. I shared the first half of my results with some of my correspondents. I did not know at that time that Furuli not only moves the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar 20 years back to 588/587 BCE, but that he also moves the 37^th year about one extra month forward in the Julian calendar, which actually makes it fall too late in that year. The reason for this is the following:

 

On the obverse, line 17, VAT 4956 states that on day 15 of month III (Simanu) there was a “lunar eclipse that was omitted.” The phrase refers to an eclipse that had been calculated in advance to be invisible from the Babylonian horizon.

 

On page 126 Furuli explains that he has used this eclipse record as the “point of departure” for  mapping “the regnal years, the intercalary months, and the beginning of each month in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, both from the point of view that 568/67 and 588/87 B.C.E. represent his year 37.”

 

In the traditional date for the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar, this eclipse can easily be identified with the eclipse of July 4, 568 (Julian calendar). Thus the Babylonian date, the 15^th of month III, corresponds to July 4, 568 BCE. From that date we may count backward to the 1st of month III, which must have been June 20/21 (sunset to sunset), 568. As the tablet further shows that the preceding Month II (Ayyaru) had 29 days and Month I (Nisannu) 30 days, it is easy to figure out that the 1^st of Ayyaru fell on May 22/23, 568, and the 1^st of Nisannu (i.e., the 1^st day of year 37) on April 22/23, 568 BCE.

 

On moving back 20 years to 588/87 BCE – the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar in Furuli’s alternative “Oslo Chronology” – we find that in this year, too, there was a lunar eclipse that could not be seen from the Babylonian horizon. It took place on July 15, 588 BCE. According to Furuli this is the eclipse that VAT 4956 dates to the 15^th of month III (Simanu). Reckoning backwards from July 15, Furuli dates the 1^st of month III to June 30, 588; the 1^st of month II (Ayyaru) to June 1, 588, and the 1^st of month I (Nisannu) to May 1. (In his discussions and/or calculations he is inconsistently alternating between May 1, May 2, and May 3).

 

There are a number of problems with Furuli’s dates. The first one is that the first day of the Babylonian year, Nisannu 1, never began as late as in May! As shown by the tables on pages 27-47 in R. A. Parker & W. H. Dubberstein’s Babylonian Chronology (Brown Univeristy Press, 1956), the 1^st of Nisannu never once in the 700-year period covered (626 BCE – CE 75) began as late as in May. The same holds true of the subsequent months: the 1^st of Ayyaru never began as late as on June 1, and the 1^st of Simanu never began as late as on June 30. For this reason alone the lunar eclipse that VAT 4956 dates to the 15^th of month III cannot be that of July 15, 588 BCE! This eclipse must have fallen in the middle of month IV in the Babylonian calendar. Furuli’s “point of departure” for his “Oslo Chronology,” therefore, is quite clearly wrong.

 

Very interestingly, the lunar eclipse of July 15, 588 BCE was recorded by the Babylonians on another cuneiform tablet, BM 38462, No. 1420 in A. Sachs’ LBAT catalogue, and No. 6 in H. Hunger’s Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia (ADT), Vol. V (Wien, 2001). I discussed this tablet on pages 180-182 of my book, The Gentile Times Reconsidered (3^rd ed. 1998, 4^th ed. 2004). The chronological strength of this tablet is just as decisive as that of VAT 4956. It contains annual lunar eclipse reports dating from the 1^st to at least the 29^th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (604/603 – 576/575 BCE). The preserved parts of the tablet contain as many as 37 records of eclipses, 22 of which were predicted, 14 observed, and one that is uncertain.

 

The entry containing the record of the July 15, 588 BCE eclipse (obverse, lines 16-1 is dated to year 17, not year 37, of Nebuchadnezzar! This entry reports two lunar eclipses in this year, one “omitted” and one observed. The first, “omitted” one, which refers to the eclipse of July 15, 588, is dated to month IV (Duzu), not to month III (Simanu). So it cannot be the eclipse dated to month III on VAT 4956. That this eclipse really is the one of July 15, 588 is confirmed by the detailed information given about the second, observed lunar eclipse, which is dated to month X (Tebetu) of year 17. The details about the time and the magnitude help to identify this eclipse beyond all reasonable doubts. The whole entry reads according to H. Hunger’s translation in ADT V, page 29:

 

“[Year] 17, Month IV, [omitted.]

[Month] X, the 13^th, morning watch, 1 beru 5^o [before sunrise^?]

All of it was covered. [It set eclips]ed.”

 

The second eclipse in month X – six months after the first – took place on January 8, 587 BCE. This date, therefore, corresponded to the 13^th of month X in the Babylonian calendar. This agrees with Parker & Dubberstein’s tables, which show that the 1^st of month X (Tebetu) fell on 26/27 December in 588 BCE. The Babylonians divided the 24-hour day into 12 beru or 360 USH (degrees), so one beru was two hours and 5 USH (= degrees of four minutes each) were 20 minutes. According to the tablet, then, this eclipse began 2 hours and 20 minutes before sunrise. It was total (“All of it was covered”), and it “[set eclips]ed,” i.e., it ended after moonset. What do modern computations of this eclipse show?

 

My astroprogram shows that the eclipse of January 8, 587 BCE began “in the morning watch” at 04:51, and that sunrise occurred at 07:12. The eclipse, then, began 2 hours and 21 minutes before sunrise – exactly as the tablet says. The difference of one minute is not real, as the USH (time degree of 4 minutes) is the shortest time unit used in this text. [The USH was not the shortest time unit of the Babylonians, of course, as they also divided the USH into 12 “fingers” of 20 seconds each.] The totality began at 05:53 and ended at 07:38. As moonset occurred at 07:17 according to my program, the eclipse was still total at moonset. Thus the moon “set while eclipsed.”

 

Furuli attempts to dismiss the enormous weight of evidence provided by this tablet in just a few very confusing statements on page 127 of his book. He erroneously claims that the many eclipses recorded “occurred in the month before they were expected, except in one case where the eclipse may have occurred two months before.” There is not the slightest truth in this statement. Both the predicted and the observed eclipses agree with modern computations. The statement seems to be based on the gross mistakes he has made on the previous page, where he has misidentified the months on LBAT 1421 with disastrous results for his calculations.

 

In the examination below, the lunar positions recorded on VAT 4956 are tested both for 568/567 BCE as the generally accepted 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar and for Furuli’s alternative dates in 588/587 BCE as presented on pages 295-325 of his book.

 

Furuli has also tested the lunar positions for the year 586/585 BCE, one Saros period (223 months, or 18 years + c. 11 days) previous to 568/567. As Furuli himself rejects this year as not being any part of his “Oslo Chronology”, I will ignore it as well as all his computations for that year (which in any case are far from correct in most cases).

 

The record of the first lunar position on the obverse, line 1, of VAT 4956 reads:

 

(1)  Obv.´ line 1: “Year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. Month I, (the 1^st of which was identical with) the 30^th (of the preceding month), the moon became visible behind the Bull of Heaven”.

 

Nisannu 1 = 22/23 April 568 BCE:

The information that the 1^st of Month I (Nisannu) was identical with the 30^th of the preceding month is given to show that the preceding lunar month (Addaru II of year 36, as shown also at Obv. line 5 of our text) had only 29 days. In 568 BCE the 1st day of Nisannu fell on 22/23 April (from evening 22 to evening 23) in the Julian calendar. After sunset (at c. 18:30) and before moonset (c. 19:34) on April 22 the new moon became visible c. 5.5^o east of (= behind) α Taurus, the most brilliant star in the constellation of Taurus (“the Bull of Heaven”). This is close enough to the position given on the tablet.

 

Furuli’s date: Nisannu 1 = 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd May 588 BCE:

In 588 BCE day 1 of Nisannu fell on 3/4 April according to the modern calculations of the first visibility of the new moon after conjunction. Between sunset (at c. 18:1 and moonset (at c. 19:14) on April 3 the new moon became visible at the western end of the constellation of Taurus, about 14^o west of (= in front of) α Taurus. Thus the moon was clearly not behind the constellation of Taurus at this time. This position, therefore, does not fit that on the tablet.

 

But as stated above, Furuli moves Nisannu 1 of 588 about one month forward in the Julian calendar, which is required by his identification of the lunar eclipse dated to month III on the tablet with the eclipse of July 15, 588. (Furuli, p. 296) This should have moved 1 Nisannu to 3/4 May, 588 BCE, a date that is scarcely possible, as all the evidence available shows that 1 Nisannu never fell that late in the Julian calendar in the Neo-Babylonian or any later period. But Furuli goes on to make an even more serious error in connection with this relocation of   Nisannu 1.

