Presque tout ce qui distingue l’enseignement des Témoins de Jéhovah sur les derniers jours est calculé à partir d’une seule date. Cette page expose intégralement l’argumentation de l’organisation en faveur de cette date, dans ses propres termes, puis place le dossier documentaire à côté. C’est une question de preuves, et non de sincérité.
Dernière vérification le 19 septembre 2026
Pourquoi cette date porte la doctrine
Chacune des étapes ci-dessous est celle de l’organisation, tirée de ses propres publications. La chaîne ne vaut que ce que vaut son premier maillon.
Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : Étude perspicace des Écritures énonce expressément la déduction : ‘Only by applying the formula there expressed of “a day for a year” to the “seven times” of this prophecy can the vision of Daniel chapter 4 have significant fulfillment beyond the day of now extinct Nebuchadnezzar.’
Afficher les preuves (5 sources)
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1988 · pp.134-135 · under “Seven Symbolic Times” · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Only by applying the formula there expressed of “a day for a year” to the “seven times” of this prophecy can the vision of Daniel chapter 4 have significant fulfillment beyond the day of now extinct Nebuchadnezzar, as the evidence thus far presented gives reason to expect. They therefore represent 2,520 years.”
The chain is: “times” in Daniel means years; a prophetic year is 360 days because three and a half times equal 1,260 days at Revelation 12:6, 14; “seven times” is therefore 2,520 days; and Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6 supply the day-for-a-year rule. The article acknowledges that others “do not see it as relating to any specific time period or divine schedule”.
Note de provenance et de vérification for Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, Appointed Times of the Nations
Note sur la fiabilité.Full article fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026; the quotation and the page were confirmed against the text and its embedded page markers. Insight on the Scriptures is undated on the Online Library; the 1988 publication year is the work’s own imprint date.
1999 · pp.96-97 · par. 28 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Since the “seven times” are prophetic, we must apply to the 2,520 days the Scriptural rule: “A day for a year.” … They began with the desolation of Judah and Jerusalem in the seventh lunar month (Tishri 15) of 607 B.C.E. … From that point to 1 B.C.E. is 606 years. The remaining 1,914 years stretch from then to 1914 C.E. Thus, the “seven times,” or 2,520 years, ended by Tishri 15, or October 4/5, 1914 C.E.”
The preceding paragraphs argue that Nebuchadnezzar’s own “seven times” were seven years of 360 days, that 2,520 literal days from 607 B.C.E. would reach only “600 B.C.E., a year having no Scriptural significance”, and that 537 B.C.E. cannot be the end because Zerubbabel was made governor, not king.
Note de provenance et de vérification for Pay Attention to Daniel’s Prophecy!, Unraveling the Mystery of the Great Tree (chap. 6)
Note sur la fiabilité.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”).
2005 · pp.215-218 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“The 2,520 years began in October 607 B.C.E., when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians and the Davidic king was taken off his throne. The period ended in October 1914. At that time, “the appointed times of the nations” ended, and Jesus Christ was installed as God’s heavenly King.”
The appendix to the organisation’s principal Bible-study textbook of 2005-2015 sets out the chain in five steps: Luke 21:24; Jerusalem as a symbol of Jehovah’s rulership; Daniel 4’s felled tree; 1,260 days x 2 = 2,520 days from Revelation 12:6, 14; and the day-for-a-year rule from Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6. A footnote adds the arithmetic (606 + 1,914 = 2,520, there being no zero year) and refers readers to the article “Chronology” in Insight on the Scriptures.
Note de provenance et de vérification for What Does the Bible Really Teach?, Appendix: 1914—A Significant Year in Bible Prophecy
Note sur la fiabilité.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”).
2015 · pp.217, 220 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“The “seven times” lasted for 2,520 years. If we count 2,520 years from the year 607 B.C.E., we end up at the year 1914. That was when Jehovah made Jesus, the Messiah, King of God’s Kingdom in heaven.”
The simplified successor to the 2005 textbook keeps the same chain in plainer language: “Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 607 B.C.E. That was the start of the ‘seven times.’” and “The 2,520 days are equal to 2,520 years because of the prophetic rule ‘a day for a year.’”
Note de provenance et de vérification for What Can the Bible Teach Us?, Endnote 22: Why Is the Year 1914 So Important?
Note sur la fiabilité.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”). The endnote runs over two pages: the sentence quoted here is on page 217 and the arithmetic quoted in the context note is on page 220 (pages 218-219 carry no page marker in the library text).
19 septembre 2026 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“The “seven times” began in October 607 B.C.E., when, according to Bible chronology, Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonians.”
The page sets out the same chain as the 2005 appendix and closes: “Applying the prophetic rule ‘a day for a year,’ the 2,520 days represent 2,520 years. Therefore, the ‘seven times,’ or 2,520 years, would end in October 1914.” Its footnote a refers readers to “When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One,” pages 26-31 of the 1 October 2011 Watchtower, and Part Two, pages 22-28 of the 1 November 2011 issue.
Note de provenance et de vérification for JW.org (Bible Questions Answered), What Does Bible Chronology Indicate About the Year 1914?
Note sur la fiabilité.Live page fetched from jw.org on 19 September 2026 (HTTP 200) and read in full; wording confirmed. The date recorded is the access date because the page carries no publication date. The identical text appears on the Watchtower Online Library at the second URL, which the library cites as “ijwbq article 75” — an article number in the web-only compilation Bible Questions Answered, not a printed page number.
Notes.The current, public statement of the teaching. It still routes the reader to the 2011 articles for the 607 BCE date, which remain the organisation’s standing defence.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-jw-ijwbq-1914
Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : Le calcul est détaillé dans l’appendice de 2005 : 606 ans d’octobre 607 av. n. è. à octobre 1 av. n. è., puis 1 914 ans jusqu’à octobre 1914, puisqu’il n’y a pas d’année zéro.
Afficher les preuves (2 sources)
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1999 · pp.96-97 · par. 28 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Since the “seven times” are prophetic, we must apply to the 2,520 days the Scriptural rule: “A day for a year.” … They began with the desolation of Judah and Jerusalem in the seventh lunar month (Tishri 15) of 607 B.C.E. … From that point to 1 B.C.E. is 606 years. The remaining 1,914 years stretch from then to 1914 C.E. Thus, the “seven times,” or 2,520 years, ended by Tishri 15, or October 4/5, 1914 C.E.”
The preceding paragraphs argue that Nebuchadnezzar’s own “seven times” were seven years of 360 days, that 2,520 literal days from 607 B.C.E. would reach only “600 B.C.E., a year having no Scriptural significance”, and that 537 B.C.E. cannot be the end because Zerubbabel was made governor, not king.
Note de provenance et de vérification for Pay Attention to Daniel’s Prophecy!, Unraveling the Mystery of the Great Tree (chap. 6)
Note sur la fiabilité.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”).
2005 · pp.215-218 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“The 2,520 years began in October 607 B.C.E., when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians and the Davidic king was taken off his throne. The period ended in October 1914. At that time, “the appointed times of the nations” ended, and Jesus Christ was installed as God’s heavenly King.”
The appendix to the organisation’s principal Bible-study textbook of 2005-2015 sets out the chain in five steps: Luke 21:24; Jerusalem as a symbol of Jehovah’s rulership; Daniel 4’s felled tree; 1,260 days x 2 = 2,520 days from Revelation 12:6, 14; and the day-for-a-year rule from Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6. A footnote adds the arithmetic (606 + 1,914 = 2,520, there being no zero year) and refers readers to the article “Chronology” in Insight on the Scriptures.
Note de provenance et de vérification for What Does the Bible Really Teach?, Appendix: 1914—A Significant Year in Bible Prophecy
Note sur la fiabilité.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”).
Étude perspicace des Écritures déclare que l’édition de mars 1880 de la revue Watch Tower a désigné 1914 comme l’année où arriveraient à leur terme les « temps fixés des nations », soit quelque 34 ans à l’avance. Source: Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, 1988
Afficher les preuves (1 source)
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1988 · p.135 · second-to-last paragraph · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“It is a historical fact worth noting that, on the basis of the points and evidence above presented, the March 1880 edition of the Watch Tower magazine identified the year 1914 as the time for the close of “the appointed times of the nations” (and the end of the lease of power granted the Gentile rulers).”
The paragraph then quotes The World (New York) of 30 August 1914 that the Bible Students “have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914”.
Note de provenance et de vérification for Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, Appointed Times of the Nations
Note sur la fiabilité.Full article fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026; the quotation and the page were confirmed against the text and its embedded page markers. Insight on the Scriptures is undated on the Online Library; the 1988 publication year is the work’s own imprint date.
Notes.Recorded here only as the organisation’s own claim about its history. What the March 1880 Zion’s Watch Tower actually said, and what the Bible Students expected 1914 to bring, belongs to the predictions ledger and must be checked against the 1880 magazine itself.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-it1-appointed-times-1880
La chronologie n’a pas commencé comme un simple calcul. Pendant près de quarante ans, elle a aussi été lue dans les mesures intérieures de la Grande Pyramide de Guizeh, publiée comme le témoin de pierre de Dieu, jusqu’à ce que l’organisation abandonne cet enseignement en 1928 et l’attribue à Satan. Cet épisode fait l’objet d’une page à part.
Comment la date est obtenue
C’est la partie que la plupart des lecteurs n’ont jamais vue exposée clairement, et elle n’est pas contestée entre l’organisation et ceux qui la critiquent. La date de 607 est une soustraction, non une lecture.
Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : La Tour de Garde du 1er novembre 2011 le dit en une phrase : « Puisque la Bible affirme expressément que cet exil a duré 70 ans, il a logiquement commencé en 607. »
Afficher les preuves (3 sources)
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1 octobre 2011 · pp.28-29 · pars. 19-20 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“According to Bible chronology, then, the 70 years was a literal period of time that ended in 537 B.C.E. Counting back 70 years, the start date of the period would be 607 B.C.E.”
The preceding paragraph fixes the end of the exile: “The decree ending their exile was issued in ‘the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia.’ … Thus, by the fall of 537 B.C.E., the Jews had returned to Jerusalem to restore true worship.” The whole of the organisation’s date for 607 rests on this subtraction.
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One
Note sur la fiabilité.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”).
1 novembre 2011 · p.22 · par. 9 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Biblical and secular history agree that this exile in Babylon ended after Cyrus conquered Babylon and freed the Jews, who returned to Jerusalem in 537 B.C.E. Since the Bible explicitly says that the exile lasted for 70 years, it must have begun in 607 B.C.E.”
The article opens by restating Part One’s four conclusions in a bulleted box, then sets out the arithmetic in a single sentence. The following paragraph notes that “most scholars date the destruction of Jerusalem at 587 B.C.E. This allows for only a 50-year exile.”
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two
Note sur la fiabilité.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”).
1988 · p.463 · under “From 607 B.C.E. to return from exile” · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Hence the count of the 70 years of desolation must have begun about October 1, 607 B.C.E., ending in 537 B.C.E.”
The same passage sets out the regnal framework: “Jerusalem came under final siege in Zedekiah’s 9th year (609 B.C.E.), and the city fell in his 11th year (607 B.C.E.), corresponding to Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year of actual rule (counting from his accession year in 625 B.C.E.).” It also states: “The Bible prophecy does not allow for the application of the 70-year period to any time other than that between the desolation of Judah, accompanying Jerusalem’s destruction, and the return of the Jewish exiles to their homeland as a result of Cyrus’ decree.”
Note de provenance et de vérification for Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, Chronology
Note sur la fiabilité.Full article fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026; the quotation and the page were confirmed against the text and its embedded page markers. Insight on the Scriptures is undated on the Online Library; the 1988 publication year is the work’s own imprint date.
Notes.Places Nebuchadnezzar’s accession in 625 BCE; conventional chronology places it in 605 BCE. The 20-year difference runs through every regnal date in the scheme.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-it1-chronology-70-years
Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : Étude perspicace explique que le décret de Cyrus « fut très probablement édicté en hiver 538 ou au printemps 537 », ce qui laissait le temps d’« effectuer le voyage de quatre mois jusqu’à Jérusalem et d’y arriver au septième mois (Tishri, soit vers le 1er octobre) de l’année 537 av. n. è. »
Afficher les preuves (2 sources)
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1 octobre 2011 · pp.28-29 · pars. 19-20 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“According to Bible chronology, then, the 70 years was a literal period of time that ended in 537 B.C.E. Counting back 70 years, the start date of the period would be 607 B.C.E.”
The preceding paragraph fixes the end of the exile: “The decree ending their exile was issued in ‘the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia.’ … Thus, by the fall of 537 B.C.E., the Jews had returned to Jerusalem to restore true worship.” The whole of the organisation’s date for 607 rests on this subtraction.
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One
Note sur la fiabilité.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”).
1988 · pp.458-459 · under “From Human Creation to the Present” · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Another date that can be used as a pivotal point is the year 539 B.C.E., supported by various historical sources as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian. (Secular sources for Cyrus’ reign include Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Ptolemy, as well as the Babylonian tablets.)”
The article explains that a pivotal date must be “a date in history that has sound basis for acceptance and that corresponds with a particular event recorded in the Bible”, and reasons that Cyrus’ decree was issued by the winter of 538 or spring of 537 B.C.E., allowing the exiles to reach Jerusalem “by the seventh month (Tishri, or about October 1) of 537 B.C.E.”
Note de provenance et de vérification for Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, Chronology
Note sur la fiabilité.Full article fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026; the quotation and the page were confirmed against the text and its embedded page markers. Insight on the Scriptures is undated on the Online Library; the 1988 publication year is the work’s own imprint date.
Notes.Insight calls 539 BCE a “pivotal point”, not an “absolute date”; the earlier “absolute date” wording belongs to the 1968 Watchtower articles recorded separately. It names Ptolemy among its supports.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-it1-chronology-pivotal-539
Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : Étude perspicace des Écritures déclare : « La prophétie biblique ne permet pas d’appliquer cette période de 70 ans à un autre moment que l’intervalle entre la désolation de Juda, consécutive à la destruction de Jérusalem, et le retour des exilés juifs dans leur pays après la promulgation du décret de Cyrus. »
Afficher les preuves (3 sources)
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1 octobre 2011 · p.27 · pars. 9-11 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“So according to the Bible, the 70 years was a period of bitter punishment for Judah, and God used the Babylonians as the instrument for inflicting this severe chastisement.”
The article first states the alternative reading it rejects: “Instead of saying 70 years ‘at Babylon,’ many translations read ‘for Babylon.’ (NIV) Some historians therefore claim that this 70-year period applies to the Babylonian Empire. According to secular chronology, the Babylonians dominated the land of ancient Judah and Jerusalem for some 70 years, from about 609 B.C.E. until 539 B.C.E. when the capital city of Babylon was captured.” It then argues from Jeremiah 25:4-11 and Lamentations that the 70 years were aimed at Judah and Jerusalem.
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One
Note sur la fiabilité.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 states the “for Babylon” reading of Jeremiah 29:10 before rejecting it; critics sometimes assert that the organisation never mentions it.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-w-2011-1001-70-years-judah
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1 octobre 2011 · pp.27-28 · pars. 13-16 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Only then, in the seventh Jewish month, Tishri (September/October), of that year could it be said that the land, now desolate and unworked, began to enjoy its Sabbath rest.”
Reading 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21 with Leviticus 25 and 26, the article argues that the 70 years were a period in which the land of Judah lay uncultivated, and that the count therefore began not at the first deportation but after Jerusalem was razed and the remaining people fled to Egypt (2 Kings 25:25, 26).
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One
Note sur la fiabilité.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”).
1988 · p.463 · under “From 607 B.C.E. to return from exile” · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Hence the count of the 70 years of desolation must have begun about October 1, 607 B.C.E., ending in 537 B.C.E.”
The same passage sets out the regnal framework: “Jerusalem came under final siege in Zedekiah’s 9th year (609 B.C.E.), and the city fell in his 11th year (607 B.C.E.), corresponding to Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year of actual rule (counting from his accession year in 625 B.C.E.).” It also states: “The Bible prophecy does not allow for the application of the 70-year period to any time other than that between the desolation of Judah, accompanying Jerusalem’s destruction, and the return of the Jewish exiles to their homeland as a result of Cyrus’ decree.”
