607 BCE, and the arithmetic behind 1914

Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, “Appointed Times of the Nations”

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”.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

Pay Attention to Daniel’s Prophecy!, “Unraveling the Mystery of the Great Tree (chap. 6)”

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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

What Does the Bible Really Teach?, “Appendix: 1914—A Significant Year in Bible Prophecy”

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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

What Can the Bible Teach Us?, “Endnote 22: Why Is the Year 1914 So Important?”

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.’”

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

JW.org (Bible Questions Answered), “What Does Bible Chronology Indicate About the Year 1914?”

19 септембра 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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици) Архивирана или алтернативна копија ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

Pay Attention to Daniel’s Prophecy!, “Unraveling the Mystery of the Great Tree (chap. 6)”

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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

What Does the Bible Really Teach?, “Appendix: 1914—A Significant Year in Bible Prophecy”

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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, “Appointed Times of the Nations”

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”.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

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

1 октобра 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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

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

1 новембра 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.”

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, “Chronology”

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.”

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

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

1 октобра 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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, “Chronology”

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.”

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

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

1 октобра 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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

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

1 октобра 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).

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, “Chronology”

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.”

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, “Chronology”

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.”

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

The Watchtower, “When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part One (box: “A Pivotal Date in History”)”

1 октобра 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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, “Chronology”

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.”

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, “Chronology”

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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

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

1 октобра 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.”

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

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

1 новембра 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.”

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

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

1 октобра 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.”

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

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

1 новембра 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.”

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, “Chronology”

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.”

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

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

1 новембра 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.”

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

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

1 октобра 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.”

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

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

1 октобра 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.”

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

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

1 новембра 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.”

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

The Watchtower, “When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two (box: “What Does VAT 4956 Really Say?”)”

1 новембра 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”.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

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

1 новембра 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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, “Chronology”

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”.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

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

1 новембра 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.”

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

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

1 новембра 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.”

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

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

1 октобра 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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

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

1 новембра 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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

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

1 новембра 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.”

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

The Watchtower, “When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?-Part Two, footnote e”

1 новембра 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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

The Watchtower, “When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?-Part Two”

1 новембра 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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

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

1 новембра 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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

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

1 октобра 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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum, “Transliteration and translation of B.M. 21946, obverse lines 11-13”

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.

Скен оригинала ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum, “Introduction: the historical background”

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.

Скен оригинала ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

electronic Babylonian Library (eBL), fragment BM.21946, “Catalogue record for the Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946”

2026 · Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet Muenchen

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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици) Архивирана или алтернативна копија ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum, “Transliteration and translation of B.M. 21946, obverse lines 9-11”

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.

Скен оригинала ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

electronic Babylonian Library (eBL), fragment VAT.4956, “Astronomical diary for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II (ADART I, Diary No. -567), obverse line 1”

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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици) Архивирана или алтернативна копија ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

electronic Babylonian Library (eBL), fragment VAT.4956, “Astronomical diary for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II: the month III lunar eclipse”

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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици) Архивирана или алтернативна копија ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum, “Introduction: Egypt and 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.)”

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.

Скен оригинала ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

electronic Babylonian Library (eBL), fragment VAT.4956, “Astronomical diary for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II: catch-line and left edge”

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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици) Архивирана или алтернативна копија ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

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)”

2008 · Hermann Hunger

“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'.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

RIBo, Babylon 7: The Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty, “Nabonidus 2001 (the Harran stele of Adad-guppi), column i line 29”

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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици) Архивирана или алтернативна копија ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

RIBo, Babylon 7: The Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty, “Nabonidus 2001 (the Harran stele of Adad-guppi), column ii line 40b”

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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици) Архивирана или алтернативна копија ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

RIBo, Babylon 7: The Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty, “Nabonidus 2001 (the Harran stele of Adad-guppi), column i line 29”

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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици) Архивирана или алтернативна копија ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

RIBo, Babylon 7: The Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty, “Nabonidus 2001 (the Harran stele of Adad-guppi), column ii line 40b”

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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици) Архивирана или алтернативна копија ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

RIBo, Babylon 7: The Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty, “About the Project; ruler pages for Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar II and Nabonidus”

