22 THE WATCHTOWER ˙ NOVEMBER 1, 2011

PART ONE ESTABLISHEDTHE FOLLOWING POINTS:ˇ Secular historians say that Jerusa-lem was destroyed in 587 B.C.E.�ˇ Bible chronology indicates thatthe destruction occurred in607 B.C.E.ˇ Secular historians base their con-clusions on the writings of classicalhistorians and on the canon ofPtolemy.ˇ Some writings of classical histori-ans contain significant errors andare not always consistent with therecords on clay tablets.�

THE Bible says that the Jewish captiveswere to be exiled in Babylon “until the

seventy years were completed in fulfillmentof theword of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah.”

� There are various ways of expressing dates. In this ar-ticle, B.C.E. means “Before the Common Era.”� See the article “When Was Ancient Jerusalem De-

stroyed?—Why It Matters, What the Evidence Shows” inour issue of October 1, 2011.

When were they released? In “the first [reg-nal] year of Cyrus king of Persia.” (2 Chroni-cles 36:21, 22, New International Version) Bib-lical and secular history agree that this exileinBabylon ended afterCyrus conquered Bab-ylon and freed the Jews, who returned to Je-rusalem in 537B.C.E. Since the Bible explicit-ly says that the exile lasted for 70 years, itmust have begun in 607 B.C.E.

However, most scholars date the destruc-tion of Jerusalem at 587B.C.E. This allows foronly a 50-year exile. Why do they concludethat? They base their calculations on ancientcuneiform documents that provide detailsaboutNebuchadnezzar II andhis successors.1Many of these documents were written bymen who lived during or close to the time ofJerusalem’s destruction. But just how soundare the calculations that point to the date587 B.C.E.? What do these documents reallyshow?

To answer those questions, consider threetypes of documents that scholars often relyon: (1) The Babylonian chronicles, (2) busi-ness tablets, and (3) astronomical tablets.

When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?PART TWO WHAT THE CLAY DOCUMENTS REALLY SHOW

This is the second of two articles in consecutiveissues of The Watchtower that discuss scholarlyquestions surrounding the date of the first de-struction of ancient Jerusalem. This two-part se-ries presents thoroughly researched and Bible-based answers to questions that have puzzledsome readers.

Phot

ogra

phta

ken

byco

urte

syof

the

Briti

shM

useu

m

������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ The Babylonian chronicles.

What are they? The Babylonian chroniclesare a series of tablets recording major eventsin Babylonian history.2

What have experts said? R. H. Sack, aleading authority on cuneiform documents,states that the chronicles provide an in-complete record of important events.� Hewrote that historians must probe “secondarysources . . . in the hope of determining whatactually happened.”

What do the documents show? There aregaps in the history recorded in the Babylo-nian chronicles.3 (See the box below.) Logi-cally, then, the question arises, How reliableare deductions based on such an incompleterecord?������������������������������������������������������������������������������������ Business tablets.

What are they? Most business tablets fromthe Neo-Babylonian period are legal receipts.

� Note: None of the secular experts quoted in this arti-cle hold that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 B.C.E.

The tabletswere dated to the day,month, andyear of the reigning king. For example, onetablet states that a transaction took place on“Nisan, the 27th day, the 11th year of Neb-uchadrezzar [also known as Nebuchadnez-zar II], king of Babylon.”4

When the king died or was removed and anew king came to the throne, the remainingmonths of that regnal year were consideredthe accession year of the new ruler.�5 In oth-er words, the transition of one king to thenext took place in the same Babylonian cal-endar year. Accordingly, tablets of the newruler’s accession year should logically be dat-ed during months after the last month of theformer king.

What have experts said? R. H. Sack exam-ined numerous business tablets from theNeo-Babylonian period. In 1972, Sack wrotethat new unpublished British Museum textsplaced at his disposal “completely upset”

� An accession year was not counted toward the years ofa king’s rule; it referred to the remaining months of theyear until the new king was officially enthroned.

The Babylonian chroniclesprovide an account for only 35years of the Neo-Babylonianperiod, traditionally presumedto span some 88 years.