Note de provenance et de vérification for Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, Chronology
Note sur la fiabilité.Full article fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026; the quotation and the page were confirmed against the text and its embedded page markers. Insight on the Scriptures is undated on the Online Library; the 1988 publication year is the work’s own imprint date.
Notes.Places Nebuchadnezzar’s accession in 625 BCE; conventional chronology places it in 605 BCE. The 20-year difference runs through every regnal date in the scheme.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-it1-chronology-70-years
Tout l’édifice est ancré à 539 av. n. è. pour la chute de Babylone, date que l’organisation établit à partir des historiens classiques Diodore, Africanus, Eusèbe et Hérodote, de Ptolémée, de tablettes cunéiformes datées et d’une tablette astronomique mentionnant deux éclipses lunaires. Source: Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, 1988Source: The Watchtower, 1 octobre 2011
Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : Étude perspicace présente 539 av. n. è. comme « une date qui peut servir de date pivot » et précise qu’une date pivot doit être « une date historique suffisamment confirmée pour être acceptée et à laquelle correspond un événement particulier rapporté dans la Bible ».
Afficher les preuves (2 sources)
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1988 · pp.458-459 · under “From Human Creation to the Present” · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Another date that can be used as a pivotal point is the year 539 B.C.E., supported by various historical sources as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian. (Secular sources for Cyrus’ reign include Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Ptolemy, as well as the Babylonian tablets.)”
The article explains that a pivotal date must be “a date in history that has sound basis for acceptance and that corresponds with a particular event recorded in the Bible”, and reasons that Cyrus’ decree was issued by the winter of 538 or spring of 537 B.C.E., allowing the exiles to reach Jerusalem “by the seventh month (Tishri, or about October 1) of 537 B.C.E.”
Note de provenance et de vérification for Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, Chronology
Note sur la fiabilité.Full article fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026; the quotation and the page were confirmed against the text and its embedded page markers. Insight on the Scriptures is undated on the Online Library; the 1988 publication year is the work’s own imprint date.
Notes.Insight calls 539 BCE a “pivotal point”, not an “absolute date”; the earlier “absolute date” wording belongs to the 1968 Watchtower articles recorded separately. It names Ptolemy among its supports.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-it1-chronology-pivotal-539
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1 octobre 2011 · p.28 · box · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“The date 539 B.C.E. when Cyrus II conquered Babylon is calculated using the testimony of: ▪ Ancient historical sources and cuneiform tablets: Diodorus of Sicily (c. 80-20 B.C.E.) … The Greek historian Herodotus (c. 485-425 B.C.E.) … Cuneiform tablets show that Cyrus ruled Babylon for nine years before his death.”
The box adds: “Confirmation by a cuneiform tablet: A Babylonian astronomical clay tablet (BM 33066) confirms the date of Cyrus’ death in 530 B.C.E. Though this tablet contains some errors regarding the astronomical positions, it contains the descriptions of two lunar eclipses that the tablet says occurred in the seventh year of Cambyses II”, identified with eclipses of 16 July 523 B.C.E. and 10 January 522 B.C.E.
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One (box: “A Pivotal Date in History”)
Note sur la fiabilité.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 fixed point of the whole scheme, 539 BCE, is established from classical historians and from an astronomical tablet — the two classes of evidence the same series treats as unreliable for the Neo-Babylonian reigns.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-w-2011-1001-pivotal-539
L’argumentaire de l’organisation, dans ses propres mots
En 2011, La Tour de Garde a publié une série en deux parties précisément pour répondre à cette question. Elle est soignée, elle est détaillée, et c’est la défense la plus complète que l’organisation ait publiée. Tout ce qui précède est pesé à son aune ; elle est donc reproduite ici intégralement et sans interruption. La seconde partie énonce l’argument tout entier en une seule phrase.
Biblical and secular history agree that this exile in Babylon ended after Cyrus conquered Babylon and freed the Jews, who returned to Jerusalem in 537 B.C.E. Since the Bible explicitly says that the exile lasted for 70 years, it must have begun in 607 B.C.E.
“According to historians and archaeologists, 586 or 587 B.C.E. is generally accepted as the year of Jerusalem’s destruction.a Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses say that it was 607 B.C.E.? What is your basis for this date?”
So why do Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to a date that differs from widely accepted chronology by 20 years? In short, because of evidence within the Bible itself.
Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : Étude perspicace : « Lorsqu’on constate des différences, on peut se fier au récit biblique » ; et « En revanche, la Bible s’est révélée véridique dans tous les sujets qu’elle traite ; c’est elle, et de loin, qui donne la vision la plus exacte des temps antiques dont elle parle. Sa chronologie aussi est digne de foi. »
Afficher les preuves (4 sources)
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1988 · pp.457-458 · under “Historians of the Classical Period” and “The Biblical Count of Time” · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“However, the information presented earlier shows there is no reason for placing their histories and chronologies on a par with the Bible itself. Where differences appear, one can confidently rely on the Biblical record…”
The next section opens: “The ancient secular records obviously must all be used with due caution. They are known to have inaccuracies in many matters, and it is most unlikely that their chronologies should somehow have escaped such inaccuracies. By contrast, the Bible has proved true in all fields dealt with, giving by far the most accurate picture of the ancient times it treats. Its chronology is also reliable.”
Note de provenance et de vérification for Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, Chronology
Note sur la fiabilité.Full article fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026; the quotation and the page were confirmed against the text and its embedded page markers. Insight on the Scriptures is undated on the Online Library; the 1988 publication year is the work’s own imprint date.
1988 · p.452 · under “Assyrian Chronology” · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“The information above points to the conclusion that Assyrian historiography either is not correctly understood by modern historians or is of very low caliber. In either case, we do not feel compelled to attempt to coordinate the Biblical chronology with history as presented in the Assyrian records.”
The reference work’s statement of method, made about the Assyrian eponym lists, immediately before the section on Babylonian chronology that underlies the 607 BCE date.
Note de provenance et de vérification for Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, Chronology
Note sur la fiabilité.Full article fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026; the quotation and the page were confirmed against the text and its embedded page markers. Insight on the Scriptures is undated on the Online Library; the 1988 publication year is the work’s own imprint date.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-it1-chronology-assyrian
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1 octobre 2011 · p.26 · par. 6 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“So why do Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to a date that differs from widely accepted chronology by 20 years? In short, because of evidence within the Bible itself.”
The same paragraph gives the reason the question matters: that “knowing the actual year when this ‘ultimate catastrophe’ began and understanding how the restoration of true worship in Jerusalem fulfilled a precise Bible prophecy will build your confidence in the reliability of God’s Word.”
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One
Note sur la fiabilité.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”).
1 novembre 2011 · p.27 · pars. 35-36 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“At present, the majority of secular historians believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C.E. However, the Bible writers Jeremiah and Daniel clearly state that the Jews were in exile for 70 years, not 50 years. (Jeremiah 25:1, 2, 11; 29:10; Daniel 9:2) Those statements strongly indicate that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E. As the above evidence shows, that conclusion has some secular support.”
The closing section, headed “Why Trust the Bible?”, continues: “Secular experts have repeatedly questioned the Bible’s accuracy. Yet, when more evidence is uncovered, the Bible record has time and again been vindicated.”
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two
Note sur la fiabilité.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 organisation’s own summary of its case, and its best counter-argument, in its own words.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-w-2011-1101-why-trust-bible
La série de 2011 fait peser la charge de la preuve sur le témoignage profane, en concluant que les historiens classiques et le canon de Ptolémée « ne suffisent pas à mettre en défaut la chronologie biblique ». Source: The Watchtower, 1 octobre 2011
Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : La section finale de la deuxième partie donne la raison de cette démarche : « Les spécialistes ont souvent dénigré la Bible. Pourtant, à mesure que de nouveaux éléments de preuve viennent enrichir le débat, c’est le récit biblique qui, à maintes reprises, en ressort corroboré. »
Afficher les preuves (1 source)
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1 octobre 2011 · p.31 · par. 38 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Though the classical historians and the canon of Ptolemy disagree with this date, valid questions can be raised about the accuracy of their writings. Really, those two lines of evidence hardly provide enough proof to overturn the Bible’s chronology.”
The summing-up of Part One. The accompanying box “A QUICK SUMMARY” on the same page reads: “Secular historians usually say that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C.E. ▪ Bible chronology strongly indicates that the destruction occurred in 607 B.C.E. ▪ Secular historians mainly base their conclusions on the writings of classical historians and on the canon of Ptolemy. ▪ The writings of classical historians contain significant errors and are not always consistent with the records on clay tablets.”
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One
Note sur la fiabilité.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”).
La série soutient ensuite que les sources cunéiformes sont moins sûres qu’il n’y paraît : que les chroniques comportent des lacunes, que les tablettes commerciales pourraient laisser place à un règne non consigné, que les historiens de l’Antiquité se contredisent entre eux, et que les tablettes astronomiques portent des observations qui ne vont pas toutes dans le même sens.
Explication de l’organisation · 1 novembre 2011Vérifié
1 novembre 2011 · p.23 · pars. 12-15 and box · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“There are gaps in the history recorded in the Babylonian chronicles. … Logically, then, the question arises, How reliable are deductions based on such an incomplete record?”
The accompanying box, “THE BABYLONIAN CHRONICLES—A HISTORY WITH GAPS”, states: “The Babylonian chronicles provide an account for only 35 years of the Neo-Babylonian period, traditionally presumed to span some 88 years.” The text quotes R. H. Sack that historians must probe “secondary sources . . . in the hope of determining what actually happened.”
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two
Note sur la fiabilité.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”).
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-w-2011-1101-chronicles
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1988 · pp.453-454 · under “Babylonian Chronology” · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“In view of all these factors it is certainly not wise to insist that the traditional figures for the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings be received as definite.”
The argument is that the Babylonian Chronicle tablets are later copies — citing D. J. Wiseman that one portion is “a copy made in the twenty-second year of Darius … from an older and damaged text”, and that the Neo-Babylonian Chronicle texts are in a script that “does not of itself allow any precise dating”. The same section notes that “For the final 32 years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, there are no historical records of the chronicle type except a fragmentary inscription of a campaign against Egypt in Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year.”
Note de provenance et de vérification for Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, Chronology
Note sur la fiabilité.Full article fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026; the quotation and the page were confirmed against the text and its embedded page markers. Insight on the Scriptures is undated on the Online Library; the 1988 publication year is the work’s own imprint date.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-it1-chronology-neo-babylonian
Explication de l’organisation · 1 novembre 2011Vérifié
La deuxième partie soutient, à partir de tablettes commerciales datées, que les règnes paraissent se chevaucher aux transitions de Nabuchodonosor II à Amel-Mardouk puis d’Amel-Mardouk à Nériglissar, et suggère que des souverains non enregistrés ou des interruptions entre les règnes pourraient ajouter les années manquantes à la période néo-babylonienne. Source: The Watchtower, 1 novembre 2011
Afficher les preuves (1 source)
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1 novembre 2011 · pp.23-24 · pars. 16-21 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Therefore, neither the Babylonian chronicles nor the business tablets provide a basis to establish with certainty that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C.E.”
The argument rests on dated receipts that the article says overlap at the transitions between reigns: tablets of Amel-Marduk’s accession year dated to the fourth and fifth months (BM 80920, BM 58872) while Nebuchadnezzar II was still ruling in his sixth and even tenth month of his 43rd year (BM 55806), and a similar overlap between Amel-Marduk and Neriglissar (BM 75106, BM 61325, BM 75489). From this the article asks: “Could others have ruled between the reigns of these kings? If so, additional years would have to be added to the Neo-Babylonian period.”
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two
Note sur la fiabilité.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.This is the organisation’s positive proposal: unrecorded extra kings or interregna lengthening the Neo-Babylonian period by the missing 20 years.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-w-2011-1101-business-tablets
Explication de l’organisation · 1 octobre 2011Vérifié
La première partie soutient que la date conventionnelle repose sur deux piliers, les historiens classiques et le canon de Ptolémée, et s’en prend aux deux : à Bérose pour des erreurs de fait sur les règnes assyriens et babyloniens, et à Ptolémée pour avoir omis des souverains attestés par la liste des rois d’Ourouk et par des tablettes économiques. Source: The Watchtower, 1 octobre 2011Source: The Watchtower, 1 octobre 2011
Afficher les preuves (2 sources)
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1 octobre 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.”
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One
Note sur la fiabilité.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.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-w-2011-1001-classical-historians
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1 octobre 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.”
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One
Note sur la fiabilité.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.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-w-2011-1001-ptolemy
Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : L’article fonde cette affirmation sur 13 ensembles de positions lunaires et sur la ligne 3 de la tablette, où le signe cunéiforme est 9 alors que Neugebauer et Weidner ont translittéré 8, et déclare : ‘VAT 4956 points more convincingly to 607 B.C.E.’
Afficher les preuves (3 sources)
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1 novembre 2011 · pp.25, 27 · pars. 27-33 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“While not all of these sets of lunar positions match the year 568/567 B.C.E., all 13 sets match calculated positions for 20 years earlier, for the year 588/587 B.C.E.”
VAT 4956 opens “Year 37 of Nebukadnezar, king of Babylon”. The article accepts that a lunar eclipse occurred on 4 July 568 B.C.E. but points to another on 15 July 588 B.C.E., and reports an analysis of the tablet’s 13 sets of lunar positions made with the astronomy software TheSky6, Cartes du Ciel and a US Naval Observatory date converter. It concludes: “Clearly, much of the astronomical data in VAT 4956 fits the year 588 B.C.E. as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II. This, therefore, supports the date of 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction—just as the Bible indicates.” The chart on page 25 concludes: “VAT 4956 points more convincingly to 607 B.C.E.”
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two
Note sur la fiabilité.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 states the planetary observations were deliberately excluded from this analysis (note 19: “Because the cuneiform signs for many of the planetary positions are open to speculation and to several interpretations, these positions were not used in this survey”). No author, institution or publication is named for the analysis.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-w-2011-1101-vat4956
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1 novembre 2011 · pp.26-27 · box · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Why an issue? The third line on this tablet reads that on the “night of the 9th” during the first month (Nisanu/Nisan), the “moon stood 1 cubit in front of ß Virginis.” However, Neugebauer and Weidner wrote in 1915 regarding the year 568 B.C.E. (which would point to 587 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction) that “the moon stood 1 cubit before this star on 8 Nisan, and not on 9 Nisan.””
The box sets out six numbered points: that the Akkadian sign for 9 is visible in the photograph; that Neugebauer and Weidner changed the 9 to an 8 in their transliteration and German translation, noting the original reading only in a footnote; that Sachs and Hunger published the text in 1988 as it reads, with a 9, but rendered it in English as “9th” with the note “error for: 8th”. The tablet photograph is credited “bpk/Vorderasiatisches Museum, SMB/Olaf M. Teßmer”.
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two (box: “What Does VAT 4956 Really Say?”)
Note sur la fiabilité.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 single piece of positive physical evidence the series offers for 607 BCE.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-w-2011-1101-vat4956-box
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1 novembre 2011 · pp.24-25 · pars. 22-26 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Scholar R. J. van der Spek explains: “The compilers were astrologers, not historians.” He describes sections of the tablets that contain historical records as “more or less casual,” and he warns that such historical information must “be used with caution.””
Before turning to VAT 4956, the article argues that astronomical tablets may contain retrocalculated rather than observed positions, quoting John Steele (“It is possible … that some of the earliest predictions could have been made by projecting the scheme backwards when the text was compiled”) and David Brown (“retrocalculations undertaken by scribes in the 4th and later centuries BC”), and that even a correctly dated eclipse does not guarantee the regnal year attached to it.
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two
Note sur la fiabilité.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”).
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-w-2011-1101-astronomical-caution
Étude perspicace des Écritures admet qu’une combinaison de positions lunaires et planétaires du type de celles que consignent les journaux astronomiques « ne se répète pas avant des milliers d’années » et que ces journaux concordent avec le canon de Ptolémée, mais répond qu’« en termes simples, l’exactitude astronomique ne prouve pas l’exactitude historique », parce que les années de règne rattachées aux observations pourraient résulter d’une erreur de scribe postérieure. Source: Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, 1988
Afficher les preuves (1 source)
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1988 · p.456 · under “Astronomical Calculations” · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Simply stated, accuracy in astronomy does not prove accuracy in history.”