 

On page 311 Furuli explicitly states that, “In order to correlate the Babylonian calendar with the Julian calendar, I take as a point of departure that each month began with the sighting of the new moon.” He goes on to explain that, due to bad weather conditions, the month could sometimes “begin a day after the new moon.” Despite this pronounced (and quite correct) point of departure, Furuli, in his discussion of the planetary positions on page 296, dates the 1^st of Nisannu in 588, not to 3/4 May but to May 1. He does not seem to have realized that this was not the date of the sighting of the new moon after conjunction. On the contrary, this date not only preceded the first sighting of the new moon by two days, but also the date of conjunction (the time of lunar invisibility) by one day!

 

Later on, in the beginning of his discussion of the lunar positions on page 312, Furuli seems to have discovered that the May 1 date is problematic, because here he suddenly and without any explanation moves the beginning of 1 Nisannu in 588 forward, at first from May 1 to the evening of May 3, but finally, in the table at the bottom of the page, to the evening of May 2! Such manipulations of the Julian date for 1 Nisannu are, of course, inadmissible. One cannot have three different dates for 1 Nisannu in the same year!

 

True, the conjunction did occur on 2 May, at c. 03:39 local time. (Herman H. Goldstein, New and Full Moons 1001 B.C. to A.D. 1651, Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1973, p. 35) But this does not mean that the new moon became visible on that day in the evening after sunset. For a number of reasons, the time interval between the conjunction and the first sighting of the new moon is considerable. As Dr. Sacha Stern explains, “the time interval between conjunction and first evening of visibility is often as long as one day (24 hours); it ranges however, at Mediterranean latitudes between a minimum of about 15 hours and a maximum of well over two days.” (S. Stern, Calendar and Community, Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 100) The results of modern examinations of the first lunar crescents recorded on the Babylonian astronomical tablets from 568 to 74 BCE are presented by Uroš Anderlič, “Comparison with First Lunar Crescent Dates of L. Fatoohi,” available on the web at: http://www.univie.ac.at/EPH/Geschichte/First_Lunar_Crescents/Main-Comp-Fatoohi-Anderlic.htm . 

 

Thus the new moon could not be seen in the evening of 2 May, either. The earliest time for the visibility of the new moon was in the evening of 3 May, as stated above. Assuming that this incredibly late date for 1 Nisannu were correct, we find that the new moon did appear behind the constellation of Taurus in this evening (of May 3) between sunset (at c. 18:36) and moonset (at c. 20:05). But it was closer to the constellation of Gemini than to Taurus, so the position of the moon still does not fit very well.

 

In conclusion, the two dates for 1 Nisannu (1^st and 2^nd May) that Furuli actually uses in his computations are impossible. And should he have used May 3 as the date for 1 Nisannu, this would not have been of much help to him, as all the three dates are unacceptably late as the beginning of the Babylonian year.

 

(2)  Obv.´ line 3 says: “Night of the 9^th (error for: 8^th), the beginning of the night, the moon stood 1 cubit [= 2^o] in front of [= west of] β Virginis.”

 

Nisannu 8 = 29/30 April 568 BCE:

In 568 BCE the 8th of Nisannu fell on 29/30 April. In the beginning of the night on April 29 the moon stood about 3.6^o northwest of β Virginis, or about 2^o to the west (in front of) and 3^o to the north of (above) the star. This agrees quite well with the Babylonian measurement of 2^o, which, of course, is a rather rough and rounded-off figure.

 

Furuli’s date: Nisannu 9 = 11 May 588 BCE:

As Furuli (incorrectly) dates 1 Nisannu to 2 May in 588, he should have dated the 8^th and 9^th of Nisannu to May 9 and 10, respectively. However, he moves the dates another day forward, to May 10 and 11, respectively, as is shown in his table at the bottom of page 313. Based on this error, he claims that, “On Nisanu 9 [May 11], the moon stood 1 cubit (2^o) in front of β Virginis, exactly what the tablet says.” (Furuli, p. 313)

 

But this is wrong, too. In the “beginning of the night” of 11 May 588 the moon stood, not to the west of (in front of), but far to the east of (behind) β Virginis (about 13^o to the east of this star at 20:00). To add to the mess, the altitude/azimuth position of the moon in Furuli’s two columns to the right in his table is wrong, too, as it shows the position near midnight, not at “the beginning of the night” as the tablet says.

 

(3)  Obv.´ line 8: “Month II, the 1^st (of which followed the 30^th of the preceding month), the moon became visible while the sun stood there, 4 cubits [= 8^o] below β Geminorum.”

 

Ayyaru 1 = 22/23 May 568 BCE:

In 568 BCE the 1^st day of Month II (Ayyaru) fell on 22/23 May. The distance between sunset this evening (at c. 18:49) and moonset (at c. 20:46) was c. 117 minutes. This distance between the moon and the sun was long enough for the new moon to become visible while the sun still “stood there,” i.e., just above the horizon. At its appearance the new moon stood about 7.3^o south of (below) β Geminorum, which is very close to the position given on the tablet.

 

Furuli’s date: Ayyaru 1 = 1 June 588 BCE:

As Furuli has dated Nisannu 1 to 1 May, and later to 2 May, the 1^st of Ayyaru should fall one lunar month later.  Furuli (p. 314) dates it to June 1. This, however, conflicts with his earlier dates, because if Nisannu 1 began in the evening of 1 May as he holds at first (p. 296), and if Nisannu had 30 days as the tablet says, he should have dated the 1^st of Ayyaru to May 31. But because he later on redates the beginning of Nisannu 1 to the evening of 2 May (p. 312), he is now able to date the 1^st of Ayyaru to 1 June. But as was pointed out earlier, the 2 May date for Nisannu 1 is unacceptable, too, as the moon did not become visible until 3 May.

 

Furuli’s choice of 1 June seems to be due to the fact that the new moon could not be sighted until that day. It became visible at sunset (c. 18:56) about 9.7^o below β Geminorum. This is not “exactly 4 cubits below” this star, as Furuli states (p. 314), but close to 5 cubits below it. Yet this would have been an acceptable approximation, had the date been right. But it does not only conflict with Furuli’s dating of Nisannu 1 to 1 May; the month of Ayyaru never began as late as in June. In addition, the altitude/azimuth position Furuli gives in his table (+ 54 and 256) is also wrong, as it does not show the position of the moon at sunset, but at c. 15:16, when it was still invisible. Actually, Furuli’s figures for the altitude/azimuth position at the time of observation are so often erroneous that they will henceforth be ignored. The only detail that fairly corresponds to the statement on the tablet, then, is the position of the moon. Everything else is wrong.

 

(4)  Obv.´ line 12: “Month III, (the first of which was identical with) the 30^th (of the preceding month), the moon became visible behind Cancer; it was thick; sunset to moonset: 20^o [= 80 minutes]”.

 

Simanu 1 = 20/21 June 568 BCE:

In 568 BCE the 1^st day of Month III (Simanu) fell on 20/21 June. Day 1 began in the evening after sunset on June 20. At that time the new moon became visible behind (= east of) Cancer, exactly as the tablet says. According to my astro-program the distance from sunset to moonset was c. 23^o (= 92 minutes; from sunset c. 19:06 to moonset c. 20:38). This is not very far from the measurement of the Babylonian astronomers. The discrepancy of 3^o is acceptable in view of the primitive instruments they seem to have used. As N. M. Swerdlow has suggested, “the measurements could have been made with something as simple as a graduated rod held at arm’s length.” (N. M. Swerdlow, The Babylonian Theory of the Planets, Princeton University Press, 1998, pp. 40, 187)

 

Furuli’s date: Simanu 1 = 30 June 588 BCE:

As Furuli dated the 1^st of Ayyaru to June 1, and as the tablet shows that Ayyaru had 29 days, he should date the 1^st of Simanu to June 30, which he does. And it is true that we do find the moon behind Cancer on this date. Furuli states that “it was 6^o to the left (behind) the center of Cancer, so the fit is excellent.” But he has to add immediately that “it was so close to the sun that it was not visible.” (Furuli, p. 315. Emphasis added.)

 

The reason is that the conjunction had occurred earlier on the very same day, at about 03:30. (H. H. Goldstine, op. cit., p. 35) In the evening the time distance between sunset (at c. 19:09) and moonset (at c. 19:32) was still no more than 23 minutes, i.e., less than 6^o, so the moon was too close to the sun to be visible. Furuli does not comment on the fact that the tablet gives the distance between sunset and moonset as much as 20^o (80 minutes), showing that the moon on Simanu 1 was far enough from the sun during the observation to be visible, contrary to the situation in the evening of June 30 in 588. For this reason alone Furuli’s date is disqualified.

 

(5)  Obv.´ line 14: “Night of the 5^th, beginning of the night, the moon passed towards the east 1 cubit [2^o] <above/below> the bright star at the end of the Lion’s foot [= β Virginis].”