THE BABYLONIAN CHRONICLES—A HISTORY WITH GAPS

A YEAR WITHOUT ACHRONICLE RECORD

A YEAR WITH ACHRONICLE RECORD

BM 21901

BM 21946

BM 25127 BM 22047

BM 35382

BM 25124

N E O - B A B Y L O N I A N P E R I O D P E R S I A N S

Nabopolassar Nebuchadnezzar II Amel-MardukNeriglissar Labashi-Marduk

Nabonidus

BM21

901

and

BM35

382:

Phot

ogra

phta

ken

byco

urte

syof

the

Briti

shM

useu

m;B

M21

946:

Copy

right

Briti

shM

useu

m;B

M22

047,

2512

4,25

127:

˘Th

eTr

uste

esof

the

Briti

shM

useu

m

previous conclusions regarding the tran-sition of rule from Nebuchadnezzar II tohis son Amel-Marduk (also known as Evil-merodach).6 How so? Sack knew that tabletsshowed Nebuchadnezzar II to be still rulingin the sixth month of his last (43rd) year. Butthese newly deciphered tablets from the ac-cession year of the following king, Amel-Marduk, were dated to the fourth and fifthmonths of what had been assumed to be thesame year.7 Clearly, there was a discrepancy.

What do the documents show? There arefurther discrepancies in the transition of oneking to another. For example, the documentsshow that Nebuchadnezzar II was still rulingin his tenth month—six months afterhis suc-cessor is assumed to have begun reigning.8 Asimilar discrepancy exists with the transi-tion between Amel-Marduk and his succes-sor, Neriglissar.9

Why are these discrepancies significant? Asmentioned earlier, gaps in the history docu-mented by the Babylonian chronicles sug-gest that we may not have a continuous chro-nological record.10 Could others have ruledbetween the reigns of these kings? If so, ad-ditional years would have to be added tothe Neo-Babylonian period. Therefore, nei-ther the Babylonian chronicles nor the busi-ness tablets provide a basis to establish with

certainty that Jerusalem was destroyed in587 B.C.E.������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� Astronomical tablets.

What are they? Cuneiform tablets thatcontain descriptions of the positions of thesun, moon, planets, and stars, coupled withsuchhistorical information as the regnal yearof a particular king. For instance, the astro-nomical diary shown below records a lunareclipse that occurred in the first month ofthe first year of King Mukin-zeri’s reign.11

What have experts said? Experts agree thatthe Babylonians had developed extensivecharts and schemes to predict when eclipseswould most likely occur.12

But could the Babylonians project back-ward to calculate when eclipses had occurredin the past? “It is possible,” states Profes-sor John Steele, “that someof the earliest pre-dictions could have been made by projectingthe scheme backwards when the text wascompiled.” (Italics ours.)13 Professor DavidBrown, who believes that the astronomical

� Business tablets exist for all the years traditionally at-tributed to the Neo-Babylonian kings. When the years thatthese kings ruled are totaled and a calculation is madeback from the last Neo-Babylonian king, Nabonidus, thedate reached for the destruction of Jerusalem is 587 B.C.E.However, this method of dating works only if each kingfollowed the other in the same year, without any breaks inbetween.

24

This tablet contains a record of lunar eclipses, but the tablet was not compileduntil after the last eclipse, which occurred some 400 years after the first.Since the scribe did not observe all those events, he may have usedmathematical calculations to determine when the earlier onestook place. Unless there is additional supporting evidenceconfirming his conclusions, such calculations may notbe a source of reliable chronological information.

ASTRONOMICAL DIARY BM 32238

˘The

TrusteesoftheBritish

Museum

charts included predictions made shortly be-fore the recorded events, acknowledges thatit is conceivable that some of these were“retrocalculations undertaken by scribes inthe 4th and later centuries BC.”14 If these areretrocalculations, could they really be con-sidered absolutely reliable unless corroborat-ed byother evidence?

Even if an eclipse did occur on a certaindate, does this mean that the historical infor-mation the writer of the tablet assigns to thatdate is accurate? Not necessarily. Scholar R. J.van der Spek explains: “The compilers wereastrologers, not historians.” He describes sec-tions of the tablets that containhistorical rec-ords as “more or less casual,” and he warnsthat such historical information must “beused with caution.”15

What do the documents show? Considerthe example of VAT 4956. The opening lineof this tablet reads: “Year 37 of Nebukadne-zar, king of Babylon.”16 Thereafter, it con-tains detailed descriptions of the position ofthe moon and planets in relation to differ-ent stars and constellations. Also includedis one lunar eclipse. Scholars say that allthese positions occurred in 568/567 B.C.E.,which would make the 18th year of Nebu-chadnezzar II, when he destroyed Jerusalem,587 B.C.E. But do these astronomical ref-

erences irrefutably point only to the year568/567 B.C.E.?