The principle is illustrated with a worked example: an ancient scribe might correctly record a celestial event that modern computation confirms for 465 B.C.E., yet be “entirely wrong” in calling that year the 21st year of King Xerxes. The same section acknowledges that a combination of lunar and planetary positions “would not be duplicated again in thousands of years”, and that the astronomical diaries “appear to coincide with the figures given in Ptolemy’s canon”.
Note de provenance et de vérification for Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, Chronology
Note sur la fiabilité.Full article fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026; the quotation and the page were confirmed against the text and its embedded page markers. Insight on the Scriptures is undated on the Online Library; the 1988 publication year is the work’s own imprint date.
Notes.The concession that the diaries’ positions are effectively unique to a single year, and agree with the conventional chronology, is made in the organisation’s own reference work.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-it1-chronology-astronomy
Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : « Toutefois, Jérémie et Daniel, des écrivains de la Bible, affirment expressément que l’exil des Juifs a duré 70 ans, et non 50. »
Afficher les preuves (3 sources)
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1 novembre 2011 · p.22 · par. 9 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Biblical and secular history agree that this exile in Babylon ended after Cyrus conquered Babylon and freed the Jews, who returned to Jerusalem in 537 B.C.E. Since the Bible explicitly says that the exile lasted for 70 years, it must have begun in 607 B.C.E.”
The article opens by restating Part One’s four conclusions in a bulleted box, then sets out the arithmetic in a single sentence. The following paragraph notes that “most scholars date the destruction of Jerusalem at 587 B.C.E. This allows for only a 50-year exile.”
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two
Note sur la fiabilité.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”).
1 novembre 2011 · p.27 · pars. 35-36 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“At present, the majority of secular historians believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C.E. However, the Bible writers Jeremiah and Daniel clearly state that the Jews were in exile for 70 years, not 50 years. (Jeremiah 25:1, 2, 11; 29:10; Daniel 9:2) Those statements strongly indicate that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E. As the above evidence shows, that conclusion has some secular support.”
The closing section, headed “Why Trust the Bible?”, continues: “Secular experts have repeatedly questioned the Bible’s accuracy. Yet, when more evidence is uncovered, the Bible record has time and again been vindicated.”
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two
Note sur la fiabilité.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 organisation’s own summary of its case, and its best counter-argument, in its own words.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-w-2011-1101-why-trust-bible
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1 octobre 2011 · p.27 · pars. 9-11 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“So according to the Bible, the 70 years was a period of bitter punishment for Judah, and God used the Babylonians as the instrument for inflicting this severe chastisement.”
The article first states the alternative reading it rejects: “Instead of saying 70 years ‘at Babylon,’ many translations read ‘for Babylon.’ (NIV) Some historians therefore claim that this 70-year period applies to the Babylonian Empire. According to secular chronology, the Babylonians dominated the land of ancient Judah and Jerusalem for some 70 years, from about 609 B.C.E. until 539 B.C.E. when the capital city of Babylon was captured.” It then argues from Jeremiah 25:4-11 and Lamentations that the 70 years were aimed at Judah and Jerusalem.
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One
Note sur la fiabilité.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 states the “for Babylon” reading of Jeremiah 29:10 before rejecting it; critics sometimes assert that the organisation never mentions it.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-w-2011-1001-70-years-judah
Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : L’article conclut néanmoins que sa lecture « est également appuyée par des arguments tirés de sources profanes », désignant par là les données astronomiques qu’il examine plutôt que les spécialistes qu’il cite.
Afficher les preuves (2 sources)
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1 novembre 2011 · p.23 · footnote c · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Note: None of the secular experts quoted in this article hold that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E.”
A footnote attached to the paragraph quoting R. H. Sack on the Babylonian chronicles. It applies to every scholar cited in the article, including Sack, Steele, Brown, van der Spek, Sachs and Hunger.
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two
Note sur la fiabilité.Full document fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026 and read in full; the quotation was confirmed word for word against the article text.The Watchtower Online Library prints the footnote block at the end of the document, after the last page marker, so the page recorded here is the page carrying the footnote's reference marker in the body text, read from the page marker immediately before it.
Notes.Printed by the organisation itself. Any statement that the organisation conceals the absence of scholarly support for 607 BCE is wrong; the concession is in the article.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-w-2011-1101-ftn-c
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1 novembre 2011 · p.27 · pars. 35-36 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“At present, the majority of secular historians believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C.E. However, the Bible writers Jeremiah and Daniel clearly state that the Jews were in exile for 70 years, not 50 years. (Jeremiah 25:1, 2, 11; 29:10; Daniel 9:2) Those statements strongly indicate that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E. As the above evidence shows, that conclusion has some secular support.”
The closing section, headed “Why Trust the Bible?”, continues: “Secular experts have repeatedly questioned the Bible’s accuracy. Yet, when more evidence is uncovered, the Bible record has time and again been vindicated.”
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two
Note sur la fiabilité.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 organisation’s own summary of its case, and its best counter-argument, in its own words.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-w-2011-1101-why-trust-bible
Explication de l’organisation · 1 novembre 2011Vérifié
L’organisation reconnaît par écrit qu’il existe des tablettes commerciales datées pour chacune des années traditionnellement attribuées aux rois néo-babyloniens, et qu’en additionnant ces règnes en remontant à partir de Nabonide on obtient 587 av. n. è. pour la destruction de Jérusalem. Sa réponse est qu’un roi dont le règne n’aurait pas été consigné aurait pu s’intercaler entre deux d’entre eux. Source: The Watchtower, 1 novembre 2011Source: The Watchtower, 1 novembre 2011
Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : 'However, this method of dating works only if each king followed the other in the same year, without any breaks in between.'
Afficher les preuves (2 sources)
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1 novembre 2011 · p.24 · footnote e · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Business tablets exist for all the years traditionally attributed to the Neo-Babylonian kings. When the years that these kings ruled are totaled and a calculation is made back from the last Neo-Babylonian king, Nabonidus, the date reached for the destruction of Jerusalem is 587 B.C.E. However, this method of dating works only if each king followed the other in the same year, without any breaks in between.”
A footnote in which the organisation concedes that the dated business tablets cover every year of the Neo-Babylonian period and, added up, give 587 BCE. Its answer is that an unrecorded king might have reigned between two of them.
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?-Part Two, footnote e
Note sur la fiabilité.Read in the Watchtower Online Library text of the article on 19 September 2026 in the [Footnotes] section. The Online Library prints all footnotes together at the end of the article, so the page is taken from the position of the footnote’s reference marker in the body: the marker for note e falls between the page markers for pages 24 and 25.
1 novembre 2011 · pp.22-28 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Clearly, much of the astronomical data in VAT 4956 fits the year 588 B.C.E. as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II. This, therefore, supports the date of 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem's destruction-just as the Bible indicates.”
The organisation's positive case from the cuneiform record. It argues that the Babylonian chronicles are incomplete, that business tablets show discrepancies at reign transitions, and that thirteen sets of lunar positions on VAT 4956 match 588/587 BCE.
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?-Part Two
Note sur la fiabilité.The whole article was fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026 and read with page markers intact; the quotation is on page 27.
Notes.Note 21, the authority for the claim that the lunar position in line 3 matches Nisanu 9 of 588 BCE, is present in the Online Library text and reads: “VAT 4956 reads on line three: ‘The moon stood 1 cubit [or 2 degrees] in front of ß Virginis.’ The previously mentioned analysis concluded that on Nisanu 9, the moon was 2°04ʹ in front of and 0° below the star ß Virginis. It was considered an exact match.” It names no external authority: “the previously mentioned analysis” is the organisation’s own, described in note 19 as having been made with the software TheSky6, the freeware Cartes du Ciel / Sky Charts and a US Naval Observatory date converter. No astronomer, publication or independent calculation is cited for it.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-e-w11-1101-part-two
Dans une note, le même article concède qu’il existe des tablettes commerciales pour chacune des années traditionnellement attribuées aux rois néo-babyloniens, et que le total de ces règnes, remonté à partir de Nabonide, donne 587 av. n. è. pour la destruction de Jérusalem. Source: The Watchtower, 1 novembre 2011
Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : La note ajoute la réserve de l’organisation : « Toutefois, on ne peut se fier à cette méthode de datation que s’il est acquis que toutes les successions ont eu lieu la même année, sans aucune interruption entre deux règnes. »
Afficher les preuves (1 source)
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1 novembre 2011 · p.24 · footnote e · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Business tablets exist for all the years traditionally attributed to the Neo-Babylonian kings. When the years that these kings ruled are totaled and a calculation is made back from the last Neo-Babylonian king, Nabonidus, the date reached for the destruction of Jerusalem is 587 B.C.E. However, this method of dating works only if each king followed the other in the same year, without any breaks in between.”
A footnote attached to the paragraph that dismisses the chronicles and business tablets. It is the organisation’s own statement that the contemporaneous dated documents form a complete year-by-year series for the period.
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two
Note sur la fiabilité.Full document fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026 and read in full; the quotation was confirmed word for word against the article text.The Watchtower Online Library prints the footnote block at the end of the document, after the last page marker, so the page recorded here is the page carrying the footnote's reference marker in the body text, read from the page marker immediately before it.
Notes.The most significant concession in the series and easy to miss: it concedes that the dated contemporaneous record is continuous, and rests the 20-year gap entirely on the possibility of unattested breaks between reigns.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-w-2011-1101-ftn-e
Explication de l’organisation · 1 octobre 2011Vérifié
La série de 2011 reconnaît l’autre traduction de Jérémie 29:10 — soixante-dix ans « pour Babylone » plutôt qu’« à Babylone » — ainsi que la lecture correspondante selon laquelle les soixante-dix ans furent une période de domination babylonienne allant d’environ 609 à 539 av. n. è., et elle l’écarte au motif que la Bible présente les soixante-dix ans comme un châtiment visant Juda. Source: The Watchtower, 1 octobre 2011
Afficher les preuves (1 source)
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1 octobre 2011 · p.27 · pars. 9-11 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“So according to the Bible, the 70 years was a period of bitter punishment for Judah, and God used the Babylonians as the instrument for inflicting this severe chastisement.”
The article first states the alternative reading it rejects: “Instead of saying 70 years ‘at Babylon,’ many translations read ‘for Babylon.’ (NIV) Some historians therefore claim that this 70-year period applies to the Babylonian Empire. According to secular chronology, the Babylonians dominated the land of ancient Judah and Jerusalem for some 70 years, from about 609 B.C.E. until 539 B.C.E. when the capital city of Babylon was captured.” It then argues from Jeremiah 25:4-11 and Lamentations that the 70 years were aimed at Judah and Jerusalem.
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One
Note sur la fiabilité.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 states the “for Babylon” reading of Jeremiah 29:10 before rejecting it; critics sometimes assert that the organisation never mentions it.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-w-2011-1001-70-years-judah
Il ne s’agit pas de reconstitutions modernes. Ce sont des tablettes d’argile et des inscriptions sur pierre rédigées par des Babyloniens pendant la période concernée ou à une époque proche, et elles peuvent être examinées aujourd’hui dans des collections de musées et dans des éditions publiées. Chacune est citée ici d’après son édition savante ou sa notice de musée.
Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : L’organisation ne conteste pas la tablette, mais tient que les chroniques babyloniennes « n’attestent que 35 années de la période néo-babylonienne » et ne peuvent donc fixer la chronologie (La Tour de Garde, 1er novembre 2011, p. 23).
1956 · p.73 · D. J. Wiseman · The Trustees of the British Museum, London
“In the seventh year, the month of Kislev, the king of Akkad mustered his troops, marched to the Hatti-land, and encamped against (i.e. besieged) the city of Judah and on the second day of the month of Adar he seized the city and captured the king. He appointed there a king of his own choice (lit. heart), received its heavy tribute and sent (them) to Babylon.”
This is the editio princeps of the tablet usually called the Babylonian Chronicle Chronicle 5 or the Jerusalem Chronicle. The passage records Nebuchadnezzar II's capture of Jerusalem and of its king in his seventh regnal year.
Note de provenance et de vérification for Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum, Transliteration and translation of B.M. 21946, obverse lines 11-13
Note sur la fiabilité.The complete 1956 volume was downloaded as a PDF from etana.org on 19 September 2026, converted to text with pdftotext and read directly. The running head immediately above this passage reads 'TRANSLITERATION AND TRANSLATION 73'.
Provenance de la numérisation.Full scan of the British Museum volume hosted by ETANA (Electronic Tools and Ancient Near Eastern Archives), an academic digital-library consortium. Copyright the Trustees of the British Museum, 1956.
1956 · p.33 · D. J. Wiseman · The Trustees of the British Museum, London
“The date of this conquest of Jerusalem is now known precisely for the first time, namely, the second of Adar (15/16th March 597 B.C.).”
Wiseman explains that the chronicle states Nebuchadnezzar 'besieged Jerusalem (literally: the city of Judah) and seized it on the second day of the month Adar', and converts that Babylonian date into the Julian calendar.
Note de provenance et de vérification for Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum, Introduction: the historical background
Note sur la fiabilité.Read in the ETANA PDF on 19 September 2026. The running head above the passage reads 'INTRODUCTION 33'.
Provenance de la numérisation.Full scan of the British Museum volume hosted by ETANA (Electronic Tools and Ancient Near Eastern Archives), an academic digital-library consortium. Copyright the Trustees of the British Museum, 1956.
The academic catalogue record for the chronicle Wiseman published. It gives the museum as the British Museum, the museum number as BM 21946, the accession number as 1896,0409.51, the CDLI number as P555785, the genre as Chronicle, and the standard edition as A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (1975), pp. 99-102 no. 5 — that is, Grayson’s Chronicle 5.
Note de provenance et de vérification for electronic Babylonian Library (eBL), fragment BM.21946, Catalogue record for the Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946
Note sur la fiabilité.The eBL API record for BM.21946 was downloaded on 19 September 2026 and the museum number, accession number, CDLI number, genre and bibliography read from its structured fields. The record contains no continuous sentence, so no quotation is recorded for it: its description field is empty. The string “TCS 5” does not appear in the record; the identification of Grayson’s volume with Texts from Cuneiform Sources 5 is standard bibliography, stated here as context and not as a quotation. The British Museum’s own collection-online page could not be opened.
Notes.britishmuseum.org refused every automated request made in this session (HTTP 403 to earlier attempts; no response at all to curl with a browser user-agent). See the notes file.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-e-ebl-bm21946
1956 · p.69 · D. J. Wiseman · The Trustees of the British Museum, London
“For twenty-one years Nabopolassar had been king of Babylon. On the 8th of the month of Ab he died (lit. 'the fates'); in the month of Elul Nebuchadrezzar returned to Babylon and on the first day of the month of Elul he sat on the royal throne in Babylon.”
The chronicle itself states the length of Nabopolassar's reign and the day on which Nebuchadnezzar II took the throne, immediately before describing his accession-year campaign.
Note de provenance et de vérification for Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum, Transliteration and translation of B.M. 21946, obverse lines 9-11
Note sur la fiabilité.Read in the ETANA PDF on 19 September 2026; running head 'TRANSLITERATION AND TRANSLATION 69'. Wiseman's note to line 11 compares this date with dated contract tablets from Sippar.
Provenance de la numérisation.Full scan of the British Museum volume hosted by ETANA (Electronic Tools and Ancient Near Eastern Archives), an academic digital-library consortium. Copyright the Trustees of the British Museum, 1956.
Cette tablette est au cœur de la discussion parce qu’elle rattache une année de règne précise à une année précise de notre calendrier, en consignant la position de la lune et des planètes lors de nuits données. Ces positions ne se reproduisent que selon un cycle long, si bien que l’année peut être calculée.
Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : L’organisation soutient que treize ensembles de positions lunaires relevés sur la tablette correspondent à 588/587 av. n. è. et que la tablette appuie donc 607 av. n. è. (La Tour de Garde, 1er novembre 2011, p. 25, 27 ; son encadré sur la tablette se trouve aux p. 26-27).
1988 · pp.46-53 (ADART I, No. -567) · Abraham J. Sachs and Hermann Hunger (edition); Reinhard Pirngruber (digital edition) · Oesterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna (print edition)
“Year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. Month I, (the 1st of which was identical with) the 30th (of the preceding month), the moon became visible behind the Bull of Heaven”
The opening line of the tablet, which fixes the whole set of observations that follow to a named king's named regnal year. The eBL record gives the holding museum as the Vorderasiatisches Museum, the find-site as Babylon, the CDLI number as P421595, and the edition as Sachs and Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, Volume I: Diaries from 652 B.C. to 262 B.C. (1988), pp. 46-53, No. -567.