 

Simanu 5 = 24/25 June 568 BCE:

In 568 BCE the 5^th of Simanu fell on 24/25 June according to the tables of R. A. Parker & W. H. Dubberstein (Babylonian Chronology, 1956, p. 28). In the evening of the 24th, the moon passed towards the east c. 2^o north of γ Virginis, not of β Virginis. So here is a problem. Either the Babylonian scholar misnamed the star, or he misdated the observation by one day. In the previous evening (on the 23^rd), the moon passed c. 4^o above (north of) β Virginis. Thus Johannes Koch translates the 5^th of Simanu into June 23 of the Julian calendar and calculates that in the evening that day at 22:36 the moon was 4^o 17´ above and 0^o 55´ behind β Virginis. (See J. Koch, “Zur Bedeutung von LÁL in den ‘Astronomical Diaries’ und in der Plejaden-Schaltregel,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 49, 1997, p. 88.)

 

Furuli’s date: Simanu 5 = 4 July 588 BCE:

Furuli dates the 5^th of Simanu to 4 July 588 BCE. He claims (p. 315) that on this date “the fit is excellent: the moon passed 1 cubit (2^o) above β Virginis.” Unfortunately, it did not. When the Babylonian day began (at sunset, c. 19:10) the moon was already c. 2 ½ cubits (5^o) behind (east of) β Virginis. It had passed above β Virginis about 12 hours earlier, in the morning before moonrise, but that would have been on Simanu 4, not on Simanu 5. So the fit is far from “excellent.”

 

(6)  Obv.´ line 15: “Night of the 8^th, first part of the night, the moon stood 2 ½ cubits [= 5^o] below β Librae.”

 

Simanu 8 = 27/28 June 568 BCE:

In 568 BCE the 8^th of Simanu fell on 27/28 June. My astro-program shows that in the early night of June 27 the moon stood c. 4.5^o south of β Librae, which is very close to the position given on the tablet.

 

Furuli’s date: Simanu 8 = 7 July 588 BCE:

Furuli, who dates the 8^th of Simanu to the 7th of July, 588 BCE, claims (p. 316) that the moon on that day “was 2 ½ cubits below β Librae, so the fit is excellent.” Again, Furuli is wrong. In the “first part of the night” on 7 July 588 BCE the moon stood as much as c. 6 cubits (12^o) west of (i.e., far from below) β Librae. It was in fact closer to the constellation of Virgo than to Libra. So Furuli’s date does not fit at all.

 

(7)  Obv.´ line 16: “Night of the 10^th, first part of the night, the moon was balanced 3 ½ cubits [= 7^o] above α Scorpii.”

 

Simanu 10 = 29/30 June 568 BCE:

In 568 BCE the 10^th of Simanu fell on 29/30 June. In the first part of the night of the 29^th, the moon stood about 8^o above (north of) α Scorpii, which is very close to the position described on the tablet.

 

Furuli’s date: Simanu 10 = 10 July 588 BCE:

As Furuli had dated Simanu 8 to July 7, he should have dated Simanu 10 to 9 July 588. But strangely, he mistranslates it into 10 July and claims (p. 317): “The moon was 3 ½ cubits (7^o) above α Scorpii, so the fit is excellent.” But in the “first part of the night” that day the moon was over 5 cubits (10^o) northeast of α Scorpii. And even if we move back to the early night of July 9, the moon at that time was about 5 cubits (10^o) northwest of α Scorpii. It would not be correct to state of any of these lunar positions that the “fit is excellent”. None of them fits.

 

(8)  Obv.´ line 17: “The 15^th, one god was seen with the other; sunrise to moonset: 7^o 30´ [= 30 minutes]. A lunar eclipse which was omitted [….]”

 

Simanu 15 = 4/5 July 568 BCE:

In 568 BCE the 15^th of Simanu fell on 4/5 July. The expression “one god was seen with the other” refers to the situation when the sun and the moon are both visible at the same time when standing in opposition to each other. This was the situation in the early morning of 5 July. From sunrise in the east at c. 04:51 to moonset in the west at c. 05:24, i.e., for about 33 minutes, “one god was seen with the other.” This is very close to the time distance recorded on the tablet, 7^o 30´, or 30 minutes.

 

Line 17 also records “a lunar eclipse which was omitted [….]”, an expression used of an eclipse that had been predicted in advance to be invisible from the Babylonian horizon. The text is somewhat damaged, but the reference is obviously to the lunar eclipse of July 4, 568 BCE, which according to modern calculations began about 12:50 and lasted until 14:52, local time. As it took place in the early afternoon when the moon was below the horizon, it could not be observed in Babylonia.

 

Furuli’s date: Simanu 15 = 15 July 588 BCE:

Furuli dates Simanu 15 to 15 July 588 BCE. True, there was a lunar eclipse on that day that was invisible from the Babylonian horizon. Furuli claims on page 317 that “the eclipses of July 15, 588; of July 4, 568; and of June 24, 586, all occurred on Simanu 15 and fit the description.” However, the time distances between sunrise and moonset at the dates in 588 and 586 do not fit at all with the information on the tablet. On 15 July 588 the moonset (at 04:50) occurred about five minutes before sunrise (04:55), so the two “gods” could not been seen with each other that day. And the same problem is connected with the June 24, 586 BCE date. Of the three alternatives, therefore, only the July 4, 568 BCE date fits the information on the tablet.

 

In passing, Hunger’s translation of the obv.´ line 18 should be corrected. It says: “[…. the moon was be]low the bright star at the end of the [Lion’s] foot [….]”

 

The signs within brackets are illegible and the text had to be restored by Hunger. But as he himself later explained, the word “moon” was just a guess that he had not checked. Modern calculations show that, if the day number (which is lost, too) was the 16^th (July 5/6), the heavenly body that was below “the bright star at the end of the Lion’s foot” (= β Virginis) must have been Venus, not the moon. This was later pointed out also by Johannes Koch (JCS 49, 1997, p. 84, n. 7, and p. 89). However, Koch calculates that Venus in the first part of the night of July 5 was 0^o 02´above and 1^o 06´ behind β Virginis, while the SkyMap Pro 11 program shows that Venus at that time was not 0^o 02´above but about 0^o 64´ below and about 0^o 89´ behind β Virginis. These results are in closer agreement with the tablet.

 

(9)  ´Rev. line 5: “Month XI, (the 1^st of which was identical with) the 30^th (of the preceding month), the moon became visible in the Swallow; sunset to moonset: 14^o 30´ [58 minutes]; the north wind blew. At that time, Jupiter was 1 cubit behind the elbow of Sagittarius [….]”

 

Shabatu 1 = 12/13 February 567 BCE:

In 568/567 BCE the first day of month XI (Shabatu) fell on 12/13 February 567 BCE. On day 12 the distance between sunset (at c. 17:44) and moonset (c. 18:53) was 69 minutes (17^o 15´), or 11 minutes (2^o 45´) more than those given on the tablet, 58 minutes. According to the tablet, the new moon became visible after sunset “in the Swallow.”

 

The “Swallow” covered or included a part of the constellation of Pisces. The exact extension of the “Swallow” is not quite clear. But it included a band of stars called “DUR SIM-MAH (ribbon of the swallow)” which included at least δ, ε, and ζ Pisces, perhaps also some other stars. The “ribbon of the swallow” is referred to in over a dozen astronomical reports dating from 567 to 78 BCE, and these have been helpful in locating at least some stars in the group. (Alexander Jones, “A Study of Babylonian Observations of Planets Near Normal Stars,” Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Vol. 58, 2004, pp. 483, 490) The “Swallow”, then, comprised at least the “ribbon of the swallow” and then extended westward along the Pisces.

 

Furuli’s discussion of SIM and SIM-MAH on page 296 is thoroughly misleading, as he tries to confuse the issue by referring to some older views without telling that they were abandoned long ago. This is true of Kugler’s suggestion back in 1914 that SIM-MAH applies to the northwest of Aquarius. To be sure, Furuli states that two modern scholars, E. Kasak and R. Veede, in an article published in 2001 applies SIM to “the Bull of Heaven” (Taurus). They do not! In their article (available on the web: http:/folklore.ee/folklore/vol16/planets.pdf) they do not mention SIM at all! Furuli also refers to the conclusion of van der Waerden (1974) that it applies to “the south-west part of Pisces” – as if this would be yet another view. The fact is that his conclusion does not conflict with that of other modern scholars, including that of Jones, Hunger, and Pingree. The impression Furuli tries to give, that modern experts widely disagree about the identity of SIM and SIM-MAH, is false. All agree that it covered or included a part of the constellation of Pisces.

