JWTruth.orgDocumented comparison resource
Search

Chronology and 607 BCE · Claim record

Part One argues that the conventional date rests on two pillars, the classical historians and the canon of Ptolemy, and attacks both: Berossus for factual errors about Assyrian and Babylonian reigns, and Ptolemy for omitting rulers attested in the Uruk King List and in economic tablets.

Claim ID claim-chronology-berossus-ptolemy-caseConcerns 1 October 2011Organisation's explanation
Organisation's explanation · 1 October 2011 Verified

Part One argues that the conventional date rests on two pillars, the classical historians and the canon of Ptolemy, and attacks both: Berossus for factual errors about Assyrian and Babylonian reigns, and Ptolemy for omitting rulers attested in the Uruk King List and in economic tablets. The Watchtower, 1 October 2011The Watchtower, 1 October 2011

Show the evidence (2 sources)
Primary JW publication Verified

The Watchtower, “When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One”

1 October 2011 · p.29 · pars. 21-27 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania

“But if the evidence from the inspired Scriptures clearly points to 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction, why do many authorities hold to the date 587 B.C.E.? They lean on two sources of information​—the writings of classical historians and the canon of Ptolemy. Are these sources more reliable than the Scriptures? Let us see.”

The article then examines Berossus, giving three errors it says Babylonian documents contradict (Sennacherib’s succession, Esarhaddon’s 8 rather than 12 years, Shamash-shuma-ukin’s 21 rather than 20), and quotes S. M. Burstein: “Even in its present fragmentary state the Babyloniaca contains a number of surprising errors of simple fact . . . In a historian such flaws would be damning, but then Berossus’ purpose was not historical.”

Official source

Provenance and verification note

Confidence note. Full document fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026 and read in full; the quotation, the paragraph and the page were confirmed against the article text and its embedded page markers (span class=“pageNum”).

Notes. The article frames the mainstream case as resting on only two pillars, classical historians and Ptolemy’s canon. Its own Part Two then treats the cuneiform record separately.

Accessed. 19 September 2026 · Source ID. src-chr-o-w-2011-1001-classical-historians

Primary JW publication Verified

The Watchtower, “When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One”

1 October 2011 · pp.30-31 · pars. 29-36 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania

“In general, Ptolemy’s canon is regarded as accurate. But in view of its omissions, should it really be used to provide a definite historical chronology?”

The argument is that Ptolemy, writing some 600 years later, omitted rulers known from cuneiform records: the article contrasts Ptolemy’s four kings between Kandalanu and Nabonidus with the seven of the Uruk King List, and cites Sin-sharra-ishkun (seven years, 57 economic tablets), Ashur-etel-ilani (four years) and a kingless period. It quotes Christopher Walker of the British Museum that the canon was “an artificial scheme designed to provide astronomers with a consistent chronology” and Leo Depuydt: “It has long been known that the Canon is astronomically reliable … but this does not automatically mean that it is historically dependable.”

Official source

Provenance and verification note

Confidence note. Full document fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026 and read in full; the quotation, the paragraph and the page were confirmed against the article text and its embedded page markers (span class=“pageNum”).

Notes. The kings the article says Ptolemy omits all fall BEFORE Nabopolassar, i.e. before the Neo-Babylonian period whose length is in dispute. The article does not claim Ptolemy omits a king between Nabopolassar and Nabonidus.

Accessed. 19 September 2026 · Source ID. src-chr-o-w-2011-1001-ptolemy

Claim page

A direct link to this claim is https://jwtruth.org/evidence/claim-chronology-berossus-ptolemy-case/. Every source above opens the original document or the best available copy. If you believe the wording, date or context is wrong, report an error.