Note de provenance et de vérification for electronic Babylonian Library (eBL), fragment VAT.4956, Astronomical diary for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II (ADART I, Diary No. -567), obverse line 1
Note sur la fiabilité.The eBL public API record for VAT.4956 was downloaded on 19 September 2026 and the transliteration and English translation read line by line. The eBL viewer page itself is a JavaScript application and returned no text to an automated fetch; the API returns the same edition as structured data.
Provenance de la numérisation.electronic Babylonian Library (eBL), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet Muenchen. The edition reproduced there is that of Sachs and Hunger, digitised by Reinhard Pirngruber for the Astronomical Diaries Digital project (Austrian Academy of Sciences), CC BY-SA 3.0.
1988 · pp.46-53 (ADART I, No. -567) · Abraham J. Sachs and Hermann Hunger (edition); Reinhard Pirngruber (digital edition) · Oesterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna (print edition)
“The 15th, one god was seen with the other; sunrise to moonset: 7° 30'. A lunar eclipse which passed by […]”
The single lunar eclipse recorded on the tablet. It is one datum among roughly thirty lunar and planetary observations; the Watch Tower's 2011 argument concentrates on it and on one lunar position.
Note de provenance et de vérification for electronic Babylonian Library (eBL), fragment VAT.4956, Astronomical diary for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II: the month III lunar eclipse
Note sur la fiabilité.Read in the eBL API record on 19 September 2026. The eBL bibliography for this tablet also carries a discussion entry for F. Richard Stephenson and David M. Willis, “The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis”, Under One Sky (2002), pp. 421-428, with the note “This and other observations in the month imply that the auroral display occurred on the night of March 12/13 in 567 BC”. That date is Stephenson and Willis’s conclusion as reported by eBL, not a finding of eBL’s own, and their chapter was not opened.
Provenance de la numérisation.electronic Babylonian Library (eBL), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet Muenchen. The edition reproduced there is that of Sachs and Hunger, digitised by Reinhard Pirngruber for the Astronomical Diaries Digital project (Austrian Academy of Sciences), CC BY-SA 3.0.
1956 · p.30 · D. J. Wiseman · The Trustees of the British Museum, London
“a fragmentary text, B.M. 33041, which is a religious rather than a 'Chronicle' version of historical events in the thirty-seventh year of Nebuchadrezzar (568/7 B.C.)”
Discussing the Babylonian invasion of Egypt, Wiseman dates Nebuchadnezzar II's thirty-seventh year to 568/567 BCE on the basis of a tablet entirely independent of the astronomical diary VAT 4956.
Note de provenance et de vérification for Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum, Introduction: Egypt and Babylon
Note sur la fiabilité.Read in the ETANA PDF on 19 September 2026; running head '30 CHRONICLES OF CHALDAEAN KINGS' immediately above. On the same page Wiseman dates the final siege of Jerusalem to '588-586 B.C.'
Provenance de la numérisation.Full scan of the British Museum volume hosted by ETANA (Electronic Tools and Ancient Near Eastern Archives), an academic digital-library consortium. Copyright the Trustees of the British Museum, 1956.
1988 · pp.46-53 (ADART I, No. -567) · Abraham J. Sachs and Hermann Hunger (edition); Reinhard Pirngruber (digital edition) · Oesterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna (print edition)
“Year 38 of Nebuchadnezzar, month I, the 1st (of which followed the 30th of the preceding month): dense clouds so that [I did not see the moon ...] ... [Year 37 of Nebuchad]nezzar”
The king’s name and regnal year are written on the tablet in more than one place. “Year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon” opens the obverse; the top edge carries a catch-line giving the opening of year 38 and then a second, broken “Year 37 …”; and the left edge repeats “Year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar” as a label. The regnal year is therefore not a modern restoration of a single damaged line.
Note de provenance et de vérification for electronic Babylonian Library (eBL), fragment VAT.4956, Astronomical diary for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II: catch-line and left edge
Note sur la fiabilité.Read in the eBL API record on 19 September 2026, surface by surface (obverse, top, left). The structured record also lists two “dates in text”, year 37 and year 38, for the same king.
Provenance de la numérisation.electronic Babylonian Library (eBL), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet Muenchen. The edition reproduced there is that of Sachs and Hunger, digitised by Reinhard Pirngruber for the Astronomical Diaries Digital project (Austrian Academy of Sciences), CC BY-SA 3.0.
“As for someone adding the numbers 37 and 38, there is no way of successfully adding cuneiform writing to a dried tablet. ... I state that the accusation is utterly groundless”
Hermann Hunger, co-editor of the standard edition of the astronomical diaries, responds in detail to the argument of Rolf Furuli, a Witness and former lecturer in Semitic languages at Oslo, that VAT 4956 supports 588/587 rather than 568/567 BCE and that the tablet may have been altered. Hunger also grants Furuli's general point that truth is not decided by 'the consensus of the majority of scholars'.
Note de provenance et de vérification for Online review (no journal of publication stated), Review of Rolf J. Furuli, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II (Oslo: Awatu Publishers, 2nd ed., 2008)
Note sur la fiabilité.The full review was fetched and read on 19 September 2026 and the quoted words read in context. It states the reviewer's name and city but names no journal, volume or pages, and it is hosted on a partisan website; no peer-reviewed publication of this text was located. Treat it as an authoritative specialist's signed opinion, not as a peer-reviewed citation.
Provenance de la numérisation.Hosted on kristenfrihet.se, a personal website maintained by Carl Olof Jonsson, a former Jehovah's Witness and author of The Gentile Times Reconsidered.
Notes.The review also reports that F. R. Stephenson and D. M. Willis, evaluating the lunar data in Under One Sky (Muenster, 2002), concluded that the date 568/7 BC can be 'confidently affirmed'.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-e-hunger-review-furuli
Une inscription d’Adad-guppi, la mère du roi Nabonide, érigée à Harrân au VIe siècle av. n. è., mesure sa vie par les années de règne qu’elle a traversées : depuis la vingtième année d’Assourbanipal, au cours de laquelle elle dit être née, jusqu’à sa quarante-deuxième année, puis la troisième année d’Assour-etel-ilani, la vingt et unième de Nabopolassar, la quarante-troisième de Nabuchodonosor II, la deuxième d’Amel-Mardouk et la quatrième de Nériglissar — et elle appelle cet intervalle « quatre-vingt-quinze ans ». Les années nommées sont les points entre lesquels court le décompte, et leur addition tombe juste : 22 années supplémentaires d’Assourbanipal, puis 3 + 21 + 43 + 2 + 4 = 95. Source: RIBo, Babylon 7: The Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty, 2020Source: RIBo, Babylon 7: The Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty, 2020
Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : L’argumentation publiée par l’organisation n’aborde pas cette inscription. Sa position générale est que le registre est discontinu — « les chroniques babyloniennes nous livrent un récit historique comportant des lacunes, ce qui laisse supposer que nous ne disposons pas d’une chronologie exhaustive » et « Il n’est donc pas impossible que d’autres hommes aient exercé le pouvoir entre les règnes de ces souverains » (La Tour de Garde, 1er novembre 2011, p. 24). Elle cite bien une autre inscription royale, celle de Nériglissar, comme preuve possible d’un roi supplémentaire (même numéro, note 10).
2020 · i 29 · Frauke Weiershaeuser and Jamie Novotny (edition) · Oracc / LMU Munich
“From the twentieth year of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, (during) which I was born, until the forty-second year of Ashurbanipal, the third year of Aššur-etel-ilāni, his son, the twenty-first year of Nabopolassar, the forty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar (II), the second year of Amēl-Marduk, (and) the fourth year of Neriglissar, after (these) ninety-five years”
Adad-guppi, the mother of King Nabonidus, dates her own long life by naming in order the regnal years it ran between. The count starts in the twentieth year of Ashurbanipal, in which she says she was born, and ends in the fourth year of Neriglissar, and the inscription calls that span ninety-five years: a further twenty-two years of Ashurbanipal, then three, twenty-one, forty-three, two and four. The inscription is a sixth-century BCE document from Harran, written within living memory of the reigns it counts.
Note de provenance et de vérification for RIBo, Babylon 7: The Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty, Nabonidus 2001 (the Harran stele of Adad-guppi), column i line 29
Note sur la fiabilité.The Oracc HTML edition was downloaded and read on 19 September 2026; the transliteration and the English translation of column i 29 were read together and the line label “(i 29)” read from the page. Oracc asks that the page be cited as http://oracc.org/ribo/Q005471/. The year-numbers named here are the points the count runs between, not a list of reign lengths: 22 + 3 + 21 + 43 + 2 + 4 = 95.
Provenance de la numérisation.Royal Inscriptions of Babylonia online (RIBo), Babylon 7, edited by Frauke Weiershaeuser and Jamie Novotny for the Munich Open-access Cuneiform Corpus Initiative at LMU Munich; CC BY-SA 3.0.
2020 · ii 40b · Frauke Weiershaeuser and Jamie Novotny (edition) · Oracc / LMU Munich
“During the twenty-one years of Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, the forty-three years of Nebuchadnezzar (II), son of Nabopolassar, and the four years of Neriglissar, king of Babylon, (when) th(ose three kings) exercised kingship, I whole heartedly revered them ... for sixty-eight years”
A second, independent summation in the same inscription: 21 + 43 + 4 = 68 years of continuous service under three named Babylonian kings.
Note de provenance et de vérification for RIBo, Babylon 7: The Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty, Nabonidus 2001 (the Harran stele of Adad-guppi), column ii line 40b
Note sur la fiabilité.Read in the Oracc HTML edition on 19 September 2026, with the Akkadian ('ina 21 MU.MES ... ina 43 MU.MES') alongside the translation.
Provenance de la numérisation.Royal Inscriptions of Babylonia online (RIBo), Babylon 7, edited by Frauke Weiershaeuser and Jamie Novotny for the Munich Open-access Cuneiform Corpus Initiative at LMU Munich; CC BY-SA 3.0.
Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : L’organisation soutient que des divergences relevées sur les tablettes commerciales aux transitions entre Nabuchodonosor II, Amel-Mardouk et Nériglissar pourraient signifier que « d’autres hommes [ont] exercé le pouvoir entre les règnes de ces souverains » (La Tour de Garde, 1er novembre 2011, p. 24).
2020 · i 29 · Frauke Weiershaeuser and Jamie Novotny (edition) · Oracc / LMU Munich
“From the twentieth year of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, (during) which I was born, until the forty-second year of Ashurbanipal, the third year of Aššur-etel-ilāni, his son, the twenty-first year of Nabopolassar, the forty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar (II), the second year of Amēl-Marduk, (and) the fourth year of Neriglissar, after (these) ninety-five years”
Adad-guppi, the mother of King Nabonidus, dates her own long life by naming in order the regnal years it ran between. The count starts in the twentieth year of Ashurbanipal, in which she says she was born, and ends in the fourth year of Neriglissar, and the inscription calls that span ninety-five years: a further twenty-two years of Ashurbanipal, then three, twenty-one, forty-three, two and four. The inscription is a sixth-century BCE document from Harran, written within living memory of the reigns it counts.
Note de provenance et de vérification for RIBo, Babylon 7: The Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty, Nabonidus 2001 (the Harran stele of Adad-guppi), column i line 29
Note sur la fiabilité.The Oracc HTML edition was downloaded and read on 19 September 2026; the transliteration and the English translation of column i 29 were read together and the line label “(i 29)” read from the page. Oracc asks that the page be cited as http://oracc.org/ribo/Q005471/. The year-numbers named here are the points the count runs between, not a list of reign lengths: 22 + 3 + 21 + 43 + 2 + 4 = 95.
Provenance de la numérisation.Royal Inscriptions of Babylonia online (RIBo), Babylon 7, edited by Frauke Weiershaeuser and Jamie Novotny for the Munich Open-access Cuneiform Corpus Initiative at LMU Munich; CC BY-SA 3.0.
2020 · ii 40b · Frauke Weiershaeuser and Jamie Novotny (edition) · Oracc / LMU Munich
“During the twenty-one years of Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, the forty-three years of Nebuchadnezzar (II), son of Nabopolassar, and the four years of Neriglissar, king of Babylon, (when) th(ose three kings) exercised kingship, I whole heartedly revered them ... for sixty-eight years”
A second, independent summation in the same inscription: 21 + 43 + 4 = 68 years of continuous service under three named Babylonian kings.
Note de provenance et de vérification for RIBo, Babylon 7: The Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty, Nabonidus 2001 (the Harran stele of Adad-guppi), column ii line 40b
Note sur la fiabilité.Read in the Oracc HTML edition on 19 September 2026, with the Akkadian ('ina 21 MU.MES ... ina 43 MU.MES') alongside the translation.
Provenance de la numérisation.Royal Inscriptions of Babylonia online (RIBo), Babylon 7, edited by Frauke Weiershaeuser and Jamie Novotny for the Munich Open-access Cuneiform Corpus Initiative at LMU Munich; CC BY-SA 3.0.
“up-to-date editions of the officially commissioned texts of the six kings of the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty (625-539 BC)”
The project's ruler pages give the reigns as Nabopolassar (625-605 BC), Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BC) and Nabonidus (555-539 BC). Six kings across eighty-six years leaves no room for an additional twenty.
Note de provenance et de vérification for RIBo, Babylon 7: The Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty, About the Project; ruler pages for Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar II and Nabonidus
Note sur la fiabilité.The About page and the three ruler pages were fetched and read on 19 September 2026; the reign dates are in the page titles and headings.
Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : L’organisation met en avant des tablettes qui paraissent dater le successeur de Nabuchodonosor avant la fin de la dernière année de règne de celui-ci, et demande si le registre est continu.
1942 · pp.9-10 · Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein · Oriental Institute, University of Chicago
“Evidence for End of Reign VI/14/43 (Sept. 25, 562), Uruk ... VI/26/43 (Oct. 7, 562), Uruk ... The first tablet dated to Amel-Marduk (see below) comes from Sippar (?) and is dated on the same day as the last tablet of Nebuchadnezzar from Uruk. Accordingly Nebuchadnezzar died during the first days of October, 562.”
The standard reference chronology establishes the length of each Neo-Babylonian reign from dated business and administrative tablets, listing for every king the last tablet of his reign and the first tablet of his successor's. At this junction the two are dated to the same day.
Note de provenance et de vérification for Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. - A.D. 45 (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 24), II. Kings' Reigns: Nebuchadnezzar II and Amel-Marduk
Note sur la fiabilité.The full PDF was downloaded from the ISAC asset server on 19 September 2026, converted with pdftotext and read. The running head reads '10 BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY 626 B.C.--A.D. 45'.
Provenance de la numérisation.Free PDF of the volume published by the Institute for the Study of Ancient Cultures (formerly the Oriental Institute), University of Chicago; CC BY-NC-ND 4.0; DOI https://doi.org/10.83354/68x5-8f30
Notes.The same pages show Amel-Marduk’s last tablet on 7 August 560 and Neriglissar’s first on 13 August 560, a gap of six days. Page 10 also carries Labashi-Marduk: first dated tablet 22 May 556, last 20 June 556, with the conclusion that he “seems to have been recognized as king only in May and June, 556”. He is the one king the organisation says Ptolemy omitted who falls inside the Neo-Babylonian dynasty, and the standard chronology accounts for him in weeks, not years.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-e-pd-1942-p9-10-transitions
1942 · pp.vii · Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein · Oriental Institute, University of Chicago
“This study aims at providing a brief, but complete and thorough, presentation of the data bearing upon the chronological problems of the Neo-Babylonian, Achaemenid Persian, and Seleucid periods, together with tables for the easy translation of dates from the Babylonian calendar into the Julian.”
The authors describe the scope of the work that became, in its revised 1956 edition (Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 75), the standard reference for converting Babylonian dates.
Note de provenance et de vérification for Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. - A.D. 45 (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 24), Preface
Note sur la fiabilité.Read in the ISAC PDF on 19 September 2026. Only the 1942 edition (626 B.C.-A.D. 45) was opened in this session; the 1956 Brown University Press revision, which extends to A.D. 75, was not opened and its page numbers are not cited here.