 

My astro-program shows that in the evening after sunset on February 12, 567 BCE, the new moon became visible in the Pisces, about half-way between α Pisces in the south and γ Pisces in the west and c. 8.5^o below the centre of the western bow of the Pisces. Furuli’s statement that the moon at this time was “13^o below the central part of Pisces” is not correct. His claim that the position is “a somewhat inaccurate fit” is totally uncalled-for, in particular in view of his statement that “the fit is excellent” when he finds the lunar position on his own preferred date (February 22, 587) to have been “9^o below the central part of Pisces.”

 

There can be no doubt that the moon on February 12, 567 BCE was “in the Swallow,” just as is stated on the tablet. At that time Jupiter could also be seen in Sagittarius as the tablet says.

 

Furuli’s date: Shabatu 1 = 22 February 587 BCE:

Furuli’s date for Shabatu 1 is 22 February 587 BCE. And it is true that the moon on that day was “in the Swallow.” One problem with this date, however, is that the new moon at sunset was so close to the sun (less than 10^o) that it most probably was invisible. The conjunction had occurred earlier on the same Julian day, at c. 01:26. Besides, Jupiter was between Aries and Pisces, far away from Sagittarius where it is placed by the tablet.

 

(10)  ´Rev. line 12: “Month XII, the first (of which followed the 30^th of the preceding month), the moon became visible behind Aries while the sun stood there; sunset to moonset: 25^o [100 minutes], measured; earthshine; the north wind blew.”

 

Addaru 1 = 14/15 March 567 BCE:

In 568/567 BCE the first day of month XII (Addaru) fell on 14/15 March 567 BCE. On day 14 the distance between sunset (at c. 18:06) and moonset (at c. 19:50) was 104 minutes (26^o), which is very close to the Babylonian measurement, 25^o (100 minutes). The distance between the moon and the sun was long enough for the moon to become visible before sunset (“while the sun stood there”). At that time the moon stood about 15^o southeast of α Aries, thus partially behind and partially below the most brilliant star in Aries. This roughly agrees with the position given on the tablet.

 

Furuli’s date: Addaru 1 = 24 March 587 BCE:

Furuli’s date for Addaru 1 is 24 March 587 BCE. Of the position of the moon Furuli says (p. 321): “The moon was 13^o to the left of (behind) Aries, so the fit is excellent.” This is not quite correct. About 86 minutes (c. 21.5^o) before sunset (“while the sun stood there”), the moon stood about 7^o to the south of (below) the nearest star in Aries (δ Aries) and about 20^o to the southeast of (i.e., partially below and partially behind) α Aries. This position is not very exact, but acceptable.

 

(11)  ´Rev. line 13: “Night of the 2^nd, the moon was balanced 4 cubits [8^o] below η Tauri.”

 

Addaru 2 = 15/16 March 567 BCE:

In 567 BCE the 2^nd of Addaru fell on 15/16 March. In the night of the 15^th, at c. 19:00, the moon was 4 cubits (8^o) directly to the south of (below) η Tauri, also known as Alcyone, the most brilliant star in the star cluster Pleiades. This position agrees exactly with that given on the tablet.

 

Furuli’s date: Addaru 2 = 25 March 587 BCE:

Furuli dates Addaru 2 to 25 March 587 BCE. In the night of that day, at c. 19:00, the moon was about 10.5^o southeast of η Tauri, a position that does not agree very well with that given on the tablet. The fit is definitely not “excellent” as Furuli (p. 321) claims it is.

 

(12)  ´Rev. line 14: “Night of the 7^th, the moon was surrounded by a halo; Praesepe and α Leonis [stood] in [it ….]” 

 

Addaru 7 = 20/21 March 567 BCE:

In 567 BCE the 7^th of Addaru fell on 20/21 March. In the night of the 20^th/21^st the moon stood between α Leonis and Praesepe, the latter being an open star cluster close to the centre of the constellation of Cancer. As they lie about 23^o apart, the halo must have covered a large area in the sky. The next line (line 15), in fact, goes on to state that “the halo surrounded Cancer and Leo.” As the moon stood between these two constellations, its position agrees with that given on the tablet.

 

Furuli’s statement (p. 322) that Cancer “is either the constellation or the zodiacal sign that covers 30^o of the heaven” is anachronistic, as the zodiacal belt was not divided into signs of 30^o each until much later, in the Persian era.

 

Furuli’s date: Addaru 7 = 30 March 587 BCE:

Furuli’s date for Addaru 7 is 30 March 587 BCE. He states that Cancer in that night “was 4^o above the moon and α Leonis was 13^o below the moon.” However, Cancer was not above but in front of (west of) the moon, and α Leonis was not below but behind (east of) the moon. But as this lunar position was nearly the same as on 20/21 March, 567 BCE, both positions fit.

 

 

(13)  ´Rev. line 16: “The 12^th, one god was seen with the other; sunrise to moonset: 1^o 30´ [6 minutes]; ….”

 

Addaru 12 = 25/26 March 567 BCE:

In 567 BCE the 12^th of Addaru fell on 25/26 March. According to the tablet sunrise occurred 1^o 30´ – 6 minutes – before moonset, meaning that one “god” could be “seen with the other” in the morning for six minutes. My astro-program shows that in the morning of March 26 the sun rose at c. 06:08 and the moon set c. 06:11, that is, they could both be seen at the same time above the horizon for about 3 minutes, which is close to the time given on the tablet.

 

Furuli’s date: Addaru 12 = 4/5 April 587 BCE:

Furuli has misunderstood the kind of phenomenon referred to by the expression “one god was seen with the other”. He explains on page 323: “To say that one god (the sun) was seen with the other god (the moon) was one way to express that the moon was full.”

 

Although it is true that the moon was nearly full when it was seen with the sun, this is not exactly what the expression refers to. As explained earlier, it refers to the situation when the sun and the moon stand in opposition to each other – the sun in the east and the moon in the west – and both can be seen simultaneously above the horizon for a short period of time. As Furuli has not understood this, his comments on the text are mistaken and irrelevant.

 

Furuli’s date for the 12^th of Addaru is 4/5 April 587 BCE. In the morning of April 5 the sun rose at c. 05:54. But the moon had already set at c. 05:13, i.e., about 41 minutes before sunrise. Thus one “god” could not be seen “with the other” this morning. Furuli’s date, then, is wrong. Only the 567 BCE date fits the statement on the tablet.

 

In summary, at least 10 of the 13 lunar positions examined fit the 568/567 BCE date quite well, one (no. 10) is acceptable, while two (nos. 2 and 5) are acceptable only if the dates are moved back one day. Of Furuli’s dates in 588/587 BCE only one (no. 12) fits, while 9 do not fit at all. The fits of the remaining three (9, 10, and 11) are far from good but acceptable.

 

The conclusion is, that the observations were made in 568/567 BCE. The year 588/587 BCE is definitely out of the question.

 

Letters from a Jehovahs Witness to WTBTS re 607 BCE

Is 607bce the correct date for the fall of Jerusalem?

Is it important?

It is if you are one of Jehovah’s witnesses. This date is now positioned as the primary basis for the many significant ‘prophecies’ and ‘claims’ which have been proclaimed by the Jehovah’s Witness movement worldwide.

Before I go any further, let me just briefly outline the background to my own current situation.

I am currently still known as one of Jehovah’s witnesses and have been for the last 27 years. The JW belief system is all I have ever known. Most of my family are still in the “truth”, as is also the case for my wife’s family.

Up until a year ago, whenever I read the date “607 BCE” in the various magazines and literature that the Watchtower publish, I had no reason to doubt that the Society had a sound basis for applying this dating protocol in support of their teachings.

If you too are one of Jehovah’s Witnesses reading this, you will no doubt agree with me that the norm is take for granted any of the information we are “fed” with as being absolutely rock solid.

Why?……………Because the information comes directly from the Governing Body. That’s why!

As a devout JW, I was always left completely satisfied with any of the Society’s assertions for dating. Indeed, I think most JW’s take it as gospel, anything that the Society comes out with.

For me, my confidence in the Governing Body was always unreserved as is no doubt the case for millions of other JW’s worldwide who also feel the same.

My feeling was that the Society would obviously have thoroughly checked out all the historical and archaeological evidence available and would only have used reliable dates, wouldn’t they.

Wouldn’t they?

WRONG!

At the beginning of this year, my brother in law challenged me to investigate something for him. Being an Oxford University Graduate, he explained that he had done some research on the 607 BCE date and had found it somewhat impossible to come up with anything remotely similar to the date which the Society adopts.

This is where the challenge came in; He wanted me to show to him both the Historical and Biblical evidence to substantiate the Society’s claim for the 607 date.

Naturally, having confidence in the Society as being “God’s channel of communication”, I accepted the challenge and started a 4 month research project to verify the Watchtower’s teachings.

I started my research by telephoning the British Museum and spoke to Mr Walker, the Assistant Curator of Babylonian Antiquities. He became pivotal in my researching of the Society’s teaching.