2020 · Frauke Weiershaeuser and Jamie Novotny · Oracc / LMU Munich

“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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. - A.D. 45 (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 24), “II. Kings' Reigns: Nebuchadnezzar II and Amel-Marduk”

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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици) Скен оригинала ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. - A.D. 45 (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 24), “Preface”

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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици) Скен оригинала ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

RIBo, Babylon 7: The Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty, “About the Project; ruler pages for Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar II and Nabonidus”

2020 · Frauke Weiershaeuser and Jamie Novotny · Oracc / LMU Munich

“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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. - A.D. 45 (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 24), “II. Kings' Reigns: Nebuchadnezzar II and Amel-Marduk”

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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици) Скен оригинала ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

RIBo, Babylon 7: The Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty, “Nabonidus 2001 (the Harran stele of Adad-guppi), column i line 29”

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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици) Архивирана или алтернативна копија ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

The Watchtower, “The Book of Truthful Historical Dates”

15 августа 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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

'All Scripture Is Inspired of God and Beneficial', “Study Number 3-Measuring Events in the Stream of Time”

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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

The Watchtower, “Understanding Time a Help to True Worshipers”

1 маја 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”.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

The Watchtower, “The Book of Truthful Historical Dates”

15 августа 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”.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1, “Chronology”

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.”

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. - A.D. 45 (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 24), “II. Kings' Reigns: Nabunaid and Cyrus”

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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици) Скен оригинала ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

electronic Babylonian Library (eBL), fragment BM.35382, “Catalogue record for the Nabonidus Chronicle”

2026 · Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet Muenchen

“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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици) Архивирана или алтернативна копија ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

The Watchtower, “When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?-Part One, box 'A Pivotal Date in History'”

1 октобра 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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

electronic Babylonian Library (eBL), fragment BM.33066, “Catalogue record for the Cambyses year 7 astronomical text”

2026 · Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitaet Muenchen

“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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици) Архивирана или алтернативна копија ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

The Watchtower, “When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?-Part Two”

1 новембра 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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

The Watchtower, “The Book of Truthful Historical Dates”

15 августа 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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

World English Bible, “Jeremiah 25:11-12”

2000 · Jeremiah 25:11-12 · Public domain

“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”.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

The JPS TANAKH: Gender-Sensitive Edition; Hebrew text 'Miqra according to the Masorah', “Jeremiah 29:10”

2023 · Jeremiah 29:10 · Jewish Publication Society (translation); Sefaria (digital text)

“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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

The JPS TANAKH: Gender-Sensitive Edition; Hebrew text 'Miqra according to the Masorah', “Jeremiah 29:10”

2023 · Jeremiah 29:10 · Jewish Publication Society (translation); Sefaria (digital text)

“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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures (Study Edition), “Jeremiah 29:10”

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)'.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

King James Version, “Jeremiah 29:10”

1611 · Jeremiah 29:10 · Public domain

“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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

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)”

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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

The Watchtower, “When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?-Part Two, box 'What Does VAT 4956 Really Say?'”

1 новембра 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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

electronic Babylonian Library (eBL), fragment VAT.4956, “Astronomical diary for year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II, obverse line 3”

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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици) Архивирана или алтернативна копија ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

The Watchtower, “When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?-Part One, 'The Canon of Ptolemy'”

1 октобра 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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum, “Introduction: the fall of Assyria”

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.

Скен оригинала ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

RIBo, Babylon 7: The Inscriptions of the Neo-Babylonian Dynasty, “Nabonidus 2001 (the Harran stele of Adad-guppi), column i line 29”

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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици) Архивирана или алтернативна копија ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C. - A.D. 45 (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 24), “II. Kings' Reigns: Nebuchadnezzar II and Amel-Marduk”

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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици) Скен оригинала ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 47/1, “When Did Jerusalem Fall?”

марта 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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

Chronicles of Chaldaean Kings (626-556 B.C.) in the British Museum, “Introduction: Egypt and 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.)”

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.

Скен оригинала ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

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

1 октобра 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.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

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)”

2008 · Hermann Hunger

“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'.

Званични извор ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)

Under One Sky: Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East (AOAT 297), “The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis”

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.

Архивирана или алтернативна копија ↗ (отвара се у новој картици)