Provenance de la numérisation.Free PDF of the volume published by the Institute for the Study of Ancient Cultures (formerly the Oriental Institute), University of Chicago; CC BY-NC-ND 4.0; DOI https://doi.org/10.83354/68x5-8f30
Notes.Wiseman's 1956 volume states that its Julian dates 'follow the tables of R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein in Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.-A.D. 45'.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-e-pd-1942-preface
“up-to-date editions of the officially commissioned texts of the six kings of the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty (625-539 BC)”
The project's ruler pages give the reigns as Nabopolassar (625-605 BC), Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BC) and Nabonidus (555-539 BC). Six kings across eighty-six years leaves no room for an additional twenty.
Note de provenance et de vérification for RIBo, Babylon 7: The Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty, About the Project; ruler pages for Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar II and Nabonidus
Note sur la fiabilité.The About page and the three ruler pages were fetched and read on 19 September 2026; the reign dates are in the page titles and headings.
1942 · pp.9-10 · Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein · Oriental Institute, University of Chicago
“Evidence for End of Reign VI/14/43 (Sept. 25, 562), Uruk ... VI/26/43 (Oct. 7, 562), Uruk ... The first tablet dated to Amel-Marduk (see below) comes from Sippar (?) and is dated on the same day as the last tablet of Nebuchadnezzar from Uruk. Accordingly Nebuchadnezzar died during the first days of October, 562.”
The standard reference chronology establishes the length of each Neo-Babylonian reign from dated business and administrative tablets, listing for every king the last tablet of his reign and the first tablet of his successor's. At this junction the two are dated to the same day.
Note de provenance et de vérification for Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. - A.D. 45 (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 24), II. Kings' Reigns: Nebuchadnezzar II and Amel-Marduk
Note sur la fiabilité.The full PDF was downloaded from the ISAC asset server on 19 September 2026, converted with pdftotext and read. The running head reads '10 BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY 626 B.C.--A.D. 45'.
Provenance de la numérisation.Free PDF of the volume published by the Institute for the Study of Ancient Cultures (formerly the Oriental Institute), University of Chicago; CC BY-NC-ND 4.0; DOI https://doi.org/10.83354/68x5-8f30
Notes.The same pages show Amel-Marduk’s last tablet on 7 August 560 and Neriglissar’s first on 13 August 560, a gap of six days. Page 10 also carries Labashi-Marduk: first dated tablet 22 May 556, last 20 June 556, with the conclusion that he “seems to have been recognized as king only in May and June, 556”. He is the one king the organisation says Ptolemy omitted who falls inside the Neo-Babylonian dynasty, and the standard chronology accounts for him in weeks, not years.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-e-pd-1942-p9-10-transitions
2020 · i 29 · Frauke Weiershaeuser and Jamie Novotny (edition) · Oracc / LMU Munich
“From the twentieth year of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, (during) which I was born, until the forty-second year of Ashurbanipal, the third year of Aššur-etel-ilāni, his son, the twenty-first year of Nabopolassar, the forty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar (II), the second year of Amēl-Marduk, (and) the fourth year of Neriglissar, after (these) ninety-five years”
Adad-guppi, the mother of King Nabonidus, dates her own long life by naming in order the regnal years it ran between. The count starts in the twentieth year of Ashurbanipal, in which she says she was born, and ends in the fourth year of Neriglissar, and the inscription calls that span ninety-five years: a further twenty-two years of Ashurbanipal, then three, twenty-one, forty-three, two and four. The inscription is a sixth-century BCE document from Harran, written within living memory of the reigns it counts.
Note de provenance et de vérification for RIBo, Babylon 7: The Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty, Nabonidus 2001 (the Harran stele of Adad-guppi), column i line 29
Note sur la fiabilité.The Oracc HTML edition was downloaded and read on 19 September 2026; the transliteration and the English translation of column i 29 were read together and the line label “(i 29)” read from the page. Oracc asks that the page be cited as http://oracc.org/ribo/Q005471/. The year-numbers named here are the points the count runs between, not a list of reign lengths: 22 + 3 + 21 + 43 + 2 + 4 = 95.
Provenance de la numérisation.Royal Inscriptions of Babylonia online (RIBo), Babylon 7, edited by Frauke Weiershaeuser and Jamie Novotny for the Munich Open-access Cuneiform Corpus Initiative at LMU Munich; CC BY-SA 3.0.
C’est sur ce point que tout se joue, et il est d’ordre interne. Il ne demande pas au lecteur de préférer l’histoire profane à la Bible. Il demande seulement si le même type de preuves est traité de la même façon dans les deux sens.
Explication de l’organisation · 15 août 1968Vérifié
L’organisation enseigne depuis 1968 au moins que 539 av. n. è. est une « date absolue », et que « la fixation de 539 avant notre ère comme l’année de cet événement est basée sur un document de pierre connu sous le nom de chronique de Nabonide (Nabonnaïd) ». Toute sa chronologie biblique, y compris 607 av. n. è. et 1914, est comptée à rebours à partir de cette date. Source: The Watchtower, 15 août 1968Source: 'All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial', 1990
Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : « La date pivot qui sert à remonter le temps jusqu’à la création d’Adam est celle du renversement de la dynastie babylonienne par Cyrus en 539 av. n. è. »
Afficher les preuves (2 sources)
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
15 août 1968 · pp.488-494 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“The fixing of 539 B.C.E. as the year when this historical event occurred is based on a stone document known as the Nabonidus (Nabunaid) Chronicle.”
Under the heading 'THE ABSOLUTE DATE OF 539 B.C.E.', the article explains that an absolute date 'must be one where sacred and secular historical events coincide', and derives 539 BCE from a Babylonian chronicle, quoting it from Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, p. 306.
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, The Book of Truthful Historical Dates
Note sur la fiabilité.The full article was fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026 and read with page markers intact; the quotation is on page 490.
1990 · p.285 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Starting From the Pivotal Date. The pivotal date for counting back to Adam's creation is that of Cyrus' overthrow of the Babylonian dynasty, 539 B.C.E.”
A standard reference work used in congregation study. The whole of Watch Tower biblical chronology, including 607 BCE and 1914, is counted back from a date established by Babylonian documents.
Note de provenance et de vérification for 'All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial', Study Number 3-Measuring Events in the Stream of Time
Note sur la fiabilité.Fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026 and read with page markers intact. The study occupies pp. 284-298 (Online Library header “si pp. 284-298”); this passage falls after the marker for page 285.
En 1968, l’organisation qualifiait le 5/6 octobre 539 av. n. è. de « date absolue » — l’une de ces dates « que les historiens ont jugées établies avec certitude » — à partir de laquelle « il est possible de calculer toutes les autres dates rapportées dans les Écritures hébraïques » ; l’ouvrage de référence plus récent Étude perspicace des Écritures parle plutôt, pour la même année, d’une « date pivot ». Source: The Watchtower, 1 mai 1968Source: The Watchtower, 15 août 1968Source: Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, 1988
Afficher les preuves (3 sources)
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1 mai 1968 · p.268 · pars. 19-20 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“For calculating Hebrew Scripture dates, the absolute date of October 5 to 6 in the year 539 B.C.E. is essential. … From this date all the other dates in the Hebrew Scriptures can be calculated.”
The article defines absolute dates as “dates that have been proved reliable by secular history, actual dates of events that are also recorded in the Bible”, and attributes the fixing of 539 B.C.E. to “a record … of King Nabonidus, the father and coregent of King Belshazzar”.
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, Understanding Time a Help to True Worshipers
Note sur la fiabilité.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.Publication reference confirmed from the document’s own citation code, w68 5/1. Shows the earlier, stronger wording — “proved reliable by secular history” — later softened to “pivotal point” in Insight.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-w-1968-0501-absolute-date
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
15 août 1968 · p.490 · pars. 11-12 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“One must first measure back in time across the gulf that separates the present from the ancient Biblical record of the past, to a stationary point in history, to a fixed date of the past, to an absolute date, if you please. … One such fixed or absolute date is in connection with the events recorded in the fifth chapter of Daniel, verses one to thirty-one. … The year was 539 B.C.E. on the Gregorian calendar, four years after the Buddhist Era began in India.”
An article in the series that also produced the 1975 expectation. It defines an absolute date as one “where sacred and secular historical events coincide and are linked in perfect agreement with current methods of measuring time distances”.
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, The Book of Truthful Historical Dates
Note sur la fiabilité.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”).
1988 · pp.458-459 · under “From Human Creation to the Present” · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Another date that can be used as a pivotal point is the year 539 B.C.E., supported by various historical sources as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian. (Secular sources for Cyrus’ reign include Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Ptolemy, as well as the Babylonian tablets.)”
The article explains that a pivotal date must be “a date in history that has sound basis for acceptance and that corresponds with a particular event recorded in the Bible”, and reasons that Cyrus’ decree was issued by the winter of 538 or spring of 537 B.C.E., allowing the exiles to reach Jerusalem “by the seventh month (Tishri, or about October 1) of 537 B.C.E.”
Note de provenance et de vérification for Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, Chronology
Note sur la fiabilité.Full article fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026; the quotation and the page were confirmed against the text and its embedded page markers. Insight on the Scriptures is undated on the Online Library; the 1988 publication year is the work’s own imprint date.
Notes.Insight calls 539 BCE a “pivotal point”, not an “absolute date”; the earlier “absolute date” wording belongs to the 1968 Watchtower articles recorded separately. It names Ptolemy among its supports.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-o-it1-chronology-pivotal-539
1942 · p.11 · Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein · Oriental Institute, University of Chicago
“The Nabunaid Chronicle ... iii 14-18 states that Sippar fell to Persian forces VII/14/17 (Oct. 11, 539), that Babylon fell VII/16/17 (Oct. 13), and that Cyrus entered Babylon VIII/3/17 (Oct. 29). This fixes the end of Nabunaid's reign and the beginning of the reign of Cyrus.”
The date 539 BCE for the fall of Babylon is derived here from the Nabonidus Chronicle together with the last dated tablets of Nabonidus' seventeenth year, exactly the same two classes of document that yield 587/586 for the destruction of Jerusalem.
Note de provenance et de vérification for Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. - A.D. 45 (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 24), II. Kings' Reigns: Nabunaid and Cyrus
Note sur la fiabilité.Read in the ISAC PDF on 19 September 2026; running head 'KINGS' REIGNS 11'. The page also lists Nabonidus tablets dated from 31 August to 14 October 539.
Provenance de la numérisation.Free PDF of the volume published by the Institute for the Study of Ancient Cultures (formerly the Oriental Institute), University of Chicago; CC BY-NC-ND 4.0; DOI https://doi.org/10.83354/68x5-8f30
“The Nabonidus Chronicle. S. Smith, BHT, 98-123, pls. XI-XIV; Grayson, TCS 5, Chronicle 7; George, BiOr 53, 379 (new copy of col. iii 24-28).”
The catalogue record for the tablet from which the date of the fall of Babylon is taken. It is held in the British Museum, comes from Babylon, is classified as a chronicle, and carries the CDLI number P388185.
Note de provenance et de vérification for electronic Babylonian Library (eBL), fragment BM.35382, Catalogue record for the Nabonidus Chronicle
Note sur la fiabilité.The eBL API record was downloaded and read on 19 September 2026. The eBL edition carries a transliteration but no English translation, so the wording of the fall-of-Babylon entry is cited here from Parker and Dubberstein and from the Watch Tower's own quotation of Ancient Near Eastern Texts.
Dans les deux articles mêmes où elle met en doute les historiens classiques, le canon de Ptolémée et les tablettes astronomiques, l’organisation établit 539 av. n. è. à partir de Diodore de Sicile, d’Hérodote, de tablettes cunéiformes datées et d’une tablette astronomique babylonienne, BM 33066, que les catalogues de référence décrivent comme un texte d’observations de données lunaires et planétaires, éditée par les mêmes spécialistes et dans la même série que le journal astronomique VAT 4956, et à propos de laquelle l’article dit lui-même : « Bien que certaines positions astronomiques y figurant soient erronées… » Source: The Watchtower, 1 octobre 2011Source: electronic Babylonian Library (eBL), fragment BM.33066, 2026Source: The Watchtower, 1 novembre 2011Source: The Watchtower, 15 août 1968
Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : L’organisation n’aborde pas directement cette tension. Sa position est que les historiens classiques et les tablettes astronomiques peuvent être utilisés là où ils s’accordent avec la chronologie biblique et mis en doute là où ils ne s’y accordent pas, parce que « la Bible affirme expressément que cet exil a duré 70 ans ».
Afficher les preuves (4 sources)
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1 octobre 2011 · p.28 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“The date 539 B.C.E. when Cyrus II conquered Babylon is calculated using the testimony of: Ancient historical sources and cuneiform tablets: Diodorus of Sicily ... Herodotus ... Cuneiform tablets show that Cyrus ruled Babylon for nine years before his death. ... Confirmation by a cuneiform tablet: A Babylonian astronomical clay tablet (BM 33066) confirms the date of Cyrus' death in 530 B.C.E.”
In the same article that questions classical historians, Ptolemy's canon and astronomical tablets, the organisation establishes its own pivotal date from two classical historians and a Babylonian astronomical tablet.
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?-Part One, box 'A Pivotal Date in History'
Note sur la fiabilité.Read in full in the Watchtower Online Library text on 19 September 2026; the box is marked '[Box/Pictures on page 28]'. The credit line reads 'Tablet: (c) The Trustees of the British Museum'.
“Astronomical; observation text; lunar and planetary data for Cambyses year 7 (523/2 BC). LBAT 1477; Cam 400 ... Hunger and Sachs, ADART V, no. 55”
BM 33066 is the tablet the Watch Tower's 2011 article cites to confirm 539 BCE. The catalogue record shows it to be an astronomical observation text edited by the same scholars, in the same series, as the astronomical diary VAT 4956.
Note de provenance et de vérification for electronic Babylonian Library (eBL), fragment BM.33066, Catalogue record for the Cambyses year 7 astronomical text
Note sur la fiabilité.The eBL API record was downloaded and read on 19 September 2026; the description, museum (British Museum), accession number 1878,1107.4 and CDLI number P364231 were read from it.
1 novembre 2011 · pp.22-28 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Clearly, much of the astronomical data in VAT 4956 fits the year 588 B.C.E. as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II. This, therefore, supports the date of 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem's destruction-just as the Bible indicates.”
The organisation's positive case from the cuneiform record. It argues that the Babylonian chronicles are incomplete, that business tablets show discrepancies at reign transitions, and that thirteen sets of lunar positions on VAT 4956 match 588/587 BCE.
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?-Part Two
Note sur la fiabilité.The whole article was fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026 and read with page markers intact; the quotation is on page 27.
Notes.Note 21, the authority for the claim that the lunar position in line 3 matches Nisanu 9 of 588 BCE, is present in the Online Library text and reads: “VAT 4956 reads on line three: ‘The moon stood 1 cubit [or 2 degrees] in front of ß Virginis.’ The previously mentioned analysis concluded that on Nisanu 9, the moon was 2°04ʹ in front of and 0° below the star ß Virginis. It was considered an exact match.” It names no external authority: “the previously mentioned analysis” is the organisation’s own, described in note 19 as having been made with the software TheSky6, the freeware Cartes du Ciel / Sky Charts and a US Naval Observatory date converter. No astronomer, publication or independent calculation is cited for it.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-e-w11-1101-part-two
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
15 août 1968 · pp.488-494 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“The fixing of 539 B.C.E. as the year when this historical event occurred is based on a stone document known as the Nabonidus (Nabunaid) Chronicle.”
Under the heading 'THE ABSOLUTE DATE OF 539 B.C.E.', the article explains that an absolute date 'must be one where sacred and secular historical events coincide', and derives 539 BCE from a Babylonian chronicle, quoting it from Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, p. 306.
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, The Book of Truthful Historical Dates
Note sur la fiabilité.The full article was fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026 and read with page markers intact; the quotation is on page 490.
Tout le calcul dépend d’une lecture des soixante-dix ans de Jérémie comme soixante-dix années d’exil juif et de désolation complète du pays. La lecture concurrente, dont l’organisation reconnaît l’existence, y voit soixante-dix années de domination babylonienne sur les nations.