I exhaustively questioned Mr Walker about all the evidence that I had already come up with in support of the 587 BCE date and went on to ask him why historians favour this date over the Society’s 607 BCE date.

In response, he explained that there is numerous evidence to back up the 587 BCE date, and thus, directed me not only to all the artefacts available, but also to all the books I should study in order to make up my own mind.

By now, this challenge had become so import to me that I decided to go and visit the museum to see the artefacts to prove it for myself.

The more I researched this 607 BCE date, the more evidence I was finding that this “607 BCE” date just could not be right. In fact, I just couldn’t find anything on this date and was struggling to back up the Society in their dating.

During one of the telephone conversations with Mr Walker, he suggested that I should read a book by Carl Olof Jonnson called “The Gentile Times Reconsidered”.

So, I went out and bought this book and found that I just couldn’t put it down. I ended up reading it three times and went through it scrupulously to try and find some kind of “substantiation” for the Society’s teaching on the “607 BCE” date.

I just had to prove the “587 BCE” date wrong. Afterall, if I couldn’t, it would have meant that the Governing Body had got it wrong…………surely not!

Besides, everything comes directly from God through his “Channel of communication”……………

………………………………….Doesn’t it?

………………“Of course it does!” I thought.

So, I continued to go through all the evidence I had with a fine tooth comb in order to find something that would prove the Society’s teaching on 607 BCE.

But, this became impossible to do. I just couldn’t find anything. Nothing at all!

By now, I had become desperate to find some answers. So, in this desperation, I decided to write to the Governing Body in Brooklyn in the hope that they would be able to shed some “light” on “our” teaching of the 607 BCE date.

The letter eventually took me 20 hours to put together because I felt that it was absolutely imperative that I get my facts right. With all the information I had researched, I collated it in such a way that it would read like a report, and thus make the points easier for the Society to respond to.

I requested their help in answering the numerous questions I had posed to them in order for me to go back to my brother-in-law with the firm proof to support the “607 BCE” date teaching.

My letter included a summary of the information I had found in the “The Gentile Times Reconsidered” book, however, what I didn’t do was refer to it or make any mention that I had read it as this would have revealed I had been reading what the Society classifies as “apostate literature”.

As you will see when you read the letters I sent to the Society on the links below, the real source of the research is of course acknowledged and is published with the permission of the copyright owners.

After reading my letter, please go on to read the first “reply” that I received from the Society which did absolutely nothing to satisfy my questions about their dating methods.

You will see that as a result of the frustrating reply I got, I wrote another letter, only this time, rather than sending it to the Brooklyn Bethel and forwarding a copy to the British Branch, I actually addressed it to the British Branch instead.

In conclusion, I leave you to make up your own mind, but just remember this:

We should always be looking for

“the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help us God”.

NO MATTER HOW HARD IT IS TO ACCEPT.

 

Letter One to Society

Dear Brothers My name is XXXXX and I attend the XXXXX congregation in the UK. I have been a faithful witness for the last 17 years. I really need you help in explaining something to me. I ask this with the utmost respect as I do not doubt you but I need answers to questions that I can not put answers to myself. I have looked at a lot of information in the past few months and there are quite a few things that do not seem to make sense. At the moment, my faith is shipwrecked and I can not stress to you how much your reply to me will mean.

About 8 months ago, a family member asked me to prove to him that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE. I thought that this would not be a problem so I set out to do this. The truth is brothers, that I have found it impossible to prove this date and what is more, the date that comes up time and again as the confirmed date for the destruction is 587 BCE.I have done countless research to try and justify the 607 date and I can not find a thing.

After doing a lot of historical research, I wanted to know if you were aware of these so I looked on my WTCD and found the appendix to chapter 14 which is set out below. I would like to go through this and point something’s out that I need answers to. I have already had discussions with my local Elders and they were unable to answer my questions. I have told them that I am writing this letter.

I would like to make it clear from the outset that I am not being argumentative and disrespectful. If my style of writing makes it seem that way then please accept my humble apologies as I value your comments.

I have copied out the Appendix in Italics and will insert my questions and comments as appropriate:

*** kc 186-9 Appendix to Chapter 14 *** Historians hold that Babylon fell to Cyrus’ army in October 539 B.C.E. Nabonidus was then king, but his son Belshazzar was coruler of Babylon. Some scholars have worked out a list of the Neo-Babylonian kings and the length of their reigns, from the last year of Nabonidus back to Nebuchadnezzar’s father Nabopolassar.+ According to that Neo-Babylonian chronology, Crown-prince Nebuchadnezzar defeated the Egyptians at the battle of Carchemish in 605 B.C.E. (Jeremiah 46:1, 2) After Nabopolassar died Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon to assume the throne. His first regnal year began the following spring (604 B.C.E.).

The Bible reports that the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in his 18th regnal year (19th when accession year is included). (Jeremiah 52:5, 12, 13, 29) Thus if one accepted the above Neo-Babylonian chronology, the desolation of Jerusalem would have been in the year 587/6 B.C.E. But on what is this secular chronology based and how does it compare with the chronology of the Bible? Some major lines of evidence for this secular chronology are: Ptolemy’s Canon: Claudius Ptolemy was a Greek astronomer who lived in the second century C.E. His Canon, or list of kings, was connected with a work on astronomy that he produced. Most modern historians accept Ptolemy’s information about the Neo-Babylonian kings and the length of their reigns (though Ptolemy does omit the reign of Labashi-Marduk). Evidently Ptolemy based his historical information on sources dating from the Seleucid period, which began more than 250 years after Cyrus captured Babylon.

There are no dates in the Bible. We need secular history to work out where everything happened in time. One of the things that we do have are the above king lists. However, if the 607 BCE date is correct, the Kings lists are out by 20 years.

We use the Royal cannon in our proving that 539 BCE was the first year of Cyrus. Why then do we reject it when it shows that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem in 587 BCE in his eighteenth year? The Cannon was in use centuries before Ptolemy and historians state that it is based on Babylonian, not selucid sources, due to certain expressions and characteristics in it. The Cannon omits Labashi-Marduks reign (which is only a few months and which fell in the last year of Neriglissar ) as it deals only with whole years. The Royal Cannon could therefore leave him out.

The Uruk King list has also been uncovered in 1959-60. It states the regnal periods of the Babylonian Kings from Kandalanu to Nabonidus. These also agree with the Royal Cannon and Borossus.

We also have more cuneiform documents from the neo Babylonian period than any other pre Christian era. Literally tens of thousands have been found. The lengths of the kings can be established via these and these agree with the Royal Cannon and Borossus.

Nabonidus Harran Stele (NABON H 1, B): This contemporary stele, or pillar with an inscription, was discovered in 1956. It mentions the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar. The figures given for these three agree with those from Ptolemy’s Canon.

There is also a lot more cuneiform evidence to show the Kings regnal years than just the above. These all back up the Royal cannon and I can send you details of these if you require. They are all written in the Neo Babylonian era. The one that sticks in my mind is the Nabon no.24 also known as the Adad-guppi inscription. Adad-guppi was a colorful character. She was the mother of Nabonidus and lived until she was 104. The inscription is an account of her life and the kings that she had lived under. It then lists the kings and their reigns. All the reigns are in complete accordance with the above quoted king lists. And what is more important is, that this is dated from the Neo Babylonian period itself and is not a copy.

VAT 4956: This is a cuneiform tablet that provides astronomical information datable to 568 B.C.E. It says that the observations were from Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year. This would correspond to the chronology that places his 18th regnal year in 587/6 B.C.E. However, this tablet is admittedly a copy made in the third century B.C.E. so it is possible that its historical information is simply that which was accepted in the Seleucid period.

I do not know if you are aware but VAT 4956 is not the only cuneiform astronomical tablet that historians use to date the Babylonian king’s reigns. The astronomical tablets are reliable as their observances can not be duplicated for some time, sometimes even thousands of years .VAT 4956 is a copy as you have stated. We know this because the original is broken off in two places and the scribe has inserted the words “broken off”. The tablet has 30 astronomical observances that are so accurately described that modern astronomers have no trouble dating it to 568 BCE, which the tablet in two places states is Nebuchadnezzars 37th year. The observances are of the moon and the five then known planets. Modern astronomers point out that such combinations of astronomical positions would not be duplicated again in thousands of years. There is no way that the observances can have been made 20 years earlier. But this is not the only tablet evidence that historians use to date the period. Below is a quick resume of the others that hopefully you were not aware of and that is the reason why they were not put in the Appendix:

There is BM 32312, which can be dated to 651BCE due to the observances on it. This is the oldest preserved astronomical diary. The king, his regnal year and month names are broken away. The tablet talks of a battle between Assyria and Babylon, where Babylon is heavily defeated. However we can date this tablet as another tablet BM 86379 (The Akitu Chronicle) talks of the battle in Shamash-shuma-ukin’s 16th year which interestingly states that the Babylonian King was defeated. Shamahshumakins’s reign of 20 years may then be dated to 667/66-648/47 BCE. This is in good agreement with the above king lists .A change of Nebuchadnezzars 18th year from 587 to 607 BCE would also change Shamushshumukins 16th year from 652 to 672 BCE which BM 32312 does not allow.