Jérémie 25:11-12 décrit les soixante-dix ans comme la période pendant laquelle « ces nations » servent le roi de Babylone, période qui prend fin lorsque Dieu punit le roi de Babylone et sa nation. Lue ainsi, la période est celle de la domination babylonienne, allant en gros de l’ascendant pris par Babylone après Karkémish jusqu’à sa chute en 539 av. n. è., et non un décompte d’années d’exil judéen. Source: World English Bible, 2000Source: The JPS TANAKH: Gender-Sensitive Edition; Hebrew text 'Miqra according to the Masorah', 2023
Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : « La Bible établit cependant que les 70 ans devaient constituer une période de châtiment venant de Dieu ; elle concernait donc au premier chef les habitants de Juda et de Jérusalem » (La Tour de Garde, 1er octobre 2011, p. 27).
“This whole land will be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. “It will happen, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation,” says Yahweh, “for their iniquity. I will make the land of the Chaldeans desolate forever.””
The companion passage. Here the seventy years are explicitly the period during which “these nations” — not Judah alone — serve the king of Babylon, and they end with the punishment of the king of Babylon and his nation. Reading that punishment as the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE is the mainstream interpretation; it is an interpretation, and not something the verse itself states. The JPS rendering agrees on the wording: “those nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years”.
Note de provenance et de vérification for World English Bible, Jeremiah 25:11-12
Note sur la fiabilité.Retrieved and read on 19 September 2026 from bible-api.com (translation_name “World English Bible”). The whole of verse 12 is now quoted: an earlier version of this record stopped at “for their iniquity” and closed the quotation mark there, which moved the end of the reported speech. The Hebrew and the JPS English of the same verses were separately retrieved from Sefaria; JPS reads “And those nations shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years” and “When the seventy years are over, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation and the land of the Chaldeans for their sins”.
“For thus said GOD: When Babylon’s seventy years are over, I will take note of you, and I will fulfill to you My promise of favor—to bring you back to this place.”
The Hebrew reads ki lefi melot le-Bavel shiv'im shanah. The preposition le- attached to 'Babylon' can be read either as 'for Babylon' (a period belonging to Babylon) or as 'at Babylon' (a period served in Babylon); this translation takes the former.
Note de provenance et de vérification for The JPS TANAKH: Gender-Sensitive Edition; Hebrew text 'Miqra according to the Masorah', Jeremiah 29:10
Note sur la fiabilité.The Sefaria API was queried on 19 September 2026 and both the pointed Hebrew and the JPS English returned and read. The version is “THE JPS TANAKH: Gender-Sensitive Edition” over the Hebrew text “Miqra according to the Masorah”, licensed CC BY-NC. JPS sets the divine name in small capitals; it is given here in plain capitals. The opening clause “For thus said GOD” is restored here: an earlier version of this record began the quotation at “When Babylon’s”, which made this verse look shorter than the KJV and New World renderings quoted beside it.
Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : « Au lieu de parler de 70 ans “à Babylone”, de nombreuses traductions portent la tournure “pour Babylone”. […] Certains historiens affirment donc que cette période de 70 ans concerne l’Empire babylonien » (La Tour de Garde, 1er octobre 2011, p. 27).
“For thus said GOD: When Babylon’s seventy years are over, I will take note of you, and I will fulfill to you My promise of favor—to bring you back to this place.”
The Hebrew reads ki lefi melot le-Bavel shiv'im shanah. The preposition le- attached to 'Babylon' can be read either as 'for Babylon' (a period belonging to Babylon) or as 'at Babylon' (a period served in Babylon); this translation takes the former.
Note de provenance et de vérification for The JPS TANAKH: Gender-Sensitive Edition; Hebrew text 'Miqra according to the Masorah', Jeremiah 29:10
Note sur la fiabilité.The Sefaria API was queried on 19 September 2026 and both the pointed Hebrew and the JPS English returned and read. The version is “THE JPS TANAKH: Gender-Sensitive Edition” over the Hebrew text “Miqra according to the Masorah”, licensed CC BY-NC. JPS sets the divine name in small capitals; it is given here in plain capitals. The opening clause “For thus said GOD” is restored here: an earlier version of this record began the quotation at “When Babylon’s”, which made this verse look shorter than the KJV and New World renderings quoted beside it.
2013 · Jeremiah 29:10 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“For this is what Jehovah says, 'When 70 years at Babylon are fulfilled, I will turn my attention to you, and I will make good my promise by bringing you back to this place.'”
The organisation's own rendering of the verse on which its seventy-year exile depends. The chapter outline heading reads 'Israel to return after 70 years (10)'.
Note de provenance et de vérification for New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Study Edition), Jeremiah 29:10
Note sur la fiabilité.Fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026 and read in context. The 1984 edition read 'In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon'.
“For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.”
A long-established translation that renders the preposition 'at Babylon', as the New World Translation does. The rendering in Jeremiah 29:10 is not peculiar to the Witnesses and cannot by itself be treated as a distortion.
Une période de soixante-dix ans d’abandon décrété par la divinité était une formule connue dans les écrits religieux mésopotamiens. Une inscription du roi assyrien Assarhaddon rapporte que Mardouk avait écrit que l’abandon de Babylone devait durer soixante-dix ans, mais qu’il a ensuite « inversé les chiffres » et ordonné qu’elle soit réoccupée au bout de onze. Source: RINAP 4: The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680-669 BC), 2011
2011 · i 34 (Akkadian ii 2-9) · Erle Leichty (edition); Oracc/RINAP Project · Eisenbrauns / Oracc
“The merciful god Marduk [w]rote that the calculated time of its abandonment (should last) 70 years, (but) his heart was quickly soothed, and he reversed the numbers and (thus) ordered its (re)occupation to be (after) 11 years.”
An Assyrian royal inscription about the restoration of Babylon. It shows that a divinely decreed period of 'seventy years' of abandonment was a known convention in Mesopotamian religious writing, and that the actual interval could be far shorter.
Note de provenance et de vérification for RINAP 4: The Royal Inscriptions of Esarhaddon, King of Assyria (680-669 BC), Esarhaddon 104 (Babylon A), translation block i 34 – ii 9a (Akkadian ii 2-9)
Note sur la fiabilité.The Oracc HTML edition of Esarhaddon 104 was fetched and read on 19 September 2026. The sentence quoted falls at the end of the translation block Oracc labels “(i 34)”; the Akkadian behind it is lines ii 2-9 of the same inscription. The parallel passage was also read in Esarhaddon 105 (Q003334), where it reads “The merciful god Marduk wrote …” without the restoration bracket. This is offered as background on the “seventy years” formula, not as evidence about Jeremiah.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-e-oracc-esarhaddon-104
Une page qui se contenterait de marquer des points ne mériterait pas d’être lue. Plusieurs des critiques précises formulées par l’organisation sont fondées, et la position honnête est de le dire.
1 novembre 2011 · pp.26-27 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“(5) In 1988, Sachs and Hunger published the text as it actually reads, with a “9.” (6) Yet, they preserve the alteration in their English translation, calling the “9th” an “error for: 8th.””
The organisation's account of the editorial history of line 3 of VAT 4956. Its description of what Sachs and Hunger printed is accurate; the disagreement is over whether the emendation is justified.
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?-Part Two, box 'What Does VAT 4956 Really Say?'
Note sur la fiabilité.Read in the Watchtower Online Library text on 19 September 2026. The box carries the marker “[Box/Pictures on pages 26, 27]” and is headed “WHAT DOES VAT 4956 REALLY SAY?” Items (5) and (6) are the last two of a numbered list of six and are quoted here with their numbers. The published edition reproduced by the electronic Babylonian Library does print the 9 with the note “(error for: 8th)”, so this description checks out.
1988 · pp.46-53 (ADART I, No. -567) · Abraham J. Sachs and Hermann Hunger (edition); Reinhard Pirngruber (digital edition) · Oesterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna (print edition)
“Night of the 9th (error for: 8th), beginning of the night, the moon stood 1 cubit in front of the hind leg of the Lion (= β Virginis).”
This is the line on which the Watch Tower's 2011 argument turns. The published edition prints the tablet's '9th' and marks it as a scribal error for the 8th; the editors do not silently alter the text.
Note de provenance et de vérification for electronic Babylonian Library (eBL), fragment VAT.4956, Astronomical diary for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II, obverse line 3
Note sur la fiabilité.Read in the eBL API record downloaded on 19 September 2026. The transliteration shows the number as written and the English translation carries the editorial note “(error for: 8th)”, exactly as the Watchtower of 1 November 2011 describes. The star name is printed by the editors as “β Virginis” and is reproduced here unchanged.
Provenance de la numérisation.electronic Babylonian Library (eBL), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet Muenchen. The edition reproduced there is that of Sachs and Hunger, digitised by Reinhard Pirngruber for the Astronomical Diaries Digital project (Austrian Academy of Sciences), CC BY-SA 3.0.
Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : '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?'
Afficher les preuves (4 sources)
Publication primaire des Témoins de JéhovahVérifié
1 octobre 2011 · pp.30-31 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Notice that Ptolemy lists only four kings between the Babylonian rulers Kandalanu and Nabonidus. However, the Uruk King List-a part of the cuneiform record-reveals that seven kings ruled in between. ... 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 organisation's argument that Ptolemy's canon omits kings. Its examples, Sin-sharra-ishkun and Ashur-etel-ilani, belong to the Assyrian succession before Nabopolassar took the throne of Babylon in 626 BCE.
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?-Part One, 'The Canon of Ptolemy'
Note sur la fiabilité.Read in the Watchtower Online Library text on 19 September 2026; page markers place the passage across pages 30 and 31. Notes 8 and 9 of the article name Sin-sharra-ishkun and Ashur-etel-ilani.
1956 · p.6 · D. J. Wiseman · The Trustees of the British Museum, London
“Kandalanu appears to have rebelled against his overlord during the period of uncertainty over the succession which followed the death of Assur-etil-ilani, the successor of Ashurbanipal.”
Wiseman places Ashur-etel-ilani, and elsewhere Sin-shar-ishkun 'the king of Assyria', in the Assyrian succession before Nabopolassar took the throne of Babylon in 626 BCE.
Note de provenance et de vérification for Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum, Introduction: the fall of Assyria
Note sur la fiabilité.Read in the ETANA PDF on 19 September 2026; running head '6 CHRONICLES OF CHALDAEAN KINGS'. Elsewhere in the same volume Wiseman writes of 'Sin-sar-iskun, the king of Assyria' opposing the Babylonians 'before Nabopolassar's accession'.
Provenance de la numérisation.Full scan of the British Museum volume hosted by ETANA (Electronic Tools and Ancient Near Eastern Archives), an academic digital-library consortium. Copyright the Trustees of the British Museum, 1956.
2020 · i 29 · Frauke Weiershaeuser and Jamie Novotny (edition) · Oracc / LMU Munich
“From the twentieth year of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, (during) which I was born, until the forty-second year of Ashurbanipal, the third year of Aššur-etel-ilāni, his son, the twenty-first year of Nabopolassar, the forty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar (II), the second year of Amēl-Marduk, (and) the fourth year of Neriglissar, after (these) ninety-five years”
Adad-guppi, the mother of King Nabonidus, dates her own long life by naming in order the regnal years it ran between. The count starts in the twentieth year of Ashurbanipal, in which she says she was born, and ends in the fourth year of Neriglissar, and the inscription calls that span ninety-five years: a further twenty-two years of Ashurbanipal, then three, twenty-one, forty-three, two and four. The inscription is a sixth-century BCE document from Harran, written within living memory of the reigns it counts.
Note de provenance et de vérification for RIBo, Babylon 7: The Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty, Nabonidus 2001 (the Harran stele of Adad-guppi), column i line 29
Note sur la fiabilité.The Oracc HTML edition was downloaded and read on 19 September 2026; the transliteration and the English translation of column i 29 were read together and the line label “(i 29)” read from the page. Oracc asks that the page be cited as http://oracc.org/ribo/Q005471/. The year-numbers named here are the points the count runs between, not a list of reign lengths: 22 + 3 + 21 + 43 + 2 + 4 = 95.
Provenance de la numérisation.Royal Inscriptions of Babylonia online (RIBo), Babylon 7, edited by Frauke Weiershaeuser and Jamie Novotny for the Munich Open-access Cuneiform Corpus Initiative at LMU Munich; CC BY-SA 3.0.
1942 · pp.9-10 · Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein · Oriental Institute, University of Chicago
“Evidence for End of Reign VI/14/43 (Sept. 25, 562), Uruk ... VI/26/43 (Oct. 7, 562), Uruk ... The first tablet dated to Amel-Marduk (see below) comes from Sippar (?) and is dated on the same day as the last tablet of Nebuchadnezzar from Uruk. Accordingly Nebuchadnezzar died during the first days of October, 562.”
The standard reference chronology establishes the length of each Neo-Babylonian reign from dated business and administrative tablets, listing for every king the last tablet of his reign and the first tablet of his successor's. At this junction the two are dated to the same day.
Note de provenance et de vérification for Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. - A.D. 45 (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 24), II. Kings' Reigns: Nebuchadnezzar II and Amel-Marduk
Note sur la fiabilité.The full PDF was downloaded from the ISAC asset server on 19 September 2026, converted with pdftotext and read. The running head reads '10 BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY 626 B.C.--A.D. 45'.
Provenance de la numérisation.Free PDF of the volume published by the Institute for the Study of Ancient Cultures (formerly the Oriental Institute), University of Chicago; CC BY-NC-ND 4.0; DOI https://doi.org/10.83354/68x5-8f30
Notes.The same pages show Amel-Marduk’s last tablet on 7 August 560 and Neriglissar’s first on 13 August 560, a gap of six days. Page 10 also carries Labashi-Marduk: first dated tablet 22 May 556, last 20 June 556, with the conclusion that he “seems to have been recognized as king only in May and June, 556”. He is the one king the organisation says Ptolemy omitted who falls inside the Neo-Babylonian dynasty, and the standard chronology accounts for him in weeks, not years.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-e-pd-1942-p9-10-transitions
Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : L’organisation le reconnaît : « Les ouvrages profanes signalent en général l’une ou l’autre date. Pour alléger le texte, nous mentionnerons dans cet article uniquement 587. »
mars 2004 · pp.21-38 · Rodger C. Young · Evangelical Theological Society
“Although the Scriptures state that the end came in the fourth month of the eleventh year of Zedekiah, scholars are divided on whether this refers to 586 bc or 587 bc. Jeremy Hughes listed eleven scholars who preferred the first date and eleven who preferred the second.”
A survey of the scholarly disagreement about the year Jerusalem fell. The article's conclusion is that 'Jerusalem fell in the fourth month (Tammuz) of 587 bc'. The whole disagreement in the literature is between two adjacent years.
Note de provenance et de vérification for Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47/1, When Did Jerusalem Fall?
Note sur la fiabilité.The PDF was downloaded from the author's own site on 19 September 2026 and read. It carries the running header 'JETS 47/1 (March 2004) 21-38' and 'journal of the evangelical theological society'. The publisher's own copy on etsjets.org redirected and was not opened.
Notes.Young notes that the fixed points are the battle of Carchemish in 605 BCE and the capture of Jehoiachin in spring 597 BCE, both from Babylonian records.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-e-young-2004-jets
1956 · p.30 · D. J. Wiseman · The Trustees of the British Museum, London
“a fragmentary text, B.M. 33041, which is a religious rather than a 'Chronicle' version of historical events in the thirty-seventh year of Nebuchadrezzar (568/7 B.C.)”
Discussing the Babylonian invasion of Egypt, Wiseman dates Nebuchadnezzar II's thirty-seventh year to 568/567 BCE on the basis of a tablet entirely independent of the astronomical diary VAT 4956.
Note de provenance et de vérification for Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum, Introduction: Egypt and Babylon
Note sur la fiabilité.Read in the ETANA PDF on 19 September 2026; running head '30 CHRONICLES OF CHALDAEAN KINGS' immediately above. On the same page Wiseman dates the final siege of Jerusalem to '588-586 B.C.'
Provenance de la numérisation.Full scan of the British Museum volume hosted by ETANA (Electronic Tools and Ancient Near Eastern Archives), an academic digital-library consortium. Copyright the Trustees of the British Museum, 1956.
1 octobre 2011 · pp.26-31 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“So why do Jehovah's Witnesses hold to a date that differs from widely accepted chronology by 20 years? In short, because of evidence within the Bible itself.”