The Saturn Tablet (BM 76738 and BM 76813) gives observances for 14 successive years of the planet Saturn corresponding to the first fourteen years of king Kandalanu, so we can date this exactly. Mr. Chris Walker who is an assistant curator in the British Museum, sent me some information on the text which explains:

” A complete cycle of Saturn’s phenomena in relation to the stars takes 59 years. But when that cycle has to be fitted to the lunar calendar of 29 or 30 days then identical cycles recur at intervals of rather more than 17 centuries. Thus there is no difficulty in determing the date of the present text.”

Therefore the absolute chronology of Kandalanus reign is definitely fixed by the Saturn tablet because the pattern of positions described in the text is fixed to specific dates in the Babylonian lunar calendar, that are not repeated again in more than 17 centuries.

We also have the “saros cycle texts” (LBAT 1417 - 1421) They record the lunar eclipses in the Babylonian area at the time. The texts were compiled during the Selucid era (312-64 BCE). The evidence is that the eclipse records were extracted from astronomical diaries by Babylonian astronomers who had access to a large number of diaries from earlier centuries. Prof. A.J Sachs in F.R Hodsons book “THE PLACE OF ASTRONOMY IN THE ANCIENT WORLD” states “It is all but certain that these eclipse records could have been extracted only from the astronomical diaries.”

LBAT 1417 records four lunar eclipses at 18 year and nearly 11 days intervals from 686 to 632 BCE. It seems to be part of the same tablet as the previous two texts in the series, LBAT 1415 and 1416.The first entry records an eclipse from Sennacheribs third year of reign in Babylonia which may be identified with the eclipse that took place on April 22 668 BCE. Unfortunately the year number is only partly legible. However the next entry states an eclipse to the second month in Shamushshumukins accession year. This equates to April/May in 668 BCE. Babylonian astronomers had worked out that this would be an eclipse that would not be observable to Babylon. Modern eclipse catalogues show that such an eclipse took place on May 2, 668 BCE. The length and time of the eclipse are in good agreement with the text. If we have to add 20 years to Shamushshumukins reign to fit in with our chronology, this will give us an accession date for Shamashashumkin of 688 BCE. However no unobservable eclipses occurred in April or May of that year. One did occur on June 10 668 BCE, but this one was observable to Babylon. It is therefore an impossible alternative.

The next entry in the text is dated to Shamushshumukins 18th year that is 650/649 BCE. This eclipse too was a computed one, which would begin before sunset. According to modern calculations this eclipse took place on May 13 650 BCE between 16.25 P.M. and 18.19 P.M. Again if we place this eclipse 20 years earlier no eclipses took place in April or May that year. .One eclipse did take place on June 22 but this began at 7.30 am.

The next and last entry is dated to the 16th year of Kandalanu (632 BCE) and to the fifth month, which would correspond to May or June. This partial eclipse also took place the time it should have on May 23, 632 BCE . If we add 20 years to make Kandalanus 16th year 652 BCE, we do find an eclipse taking place on July 2nd that year, but it was a full eclipse and not partial as stated.

So we see that the LBAT 1417 tablet backs up the regnal years of Shamashshumukin and Kandalanu and do not allow for 20 years to be inserted.

LBAT 1419 records an uninterrupted series of Lunar eclipses at 18 year intervals from 609/08 to 447/46 BCE. The first entries that are recorded are damaged. However the two following entries are clearly dated to the 14th and 32nd year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. His 14th and 32nd years are dated to 591/90 and 573/72 BCE respectively. The two eclipses recorded, one saros apart, both took place in the sixth month in August or September. Both eclipses were calculated in advance and the Babylonians knew that none of them would be observable in Babylonia because they both occurred in the daytime. According to modern calculations both eclipses took place as predicted and fit in very well with the chronology established for Nebuchadnezzar. However if we were to look for the two eclipses twenty years earlier, no eclipses occurred in that year that fit the description of the text.

The next entry records an eclipse that is quite detailed:

“Month VII, the 13th, in 17 degrees on the east side all (of the moon) was covered,28 degrees maximal phase In 20 degrees it cleared from the east to north? Its eclipse was red. Behind the rump of Aries, it was eclipsed. During onset, the north wind blew, during clearing, the west wind. At 55 degrees before sunrise. Unfortunately the king and royal year are missing. But this eclipse took place on Oct 6/7 555 BCE in the first year of Nabonidus. Although the year and name is missing, it is of the uppermost importance to notice that the text places the eclipse one saros cycle after the eclipse in the 32nd year of Nebuchadnezzar.

LBAT 1420 contains annual eclipses. All are from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, from his first to his twenty ninth years. The first record, that records two eclipses that were not observable, is damaged and the year number is illegible. However the last part of Nebuchadnezzar name is preserved. The name of the king is not repeated which means that the king is the same during the whole period. Some of the records are damaged but the ones that are legible are in good agreement with the king lists. This record carries detail of twenty four eclipses of which 12 have the regnal year preserved. . Again these eclipses took place according to modern calculations and if we were to add twenty years to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, the eclipses would not be correct.

LBAT 1421 records two eclipses observable in Babylon in the sixth and twelfth month of year 42, evidently of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. Provided that these eclipses occurred in the 42nd year of Nebuchadnezzar and there was no other king that ruled as long as him, we should find the eclipses as recorded. Modern calculations state that they did happen.

Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted chronology of the period.

I again spoke to Mr. Walker. I asked him how complete the Cuneiform tablets are for the Babylonian Era. He said that he could give me quite a few texts FOR EVERY YEAR of the Babylonian kings. Some of these are exact to the day and month! He said there is no record of the 20 years that we need to prove 607 BCE. There is also other evidence that we can use to date the king’s reigns and to match it up to the king lists. Some 2500 business tablets were found in 1875/76 that tells us a lot about the “Egebi” Business house, which was the “Rothschild” of Babylon. This information is so detailed that we can work out who was head of the business house and what kings they reigned under. These are also in good agreement with the above king lists.

There are also texts that interlock the various kings, therefore not allowing for an unknown king. There are also tablets detailing the careers of scribes, temple administrators, slaves, business men and others that may be followed for decades. But never do these careers cross the established chronological borders into some unknown 20-year period. The insertion of 20 years would not only distort the understanding of the careers, activities and family relations of the individuals but would also give them abnormal life spans.

There is also something else that you do not mention in the appendix that I feel you should be aware of. Egyptian Chronology is an independent issue on its own and there are 4 accounts in Babylonian history (1 Cuneiform, 3 in the Bible) where direct reference is made to the Egyptian Kings. How ever this seems to back up the 587 theory. For example, the Bible tells us that King Josiah died at Meggido in the reign of Pharaoh Necho. In our chronology this happened in 629 BCE. But Necho did not start ruling until 610BCE.

From a secular viewpoint, such lines of evidence might seem to establish the Neo-Babylonian chronology with Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year (and the destruction of Jerusalem) in 587/6 B.C.E. However, no historian can deny the possibility that the present picture of Babylonian history might be misleading or in error. It is known, for example, that ancient priests and kings sometimes altered records for their own purposes.

Just suppose that Berossus figures for the reigns of the kings contain an error of 20 years. Then the compiler of the Royal Cannon must have made the same mistake independently of Berossus. It could be argued that they all got their sources from the same place and they are just repeating the errors. However how would we explain the scribes that produced the Hillah stele and the Adad-guppi stele? Surely they must have known the kings that they were lived under, and were living under at the time, especially as those reigns also functioned as calendar years by which they dated events? Is it really likely that the Scribes in Egypt made the same mistake as well? Also the Babylonian astronomers must have made the same mistake when dating their cuneiform tablets? The scribes prior to the Neo Babylonian period, who wrote BM32312 which dates Shamushshumukins 16th year, and the scribes who wrote BM76738 and 76813 which dates the beginning of Kandalanus reign to 647 BCE, must have also made the same mistake? What about the tens of thousands of dated economic, administrative and legal documents that have been excavated from the Neo Babylonian period which cover every year of the kings, except the twenty years that we need to prove 607 BCE? Did they all make the same mistake?

Or, 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.

Among the tens of thousands of discovered material from the period, we are unable to find one shred of support for our 607 BCE date. If an idea, refuted by an overwhelming amount of discovered evidence is to be retained because it is hoped that “yet undiscovered material” will support it, it seems to me that any idea, no matter how false could be retained on the same principle. If I said that I believed that the world was flat and I was shown a dozen photographs of the globe taken from the shuttle, all I have to do is say that I am waiting for the one piece of evidence to prove that I am right and it will prove all those photographs wrong. Surely this would be wishful thinking.

But if we can not trust the history, what reason do we have of accepting any date from the Babylonian era i.e. the 539 BCE date? This date has been established solely by historical documents and of the two, 587 has much better support than 539 BCE. Surely to retain one date and reject the other is inconsistent.

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.”-The Bible and the Ancient Near East (1965 ed.), p. 281.

The chart referred to above covers the chronologies of Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia Minor, Assyria and Babylon from c.3800 BCE to 323 BCE. The term circa is placed before many of the reigns but no circas are placed before any of the kings of the Neo Babylonian period. Also, I have read a book that quotes Professor Freedman who cooperated in the above book. He states about the Neo Babylonian era ” 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.” The “year or so” is talking about the fall of Jerusalem and the uncertainty is whether it fell in 587 or 586 BCE.

Christians who believe the Bible have time and again found that its words stand the test of much criticism and have been proved accurate and reliable. They recognize that as the inspired Word of God it can be used as a measuring rod in evaluating secular history and views. (2 Timothy 3:16, 17) For instance, though the Bible spoke of Belshazzar as ruler of Babylon, for centuries scholars were confused about him because no secular documents were available as to his existence, identity or position. Finally, however, archaeologists discovered secular records that confirmed the Bible. Yes, the Bible’s internal harmony and the care exercised by its writers, even in matters of chronology, recommends it so strongly to the Christian that he places its authority above that of the ever-changing opinions of secular historians.

But how does the Bible help us to determine when Jerusalem was destroyed, and how does this compare to secular chronology?

The only way that we can prove a foretold event happened is by History. If history says one thing and we say the Bible says some thing else, then surely we should have a look at our interpretation and understanding of the text again?

The prophet Jeremiah predicted that the Babylonians would destroy Jerusalem and make the city and land a desolation. (Jeremiah 25:8, 9) He added: “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.” (Jeremiah 25:11)

The Prophecy in Jeremiah 25 is written to Judah and the surrounding nations. If it is not why does verse 9 say “I will bring him against this land and against its inhabitants and against all the nations round about.” Verse 11 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”. If the seventy years only applied to Judah, what does the seventy years mean to all “these other nations?” And if it just applied to Judah, why does the wording say “these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon” and not use the singular “nation?” This prophecy is describing 70 years of servitude for all the nations including Judah. In verse 17-26, Jehovah tells Jeremiah to take his cup of rage and give it to the nations. The first nation mentioned is Jerusalem and the cities of Judah and then it goes on to mention 24 other kings that will taste the cup of rage. Verse 26 says “and all the other kingdoms of the earth that are on the surface of the ground.” so we see that it covered more than just Judah:

*** Rbi8 Jeremiah 25:17-26 ***

And I proceeded to take the cup out of the hand of Jehovah and to make all the nations drink to whom Jehovah had sent me: 18 namely, Jerusalem and the cities of Judah and her kings, her princes, to make them a devastated place, an object of astonishment, something to whistle at and a malediction, just as at this day; 19 Phar’aoh the king of Egypt and his servants and his princes and all his people; 20 and all the mixed company, and all the kings of the land of Uz, and all the kings of the land of the Phi·lis’tines and Ash’ke·lon and Ga’za and Ek’ron and the remnant of Ash’dod; 21 E’dom and Mo’ab and the sons of Am’mon; 22 and all the kings of Tyre and all the kings of Si’don and the kings of the island that is in the region of the sea; 23 and De’dan and Te’ma and Buz and all those with hair clipped at the temples; 24 and all the kings of the Arabs and all the kings of the mixed company who are residing in the wilderness; 25 and all the kings of Zim’ri and all the kings of E’lam and all the kings of the Medes; 26 and all the kings of the north who are near and far away, one after the other, and all the [other] kingdoms of the earth that are on the surface of the ground; and the king of She’shach himself will drink after them.

Three things were predicted in Jeremiahs prophecy:

• 1. The land of Judah would become a “devastated place” although no time limit is put upon this.
• 2. These nations would have to serve the King of Babylon for 70 years.
• 3. When the seventy years has been fulfilled Then Jehovah would call to account the king of Babylon.

The Hebrew word for desolation is “Chorbah”(devastation, desolation, and ruin). Does this word imply total desolation? Please look at Ezekiel 33:24 where it talks of “the inhabitants of these devastated places. Also please look at Nehemiah 2; 17. During Nehemiah time, Jerusalem was inhabited, yet the city is said to be devastated. Please read again Jeremiah 25:17-18:

*** Rbi8 Jeremiah 25:17-18 ***

17 And I proceeded to take the cup out of the hand of Jehovah and to make all the nations drink to whom Jehovah had sent me: 18 namely, Jerusalem and the cities of Judah and her kings, her princes, to make them a devastated place, an object of astonishment, something to whistle at and a malediction, just as at this day;

The term “just as at this day” is important. This phrase seems to indicate that the devastation, the “Chorbah” to a certain degree had begun at this time. Dr J.A Thompson in his book “The book of Jeremiah” states “The last phrase “as at its day” suggests that at the time of writing some aspects of this judgement at least were apparent.” As pointed out by Professor Arthur Jeffrey in the Interpreters Bible (Vol 6,p.485), “Chorbah” is “often employed to describe the state of a devastated land after the armies of an enemy have passed (Lev 26:31,33; Isaiah 49:19; Jer 42:22;Ezekiel 36:34: Malachi 1:4;Maccabees 1:39)”. It would not be inaccurate then to talk of Judah as “Chorbah” eighteen years prior to its depopulation, if the land had been ravaged by the army of an enemy at that time.” The phrase “desolate waste, without any inhabitant” is found at Jeremiah 9:11 and 34:22. Although it refers to Jerusalem and the cities of Judah, it is nowhere equated with the period of seventy years. The point I am trying to make here is this: The “seventy years” were not seventy years of Judah not having an inhabitant. The term “Chorbah” does not mean that and this meaning does not fit in with what the Bible says. The Bible says that Judah was going to be desolated and ravaged by an enemy army. The time period is not stated. The time period of seventy years applies to the region, not just Judah, serving the king of Babylon.

If we are to believe that the 70 years is 70 years of complete desolation without any inhabitant only for Judah, then this is in direct conflict with the prophecy. The servitude mentioned does not mean exile and desolation. It means vassalage. Please turn to Jeremiah 27:8 and 11. These scriptures are telling the nations to serve the Babylonian king. The nation that will not serve him, Jehovah will turn his anger upon him until He has finished them off. But the nation that does serve the king of Babylon and “bring its neck under the yoke of the king and actually serve him, I will let it rest upon its ground, is the utterance of Jehovah, and it will certainly cultivate it and dwell in it.”

(Jeremiah 27:8-11) “‘”‘And it must occur that the nation and the kingdom that will not serve him, even Neb·u·chad·nez’zar 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,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘until I shall have finished them off by his hand.’ 9 “‘”‘And as for YOU men, do not listen to YOUR prophets and to YOUR practicers of divination and to YOUR dreamers and to YOUR practicers of magic and to YOUR sorcerers, who are saying to YOU: “YOU men will not serve the king of Babylon.” 10 For falsehood is what they are prophesying to YOU, for the purpose of having YOU taken far away from off YOUR ground; and I shall have to disperse YOU, and YOU will have to perish. 11 “‘”‘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,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘and it will certainly cultivate it and dwell in it.’”‘”

So to “serve” meant to be a vassal kingdom to Babylon and their reward for being obedient was to stay in their land. Verse 12 is a direct command to Zedekiah, which shows that Jehovah did not want them to leave. He wanted them to “serve” the king by being a vassal kingdom and to stay in their land. If they did not “place their neck on the yoke of the king of Babylon” Jehovah was going to punish them. The same applied to any King that Jehovah had poured “the cup of rage” out to.

*** Rbi8 Jeremiah 27:12-13 ***

12 Even to Zed·e·ki’ah the king of Judah I spoke according to all these words, saying: “Bring YOUR necks under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serve him and his people and keep on living. 13 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?

Also the whole of Jeremiah 42 is telling the Jews who were left after the destruction to stay in the land of Judah, cultivate it and stay in submission to the king of Babylon. Verses 18 and 19 are telling the Jews not to enter Egypt and leave the land. Verse 22 tells them that if they did, Jehovah was going to punish them.