The organisation’s fullest modern statement of its case for 607 BCE. It opens by printing a reader’s question — “586 or 587 B.C.E. is generally accepted as the year of Jerusalem’s destruction. Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses say that it was 607 B.C.E.?” — and answers it. In its own words, in the summary box on page 31: “Secular historians usually say that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C.E.” The article rests its own date on a literal seventy-year exile ending in 537 BCE.
Note de provenance et de vérification for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?-Part One
Note sur la fiabilité.The whole article was fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026 and read with the page markers (span class="pageNum") intact; the quotation falls between the markers for pages 26 and 27, that is, on page 26.
La défense la plus soutenue de 607 av. n. è. par un sémitisant de formation est celle de Rolf Furuli, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, volume II (Oslo, Awatu Publishers, 2e éd., 2008), parue chez un petit éditeur non universitaire. Hermann Hunger, coéditeur de l’édition de référence des journaux astronomiques, en a rédigé un compte rendu détaillé dans lequel il rejette les lectures que Furuli propose de plusieurs signes cunéiformes et qualifie de « totalement dénuée de fondement » l’idée que la tablette VAT 4956 aurait été altérée. Source: Online review (no journal of publication stated), 2008Source: Under One Sky: Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East (AOAT 297), 2002
Position de l’organisation ou explication ultérieure : Hunger rapporte la démarche que Furuli revendique, dans les termes de Furuli lui-même — « la Bible, les tablettes cunéiformes et différentes sortes de données historiques sont placées sur le même plan » — et lui accorde que la vérité ne se décide pas par « le consensus de la majorité des spécialistes ». Puis il rejette cette démarche : « Cela néglige les différences entre ces données… Une évaluation critique des sources est incontournable pour écrire l’histoire. »
“As for someone adding the numbers 37 and 38, there is no way of successfully adding cuneiform writing to a dried tablet. ... I state that the accusation is utterly groundless”
Hermann Hunger, co-editor of the standard edition of the astronomical diaries, responds in detail to the argument of Rolf Furuli, a Witness and former lecturer in Semitic languages at Oslo, that VAT 4956 supports 588/587 rather than 568/567 BCE and that the tablet may have been altered. Hunger also grants Furuli's general point that truth is not decided by 'the consensus of the majority of scholars'.
Note de provenance et de vérification for Online review (no journal of publication stated), Review of Rolf J. Furuli, Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II (Oslo: Awatu Publishers, 2nd ed., 2008)
Note sur la fiabilité.The full review was fetched and read on 19 September 2026 and the quoted words read in context. It states the reviewer's name and city but names no journal, volume or pages, and it is hosted on a partisan website; no peer-reviewed publication of this text was located. Treat it as an authoritative specialist's signed opinion, not as a peer-reviewed citation.
Provenance de la numérisation.Hosted on kristenfrihet.se, a personal website maintained by Carl Olof Jonsson, a former Jehovah's Witness and author of The Gentile Times Reconsidered.
Notes.The review also reports that F. R. Stephenson and D. M. Willis, evaluating the lunar data in Under One Sky (Muenster, 2002), concluded that the date 568/7 BC can be 'confidently affirmed'.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-e-hunger-review-furuli
2002 · pp.421-428 · F. Richard Stephenson and David M. Willis · Ugarit-Verlag, Muenster
“This and other observations in the month imply that the auroral display occurred on the night of March 12/13 in 567 BC”
A peer-reviewed chapter analysing the observations in VAT 4956. Its dating of the phenomena to 568/567 BCE is independent of the lunar-position argument.
Note de provenance et de vérification for Under One Sky: Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East (AOAT 297), The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis
Note sur la fiabilité.The chapter itself was NOT opened in this session. The quoted sentence is the note recorded against this discussion in the eBL bibliography for VAT.4956, read on 19 September 2026 in the eBL API record (archiveUrl above); that record gives the chapter’s pages as 421-428. Hermann Hunger’s review of Furuli separately reports that Stephenson and Willis concluded the date 568/7 BC can be “confidently affirmed” and gives the pages as 423-428; The Watchtower of 1 November 2011, note 18a, gives them as 420-428. The three page ranges disagree and the discrepancy is unresolved.
Notes.The chapter is cited here for the fact of the study and its conclusion; no wording or page range from it is quoted, because a copy could not be opened.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source.src-chr-e-stephenson-willis-2002
It has, and the organisation is entitled to say so. But the same secular evidence establishes 539 BCE, which the organisation calls a pivotal and absolute date and uses as the anchor for its own calculation. The question is not whether to trust the cuneiform record; it is whether to trust it selectively.Source: The Watchtower, 1 octobre 2011Source: The Watchtower, 15 août 1968
“The Bible must outweigh secular sources.”
That is a position about authority, and this page does not dispute it. But 607 BCE is not a biblical date. No verse gives it. It is produced by subtracting seventy years from 537 BCE, and 537 itself is reached from 539, which comes from the secular record.Source: The Watchtower, 1 octobre 2011
“The astronomical tablets have been altered or restored.”
The organisation’s point about the editorial history of one line of VAT 4956 is accurate, and it is recorded above. It does not carry the conclusion: the year number on that tablet appears three times, and a second set of observations on the same tablet fixes the same year.Source: electronic Babylonian Library (eBL), fragment VAT.4956, 1988
Que l’organisation enseigne 607 av. n. è., que 1914 en est calculé et que le calcul est bien celui qui vient d’être décrit : vérifié d’après ses propres publications.
Que l’organisation reconnaît qu’aucun historien ni archéologue ne soutient 607 : vérifié d’après la série de 2011.
Que les sources cunéiformes, astronomiques et épigraphiques situent la destruction en 587 ou 586 av. n. è. : vérifié d’après des éditions savantes publiées et des notices de musée, citées une à une plus haut.
Que 539 av. n. è. repose sur les mêmes catégories de preuves : vérifié, et énoncé dans l’exposé que l’organisation donne elle-même de la manière dont elle établit cette date.
Ce que cette page n’affirme pas : que l’organisation serait insincère, que la Bible ne serait pas fiable, ou que la chronologie d’un autre corps religieux serait la bonne. Ce sont là d’autres questions, et elles ne sont pas les nôtres.
Sources citées sur cette page
Show all 104 sources, in date order
Each opens a full record with links, provenance and a confidence note.
“For thus saith the LORD, That after seventy years be accomplished at Babylon I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in causing you to return to this place.”
1891 · p.313 · C. T. Russell · Tower Publishing Co.
“We thus introduce this “Witness” because the inspiration of its testimony will doubtless be as much disputed as that of the Scriptures, by the prince of darkness, the god of this world, and those whom he blinds to the truth.”
1891 · pp.371-372 · C. T. Russell · Tower Publishing Co.
“Some may scoff at the testimony of this stone “Witness,” as they also scoff at God's written Word, but to their scoffs we answer: Account for this peculiar fitness of things, or else venture to prophesy of the future … Prove to us that it requires no inspiration to foretell future events.”
1891 · p.307 · C. T. Russell · Tower Publishing Co.
““In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt.” — Isa. 19: 19, 20.”
1891 · p.318 · C. T. Russell · Tower Publishing Co.
“shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar [pyramid] at the border thereof, to the Lord. And it shall be for a sign and for a witness unto the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt.”
1891 · p.336 · C. T. Russell · Tower Publishing Co.
“Then measuring down the “Entrance Passage” from that point, to find the distance to the entrance of the “Pit,” representing the great trouble and destruction with which this age is to close, when evil will be overthrown from power, we find it to be 3416 inches, symbolizing 3416 years from the above date, B. C. 1542. This calculation shows A. D. 1874 as marking the beginning of the period of trouble; for 1542 B. C. plus 1874 A. D. equals 3416 years. Thus the Pyramid witnesses that the close of 1874 was the chronological beginning of the time of trouble”
1891 · pp.358-359 · C. T. Russell · Tower Publishing Co.
“Prof. Smyth found the first of these measures (a) to be 1874 Pyr. inches; the second (b) to be 1881 Pyr. inches, and the third (c) to be 1910 Pyr. inches … and give the dates (a) October, 1874, (b) October, 1881 and (c) October, 1910, A. D. This threefold ending is in full accord with what we have found taught in the Scriptures”
1891 · pp.359-360 · C. T. Russell · Tower Publishing Co.
“we may well accept as correct the testimony of the Great Pyramid that the last members of the “body” or “bride” of Christ will have been tested and accepted and will have passed beyond the vail before the close of A. D. 1910. Is not this a most remarkable agreement between this stone “Witness” and the Bible? The dates, October, 1874, and October, 1881, are exact, while the date 1910, though not furnished in the Scriptures, seems more than a reasonable one.”
1891 · p.360 · C. T. Russell · Tower Publishing Co.
“this date limit — A. D. 1914 — must not only witness the completion of the selection and trial and glorification of the entire body of Christ, but it must also witness the purifying of that larger company of consecrated believers … The four years from 1910 to the end of 1914 indicated thus in the Great Pyramid, will be quite sufficient for the extreme of all that trouble”
1891 · p.314 · C. T. Russell · Tower Publishing Co.
“To his scholarly and scientific work, “Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid,” we are mainly indebted for the data made use of in this chapter. Our illustrations are copies of a few of the seventeen plates with which that work is embellished. A few years after Prof. Smyth’s return came the suggestion that the Pyramid is Jehovah’s “Witness,” and that it is as important a witness to divine truth as to natural science. … The suggestion came from a young Scotchman, Robert Menzies, who, when studying the scientific teachings of the Great Pyramid, discovered that prophetic and chronological teachings co-exist in it.”
1898 · p.342 · C. T. Russell · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society
“we find it to be 3416 inches, symbolizing 3416 years from the above date, b. c. 1542. This calculation shows a. d. 1874 as marking the beginning of the period of trouble; for 1542 years b. c. plus 1874 years A. d. equals 3416 years. Thus the Pyramid witnesses that the close of 1874 was the chronological beginning of the time of trouble”
1910 · pp.362-363 · C. T. Russell · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society
“Prof. Smyth found the first of these measures (a) to be 1874 Pyramid inches, the second (b), 1881 Pyramid inches, and the third (c), 1910 Pyramid inches … and give the dates (a) October, 1874, (b) October, 1881 and (c) October, 1910, a. d.”
1910 · p.342 · C. T. Russell · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society
“we find it to be 3457 inches, symbolizing 3457 years from the above date, b. c. 1542. This calculation shows A. D. 1915 as marking the beginning of the period of trouble; for 1542 years b. c. plus 1915 years A. D. equals 3457 years. Thus the Pyramid witnesses that the close of 1914 will be the beginning of the time of trouble”
1910 · p.364 · C. T. Russell · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society
“we may understand the reference to be to the anarchous trouble which will follow October, 1914; but a trouble chiefly upon the Church may be expected about 1910 A. D. … the date 1910, though not furnished in the Scriptures, seems more than a reasonable one for some important event in the Church's experience and final testing … The four years from 1910 to the end of 1914, indicated thus in the Great Pyramid, will doubtless be a time of “fiery trial” upon the Church”
1914 · p.342 · C. T. Russell · International Bible Students Association
“we find it to be 3457 inches … This calculation shows A. d. 1915 as marking the beginning of the period of trouble … Thus the Pyramid witnesses that the close of 1914 will be the beginning of the time of trouble”
1915 · p.342 · C. T. Russell · International Bible Students Association
“we find it to be 3457 inches, symbolizing 3457 years from the above date, b. c. 1542. This calculation shows A. D. 1915 as marking the beginning of the period of trouble; for 1542 years b. c. plus 1915 years A. D. equals 3457 years. Thus the Pyramid witnesses that the close of 1914 will be the beginning of the time of trouble”
1 octobre 1916 · pp.ii-iii · C. T. Russell · International Bible Students Association
“The Great Pyramid of Egypt discussed in this Volume has not lost any of its interest to the author. … We have never attempted to place the Great Pyramid, sometimes called the Bible in Stone, on a parallel or equality with the Word of God … We do, however, still believe that the structure of this Pyramid, so different from that of all other pyramids, was designed of the Lord and intended to be a Pyramid and a witness in the midst and on the border of the land of Egypt. (Isaiah 19:19.) … It should be read with just as fresh interest as in the first edition, because its lessons have not altered or changed.”
“Series III, “Thy Kingdom Come,” considers prophecies which mark events connected with “the time of the end”, the glorification of the church and the establishment of the Millennial kingdom; it also contains a chapter on the Great Pyramid of Egypt, showing its corroboration of certain Bible teachings”
15 décembre 1921 · p.371 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society
“Monday the thirty-first being the anniversary of Brother Russell's change to glory, the friends assembled in the afternoon at the cemetery, where memorial services were held … A little souvenir of the plot of ground and the pyramid stone marker had been provided, which was distributed amongst those in attendance.”
15 août 1922 · pp.253-254 · Morton Edgar · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society
“Needless to say, the testimony of the Great Pyramid, the Lord’s “stone witness” in which Brother Russell still declared his implicit faith in his last notice of this monument, in his new preface to Volume III just about a month before his death—is quite against the new (?) chronological views of the Herald. But of course the Herald writers have no use for the Pyramid’s testimony now. They have thrown that aside … The Great Pyramid substantiates the views held by Brother Russell beyond all doubt. … The Herald writers are quite wrong in very many of their interpretations. They are certainly not safe guides to the Lord’s people.”
15 août 1922 · p.244 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society
“There would be no reason why Jehovah should have a monument erected in the earth at the end of the gospel age. There is a good reason why he would have a monument erected in Egypt, the Great Pyramid, long before the beginning of the Christian era, and when the time would come that the secrets of this monument should be revealed to students of the divine prophecy, it would be found to corroborate the prophetic utterances and the divine plan”
1 décembre 1928 · p.356 · par. 6 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society
“Since all these scriptures referring to the stone are used symbolically to represent Christ, we may know that no natural stone or pile of stone is referred to and that it would be entirely inappropriate to apply these scriptures to the great pyramid. There is therefore no justification for applying any of these texts to the pyramid of Gizeh.”
1 décembre 1928 · p.358 · par. 26-27 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society
“It is impossible to fit the literal pyramid of Gizeh to the prophet's description; but the position and condition of the remnant of God exactly fit the prophetic description … The pyramid of Gizeh is neither a sign nor a witness unto the Lord of hosts.”
1 décembre 1928 · p.356 · par. 7 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society
“There are two potent reasons why these conclusions can not be correct and information of value to the Christian: (1) At that time the Lord had not come to his temple and the prophecy had not been fulfilled nor even in course of fulfilment. (2) It is not claimed that any of these men were of the Lord's anointed or devoted to the Lord. They were giving expression to their own wisdom.”
1 décembre 1928 · p.359 · par. 34 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society
“To be sure, if Satan can induce the consecrated to turn their attention to a pile of stone in Egypt and study its measurements in order to determine just when the church will be glorified he would accomplish his purposes. … One of the most subtle schemes Satan has yet adopted to accomplish that purpose has been and is the use of the pyramid of Gizeh.”
1 décembre 1928 · p.360 · par. 37-38 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society
“Such will avoid the pyramid of Gizeh and its measurements and adhere strictly to the Word of God. … They learned absolutely nothing from the pyramid that enables them to know and understand and obey the commandments of the Lord.”
1 décembre 1928 · p.361 · par. 47 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society
“We now wonder why we ever believed in or devoted any time to the study of the pyramid of Gizeh. Not only will we abandon such a study now, but we will ask God to forgive us for wasting the time that we have put in on it and redeem the time by hurrying on to obey his commandments.”
1942 · pp.9-10 · Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein · Oriental Institute, University of Chicago
“Evidence for End of Reign VI/14/43 (Sept. 25, 562), Uruk ... VI/26/43 (Oct. 7, 562), Uruk ... The first tablet dated to Amel-Marduk (see below) comes from Sippar (?) and is dated on the same day as the last tablet of Nebuchadnezzar from Uruk. Accordingly Nebuchadnezzar died during the first days of October, 562.”
1942 · pp.vii · Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein · Oriental Institute, University of Chicago
“This study aims at providing a brief, but complete and thorough, presentation of the data bearing upon the chronological problems of the Neo-Babylonian, Achaemenid Persian, and Seleucid periods, together with tables for the easy translation of dates from the Babylonian calendar into the Julian.”