(Jeremiah 42:18-19) “For this is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said, ‘Just as my anger and my rage have been poured out upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, so my rage will be poured out upon YOU because of YOUR entering into Egypt, and YOU will certainly become a curse and an object of astonishment and a malediction and a reproach, and you will no more see this place.’ 19 “Jehovah has spoken against YOU, O remnant of Judah. Do not enter into Egypt. YOU should positively know that I have borne witness against YOU today,

*** Rbi8 Jeremiah 42:22 ***

22 And now YOU should positively know that by the sword, by the famine and by the pestilence YOU will die in the place into which YOU do delight to enter to reside as aliens.”

The question that comes to mind here is:If Jehovah wanted the land to be totally uninhabited, we did he command the remaining Jews not to leave Judah?

Thus the nations that accepted the Babylonian yoke would serve the king of Babylon seventy years by being vassal kings. But the nation that refused to serve the king would become devastated. The seventy years of servitude foretold by Jeremiah therefore did not apply to Judah as a nation, but only to the nations who submitted to the king of Babylon. As Judah refused to submit, it had to get punished for this, which meant desolation and exile because it did not place its neck under the yoke. It could not have meant seventy years of being uninhabited as Jehovah commanded the remnant not to leave. The seventy-year could then be described as Babylon being a world power. Historians feel that this world power began its reign when it destroyed the city of Haran in 609 BCE and took over from the Assyria world power that had control at that time.

The 70 years expired when Cyrus the Great, in his first year, released the Jews and they returned to their homeland. (2 Chronicles 36:17-23)

According to the Bible, the end of the seventy years would be marked by the destruction of Babylon. Nowhere does it say that the seventy years would end when the Jews returned:

*** Rbi8 Jeremiah 25:12-13 ***

12 “‘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,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘their error, even against the land of the Chal·de’ans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite. 13 And I will bring in upon that land all my words that I have spoken against it, even all that is written in this book that Jeremiah has prophesied against all the nations.

If Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE and Babylon was destroyed in 539BCE, this only equates to 68 years and Babylon would have been destroyed before the seventy year time period had been fulfilled? How did Jehovah “call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation…their error” in 537 BCE, two years after his dethronement? The Persian conquest definitely put an end to Babylon’s supremacy over the nations who had served as vassal kings. After that year it was impossible to serve the king of Babylon in any sense either as exiles or vassals.

We believe that the most direct reading of Jeremiah 25:11 and other texts is that the 70 years would date from when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and left the land of Judah desolate.-Jeremiah 52:12-15, 24-27; 36:29-31.

Is that what the Bible and Jeremiah said? At the end of the day we can interpret the scripture any way that we want to, but is not the Bible absolutely clear as to what would happen to these nations?

Yet those who rely primarily on secular information for the chronology of that period realize that if Jerusalem were destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E. certainly it was not 70 years until Babylon was conquered and Cyrus let the Jews return to their homeland. In an attempt to harmonize matters, they claim that Jeremiahs prophecy began to be fulfilled in 605 B.C.E. Later writers quote Berossus as saying that after the battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar extended Babylonian influence into all Syria-Palestine and, when returning to Babylon (in his accession year, 605 B.C.E.), he took Jewish captives into exile. Thus they figure the 70 years as a period of servitude to Babylon beginning in 605 B.C.E. That would mean that the 70-year period would expire in 535 B.C.E.

But there are a number of major problems with this interpretation: Though Berossus claims that Nebuchadnezzar took Jewish captives in his accession year, there are no cuneiform documents supporting this.

But the Bible itself backs these deportations up, by the direct reading of Daniel 1:1,2;

*** Rbi8 Daniel 1:1-2 ***

1 In the third year of the kingship of Je·hoi’a·kim the king of Judah, Neb·u·chad·nez’zar the king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and proceeded to lay siege to it. 2 In time Jehovah gave into his hand Je·hoi’a·kim the king of Judah and a part of the utensils of the house of the [true] God, so that he brought them to the land of Shi’nar to the house of his god; and the utensils he brought to the treasure-house of his god.

Daniel 1:1 tells us that in the third year of Jehoiakim (corresponding to the first year of Nebuchadnezzar: see Jer 25:1) Nebuchadnezzar took tribute from Judah consisting of utensils from the temple and “some of the sons of Israel and of the Royal offspring and of the nobles” and brought them to Babylon. It is true that the Babylonian Chronicle does not mention specifically these Jewish captives, however it does mention that Nebuchadnezzar, in his accession year “marched about Hattu to Babylon”. Most probably captives were included in this “vast booty”. This is pointed out in Professor Gerhard Larsson’s Book “When did the Babylonian Captivity begin”:

“It is certain that this “heavy tribute” consisted not only of treasure but also from 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.”

This clearly points to a beginning of the servitude early in the reign of Jehoiakim. However we as Jehovah’s Witnesses feel that the “third year of Jehoiakim” is understood to be his third year of vassalage to Nebuchadnezzar and therefore his eleventh regnal year. However this explanation is in direct conflict with Daniel 1:1, 2:1and Jer 25:1.

*** Rbi8 Daniel 2:1 ***

2 And in the second year of the kingship of Neb·u·chad·nez’zar, Neb·u·chad·nez’zar dreamed dreams; and his spirit began to feel agitated, and his very sleep was made to be something beyond him.

If Daniel had been brought to Babylon in Nebuchadnezzars eighth year, how could he be interpreting dreams in Nebuchadnezzar second year? If it is because it is the second year of Nebuchadnezzar as a “gentile trampling on Jerusalem”, why did not Daniel use this method of dating when dating other kings in the following verses? Daniel knew that his words would be read by us two thousand years later and so would not have put something so misleading in it:

*** Rbi8 Daniel 8:1 ***

In the third year of the kingship of Bel·shaz’zar the king, there was a vision that appeared to me, even me, Daniel, after the one appearing to me at the start

*** Rbi8 Daniel 9:1 ***

In the first year of Da·ri’us the son of A·has·u·e’rus of the seed of the Medes, who had been made king over the kingdom of the Chal·de’ans;

*** Rbi8 Daniel 10:1 ***

10 In the third year of Cyrus the king of Persia there was a matter revealed to Daniel, whose name was called Bel·te·shaz’zar; and the matter was true, and there was a great military service. And he understood the matter, and he had understanding in the thing seen.

More significantly, Jeremiah 52:28-30 carefully reports that Nebuchadnezzar took Jews captive in his seventh year, his 18th year and his 23rd year, not his accession year.

This presupposes that this is a complete record of the deportations. The sum total of the deportations according to Jer 52:30 is “four thousand and six hundred”. However 2 Kings 24:14 gives the number of just one of those deportations as “ten thousand”. Jeremiah does not mention the deportation in the accession year of Nebuchadnezzar described by Daniel, but this does not mean that it did not happen. It was probably a small deportation consisting of “the Royal offspring and of the nobles”. The important thing is that Daniel mentions this independent of Berossus. Also if the larger number of “ten thousand” was taken to Babylon, there still would have been a large number left in Jerusalem, therefore it would not be left totally desolate.

Also, Jewish historian Josephus states that in the year of the battle of Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar conquered all of Syria-Palestine “excepting Judea,” thus contradicting Berossus and conflicting with the claim that 70 years of Jewish servitude began in Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year.-Antiquities of the Jews X, vi, 1.

Josephus wrote this more than 600 years after Berossus and almost 400 years after Daniel who both state that it did happen (Dan 1:1-2). Even if Josephus was right, this would not contradict the conclusion that the servitude of the nations surrounding Judah began in Nebuchadnezzars accession year (see below). DR E W Hengstenberg in his book “Die Authentie des Daniel’s und die Inegritat des Sacharjah (translated from the German) states:

“It should not be thought that Josephus got the Parex tes Ioudaias (excepting Judea) from a source no longer available to us. What follows shows 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”.

Personally, I would prefer to take the evidence from Berossus, who got his information from sources preserved from the Neo Babylonian sources itself, and the writings of the Bible prophet Daniel who was an eye witness at the time and who was personally involved in the deportations. Again Daniel knew that his words would be read thousands of years after his death and would know not to put anything misleading in his writings. There is also historical evidence that supports a direct reading of Daniel 2:1.

It is the Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946. This covers the period from the last (21st) year of Nabopolassar up to an including the tenth year of his successor and son, Nebuchadnezzar.It starts with a detailed account of the battle at Carchemish where the Babylonian inflicted a heavy defeat on the Egyptian army and the events afterward. Immediately after the battle, Nebuchadnezzar began to take over the whole of the western areas in vassalage to Egypt. The chronicle tells us that…. “In his accession year Nebuchadnezzar (11) returned to Hattu. Until the month Shebat he marched about victoriously in Hattu. In the month Shebat, he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon….”He then spent the next four years in conquering the territories. Clearly then the nations in the Hattu area (including Judah) became vassals to Babylon soon after the Battle at Carchemish. This agrees with the Bible.

Furthermore, Josephus elsewhere describes the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians and then says that “all Judea and Jerusalem,