1942 · p.11 · Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein · Oriental Institute, University of Chicago
“The Nabunaid Chronicle ... iii 14-18 states that Sippar fell to Persian forces VII/14/17 (Oct. 11, 539), that Babylon fell VII/16/17 (Oct. 13), and that Cyrus entered Babylon VIII/3/17 (Oct. 29). This fixes the end of Nabunaid's reign and the beginning of the reign of Cyrus.”
1956 · p.73 · D. J. Wiseman · The Trustees of the British Museum, London
“In the seventh year, the month of Kislev, the king of Akkad mustered his troops, marched to the Hatti-land, and encamped against (i.e. besieged) the city of Judah and on the second day of the month of Adar he seized the city and captured the king. He appointed there a king of his own choice (lit. heart), received its heavy tribute and sent (them) to Babylon.”
1956 · p.69 · D. J. Wiseman · The Trustees of the British Museum, London
“For twenty-one years Nabopolassar had been king of Babylon. On the 8th of the month of Ab he died (lit. 'the fates'); in the month of Elul Nebuchadrezzar returned to Babylon and on the first day of the month of Elul he sat on the royal throne in Babylon.”
1956 · p.30 · D. J. Wiseman · The Trustees of the British Museum, London
“a fragmentary text, B.M. 33041, which is a religious rather than a 'Chronicle' version of historical events in the thirty-seventh year of Nebuchadrezzar (568/7 B.C.)”
1956 · p.6 · D. J. Wiseman · The Trustees of the British Museum, London
“Kandalanu appears to have rebelled against his overlord during the period of uncertainty over the succession which followed the death of Assur-etil-ilani, the successor of Ashurbanipal.”
1 mai 1968 · p.268 · pars. 19-20 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“For calculating Hebrew Scripture dates, the absolute date of October 5 to 6 in the year 539 B.C.E. is essential. … From this date all the other dates in the Hebrew Scriptures can be calculated.”
15 août 1968 · p.490 · pars. 11-12 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“One must first measure back in time across the gulf that separates the present from the ancient Biblical record of the past, to a stationary point in history, to a fixed date of the past, to an absolute date, if you please. … One such fixed or absolute date is in connection with the events recorded in the fifth chapter of Daniel, verses one to thirty-one. … The year was 539 B.C.E. on the Gregorian calendar, four years after the Buddhist Era began in India.”
1988 · pp.46-53 (ADART I, No. -567) · Abraham J. Sachs and Hermann Hunger (edition); Reinhard Pirngruber (digital edition) · Oesterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna (print edition)
“Year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. Month I, (the 1st of which was identical with) the 30th (of the preceding month), the moon became visible behind the Bull of Heaven”
1988 · pp.46-53 (ADART I, No. -567) · Abraham J. Sachs and Hermann Hunger (edition); Reinhard Pirngruber (digital edition) · Oesterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna (print edition)
“The 15th, one god was seen with the other; sunrise to moonset: 7° 30'. A lunar eclipse which passed by […]”
1988 · pp.46-53 (ADART I, No. -567) · Abraham J. Sachs and Hermann Hunger (edition); Reinhard Pirngruber (digital edition) · Oesterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna (print edition)
“Year 38 of Nebuchadnezzar, month I, the 1st (of which followed the 30th of the preceding month): dense clouds so that [I did not see the moon ...] ... [Year 37 of Nebuchad]nezzar”
1988 · pp.46-53 (ADART I, No. -567) · Abraham J. Sachs and Hermann Hunger (edition); Reinhard Pirngruber (digital edition) · Oesterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Vienna (print edition)
“Night of the 9th (error for: 8th), beginning of the night, the moon stood 1 cubit in front of the hind leg of the Lion (= β Virginis).”
1988 · pp.458-459 · under “From Human Creation to the Present” · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Another date that can be used as a pivotal point is the year 539 B.C.E., supported by various historical sources as the year for the overthrow of Babylon by Cyrus the Persian. (Secular sources for Cyrus’ reign include Diodorus, Africanus, Eusebius, and Ptolemy, as well as the Babylonian tablets.)”
1988 · pp.457-458 · under “Historians of the Classical Period” and “The Biblical Count of Time” · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“However, the information presented earlier shows there is no reason for placing their histories and chronologies on a par with the Bible itself. Where differences appear, one can confidently rely on the Biblical record…”
1988 · p.452 · under “Assyrian Chronology” · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“The information above points to the conclusion that Assyrian historiography either is not correctly understood by modern historians or is of very low caliber. In either case, we do not feel compelled to attempt to coordinate the Biblical chronology with history as presented in the Assyrian records.”
1988 · pp.453-454 · under “Babylonian Chronology” · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“In view of all these factors it is certainly not wise to insist that the traditional figures for the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings be received as definite.”
1988 · pp.134-135 · under “Seven Symbolic Times” · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Only by applying the formula there expressed of “a day for a year” to the “seven times” of this prophecy can the vision of Daniel chapter 4 have significant fulfillment beyond the day of now extinct Nebuchadnezzar, as the evidence thus far presented gives reason to expect. They therefore represent 2,520 years.”
1988 · p.133 · under “Beginning of ‘trampling’” · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“It began centuries earlier with the Babylonian overthrow of that dynasty in 607 B.C.E. when Nebuchadnezzar destroyed Jerusalem and took captive the dethroned king Zedekiah and the land was left desolate.”
1988 · p.135 · second-to-last paragraph · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“It is a historical fact worth noting that, on the basis of the points and evidence above presented, the March 1880 edition of the Watch Tower magazine identified the year 1914 as the time for the close of “the appointed times of the nations” (and the end of the lease of power granted the Gentile rulers).”
1990 · p.285 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Starting From the Pivotal Date. The pivotal date for counting back to Adam's creation is that of Cyrus' overthrow of the Babylonian dynasty, 539 B.C.E.”
1999 · pp.96-97 · par. 28 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Since the “seven times” are prophetic, we must apply to the 2,520 days the Scriptural rule: “A day for a year.” … They began with the desolation of Judah and Jerusalem in the seventh lunar month (Tishri 15) of 607 B.C.E. … From that point to 1 B.C.E. is 606 years. The remaining 1,914 years stretch from then to 1914 C.E. Thus, the “seven times,” or 2,520 years, ended by Tishri 15, or October 4/5, 1914 C.E.”
“This whole land will be a desolation, and an astonishment; and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. “It will happen, when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation,” says Yahweh, “for their iniquity. I will make the land of the Chaldeans desolate forever.””
1 janvier 2000 · pp.9-10 · par. 16-17 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society
“the length of certain passages in the Great Pyramid was said to indicate the time for the beginning of the “great tribulation” of Matthew 24:21, as it was then understood. Some Bible Students became engrossed with measuring different features of the pyramid to determine such matters as the day they would be going to heaven! This so-called Bible in Stone was held in esteem for some decades, until the Watchtower issues of November 15 and December 1, 1928, made clear that Jehovah needed no stone monument built by pagan pharaohs and containing demonic signs of astrology to confirm the witness given in the Bible.”
mars 2004 · pp.21-38 · Rodger C. Young · Evangelical Theological Society
“Although the Scriptures state that the end came in the fourth month of the eleventh year of Zedekiah, scholars are divided on whether this refers to 586 bc or 587 bc. Jeremy Hughes listed eleven scholars who preferred the first date and eleven who preferred the second.”
2005 · pp.215-218 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“The 2,520 years began in October 607 B.C.E., when Jerusalem fell to the Babylonians and the Davidic king was taken off his throne. The period ended in October 1914. At that time, “the appointed times of the nations” ended, and Jesus Christ was installed as God’s heavenly King.”
“As for someone adding the numbers 37 and 38, there is no way of successfully adding cuneiform writing to a dried tablet. ... I state that the accusation is utterly groundless”
2011 · i 34 (Akkadian ii 2-9) · Erle Leichty (edition); Oracc/RINAP Project · Eisenbrauns / Oracc
“The merciful god Marduk [w]rote that the calculated time of its abandonment (should last) 70 years, (but) his heart was quickly soothed, and he reversed the numbers and (thus) ordered its (re)occupation to be (after) 11 years.”
1 octobre 2011 · p.28 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“The date 539 B.C.E. when Cyrus II conquered Babylon is calculated using the testimony of: Ancient historical sources and cuneiform tablets: Diodorus of Sicily ... Herodotus ... Cuneiform tablets show that Cyrus ruled Babylon for nine years before his death. ... Confirmation by a cuneiform tablet: A Babylonian astronomical clay tablet (BM 33066) confirms the date of Cyrus' death in 530 B.C.E.”
1 octobre 2011 · pp.30-31 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Notice that Ptolemy lists only four kings between the Babylonian rulers Kandalanu and Nabonidus. However, the Uruk King List-a part of the cuneiform record-reveals that seven kings ruled in between. ... 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?”
1 octobre 2011 · pp.26-31 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“So why do Jehovah's Witnesses hold to a date that differs from widely accepted chronology by 20 years? In short, because of evidence within the Bible itself.”
1 octobre 2011 · p.26 · par. 4 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
““According to historians and archaeologists, 586 or 587 B.C.E. is generally accepted as the year of Jerusalem’s destruction.a Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses say that it was 607 B.C.E.? What is your basis for this date?””
1 octobre 2011 · pp.28-29 · pars. 19-20 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“According to Bible chronology, then, the 70 years was a literal period of time that ended in 537 B.C.E. Counting back 70 years, the start date of the period would be 607 B.C.E.”
1 octobre 2011 · p.27 · pars. 9-11 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“So according to the Bible, the 70 years was a period of bitter punishment for Judah, and God used the Babylonians as the instrument for inflicting this severe chastisement.”
1 octobre 2011 · pp.27-28 · pars. 13-16 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Only then, in the seventh Jewish month, Tishri (September/October), of that year could it be said that the land, now desolate and unworked, began to enjoy its Sabbath rest.”
1 octobre 2011 · p.28 · box · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“The date 539 B.C.E. when Cyrus II conquered Babylon is calculated using the testimony of: ▪ Ancient historical sources and cuneiform tablets: Diodorus of Sicily (c. 80-20 B.C.E.) … The Greek historian Herodotus (c. 485-425 B.C.E.) … Cuneiform tablets show that Cyrus ruled Babylon for nine years before his death.”
1 octobre 2011 · p.26 · par. 6 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“So why do Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to a date that differs from widely accepted chronology by 20 years? In short, because of evidence within the Bible itself.”
1 octobre 2011 · p.31 · par. 38 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Though the classical historians and the canon of Ptolemy disagree with this date, valid questions can be raised about the accuracy of their writings. Really, those two lines of evidence hardly provide enough proof to overturn the Bible’s chronology.”
1 octobre 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.”
1 octobre 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?”
1 novembre 2011 · pp.26-27 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“(5) In 1988, Sachs and Hunger published the text as it actually reads, with a “9.” (6) Yet, they preserve the alteration in their English translation, calling the “9th” an “error for: 8th.””
1 novembre 2011 · p.24 · footnote e · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Business tablets exist for all the years traditionally attributed to the Neo-Babylonian kings. When the years that these kings ruled are totaled and a calculation is made back from the last Neo-Babylonian king, Nabonidus, the date reached for the destruction of Jerusalem is 587 B.C.E. However, this method of dating works only if each king followed the other in the same year, without any breaks in between.”
1 novembre 2011 · pp.22-28 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Clearly, much of the astronomical data in VAT 4956 fits the year 588 B.C.E. as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II. This, therefore, supports the date of 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem's destruction-just as the Bible indicates.”
1 novembre 2011 · p.27 · pars. 35-36 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“At present, the majority of secular historians believe that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C.E. However, the Bible writers Jeremiah and Daniel clearly state that the Jews were in exile for 70 years, not 50 years. (Jeremiah 25:1, 2, 11; 29:10; Daniel 9:2) Those statements strongly indicate that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E. As the above evidence shows, that conclusion has some secular support.”
1 novembre 2011 · p.22 · par. 9 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Biblical and secular history agree that this exile in Babylon ended after Cyrus conquered Babylon and freed the Jews, who returned to Jerusalem in 537 B.C.E. Since the Bible explicitly says that the exile lasted for 70 years, it must have begun in 607 B.C.E.”
1 novembre 2011 · p.23 · pars. 12-15 and box · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“There are gaps in the history recorded in the Babylonian chronicles. … Logically, then, the question arises, How reliable are deductions based on such an incomplete record?”
1 novembre 2011 · pp.23-24 · pars. 16-21 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Therefore, neither the Babylonian chronicles nor the business tablets provide a basis to establish with certainty that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C.E.”
1 novembre 2011 · p.24 · footnote e · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Business tablets exist for all the years traditionally attributed to the Neo-Babylonian kings. When the years that these kings ruled are totaled and a calculation is made back from the last Neo-Babylonian king, Nabonidus, the date reached for the destruction of Jerusalem is 587 B.C.E. However, this method of dating works only if each king followed the other in the same year, without any breaks in between.”
1 novembre 2011 · pp.25, 27 · pars. 27-33 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“While not all of these sets of lunar positions match the year 568/567 B.C.E., all 13 sets match calculated positions for 20 years earlier, for the year 588/587 B.C.E.”
1 novembre 2011 · pp.26-27 · box · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Why an issue? The third line on this tablet reads that on the “night of the 9th” during the first month (Nisanu/Nisan), the “moon stood 1 cubit in front of ß Virginis.” However, Neugebauer and Weidner wrote in 1915 regarding the year 568 B.C.E. (which would point to 587 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction) that “the moon stood 1 cubit before this star on 8 Nisan, and not on 9 Nisan.””
1 novembre 2011 · pp.24-25 · pars. 22-26 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Scholar R. J. van der Spek explains: “The compilers were astrologers, not historians.” He describes sections of the tablets that contain historical records as “more or less casual,” and he warns that such historical information must “be used with caution.””
2013 · Jeremiah 29:10 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“For this is what Jehovah says, 'When 70 years at Babylon are fulfilled, I will turn my attention to you, and I will make good my promise by bringing you back to this place.'”
1 octobre 2014 · pp.10-13 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“The truth is, Daniel didn’t understand because it was not yet God’s time for humans to discern completely the meaning of the prophecies in the book of Daniel. But now, in our time, we can understand them more fully.”
1 novembre 2014 · pp.8-11 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“If we apply the rule of a day for a year, the seven times would amount to 2,520 years. Counting forward from 607 B.C.E., 2,520 years takes us to the year 1914.”
2015 · pp.217, 220 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“The “seven times” lasted for 2,520 years. If we count 2,520 years from the year 607 B.C.E., we end up at the year 1914. That was when Jehovah made Jesus, the Messiah, King of God’s Kingdom in heaven.”
2020 · i 29 · Frauke Weiershaeuser and Jamie Novotny (edition) · Oracc / LMU Munich
“From the twentieth year of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, (during) which I was born, until the forty-second year of Ashurbanipal, the third year of Aššur-etel-ilāni, his son, the twenty-first year of Nabopolassar, the forty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar (II), the second year of Amēl-Marduk, (and) the fourth year of Neriglissar, after (these) ninety-five years”
2020 · ii 40b · Frauke Weiershaeuser and Jamie Novotny (edition) · Oracc / LMU Munich
“During the twenty-one years of Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, the forty-three years of Nebuchadnezzar (II), son of Nabopolassar, and the four years of Neriglissar, king of Babylon, (when) th(ose three kings) exercised kingship, I whole heartedly revered them ... for sixty-eight years”
“For thus said GOD: When Babylon’s seventy years are over, I will take note of you, and I will fulfill to you My promise of favor—to bring you back to this place.”
31 décembre 2024 · p.128 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“The “seven times” represent a period of 2,520 years. That time period began in 607 B.C.E. when the Babylonians removed the last king from Jehovah’s throne in Jerusalem. It ended in 1914 C.E. when Jehovah enthroned Jesus—“the one who has the legal right”—as King of God’s Kingdom.”
31 décembre 2024 · p.128 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society
“The “seven times” represent a period of 2,520 years. That time period began in 607 B.C.E. when the Babylonians removed the last king from Jehovah's throne in Jerusalem. It ended in 1914 C.E. when Jehovah enthroned Jesus”
Something here wrong, unclear, or missing? Proposer une correction à cette page.
Corrections are checked against the original source and logged publicly.