The tablet mentions a lunar eclipse thatwas calculated as occurring on the 15th dayof the third Babylonian month, Simanu. Itis a fact that a lunar eclipse occurred onJuly 4 (Julian calendar) of this month during568 B.C.E. However, there was also an eclipse20 years earlier, on July 15, 588 B.C.E.17

If 588 B.C.E.marked the 37thyear of Nebu-chadnezzar II, then his 18th year would be607 B.C.E.—the very year indicated by the Bi-ble’s chronology for the destruction of Jeru-salem! (See the time line below.) But doesVAT 4956 provide further corroborating evi-dence for the year 607 B.C.E.?

In addition to the aforementioned eclipse,there are 13 sets of lunar observations on thetablet and 15 planetary observations. Thesedescribe the position of the moon or planetsin relation to certain stars or constellations.18There are also eight time intervals betweenthe risings and settings of the sun and themoon.18a

Because of the superior reliability of the lu-nar positions, researchers have carefully ana-lyzed these 13 sets of lunar positions onVAT 4956. They analyzed the data with theaid of a computer program capable of show-ing the location of celestial bodies on a

VAT 4956 POINTS TO WHICH YEAR FOR JERUSALEM’S DESTRUCTION—587 B.C.E. OR 607 B.C.E.?˛ The tablet describes astronomical events that occurred

in the 37th year of the rule of King Nebuchadnezzar II.˛ Nebuchadnezzar II destroyed Jerusalem in his

18th regnal year.—Jeremiah 32:1.If the 37th yearof Nebuchadnezzar IIwas 568 B.C.E., thenJerusalem was destroyedin 587 B.C.E.

If his 37th year was 588 B.C.E., then Jerusalemwas destroyed in 607 B.C.E., the date that isindicated by Bible chronology.

˛ VAT 4956 points more convincingly to 607 B.C.E.

610 B.C.E. 600 590 580 570 560587

607

Why an issue? The thirdline on this tablet reads thaton the “night of the 9th”during the first month(Nisanu/Nisan), the “moonstood 1 cubit in front ofß Virginis.” However,Neugebauer and Weidnerwrote in 1915 regarding theyear 568 B.C.E. (which wouldpoint to 587 B.C.E. forJerusalem’s destruction) that“the moon stood 1 cubitbefore this star on 8 Nisan,and not on 9 Nisan.” (Italicsours.) However, there was anexact match of the moon’sposition for 588 B.C.E. onNisan 9, which points to thedate 607 B.C.E.

WHATDOESVAT4956REALLY SAY?

1

2

3

4

bpk/VorderasiatischesM

useum,

SMB

/OlafM

.Teßmer

THE WATCHTOWER ˙ NOVEMBER 1, 2011 27

certain date in the past.19 What did their analysis re-veal? While not all of these sets of lunar positionsmatch the year 568/567 B.C.E., all 13 sets match cal-culated positions for 20 years earlier, for the year588/587 B.C.E.

One of the places where the lunar observations fit588 B.C.E. even better than 568 B.C.E. is shown in thetablet reproduced on these pages. On line 3 of thattablet, we read that the moonwas in a certainpositionon the “night of the 9th [of Nisanu].” However, thescholars who first dated the event to 568 B.C.E. (astro-nomical -567) acknowledged that in 568 B.C.E., themoon was in that position on “the 8th of Nisanu andnot on the 9th.” To support dating the tablet to568 B.C.E., they postulated that the scribe erroneouslywrote “9” instead of “8.”20 But the lunar position inline 3 finds an exact match onNisanu 9 of 588 B.C.E.21

Clearly, much of the astronomical data in VAT 4956fits the year 588 B.C.E. as the 37th year of Nebu-chadnezzar II. This, therefore, supports the date of607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction—just as the Bi-ble indicates.

Why Trust the Bible?At present, the majority of secular historians believe

that Jerusalem was destroyed in 587 B.C.E. However,the Biblewriters Jeremiah andDaniel clearly state thatthe Jews were in exile for 70 years, not 50 years. (Jere-miah 25:1, 2, 11; 29:10; Daniel 9:2) Those statementsstrongly indicate that Jerusalem was destroyed in607 B.C.E. As the above evidence shows, that conclu-sion has some secular support.

Secular experts have repeatedly questioned the Bi-ble’s accuracy. Yet, when more evidence is uncovered,the Bible record has time and again been vindicated.�Those who trust the Bible have good reason to do so.They base their opinion on proof that the Bible is his-torically, scientifically, and prophetically accurate.That evidence leads them to believe the Bible’s claimthat it is the inspired Word of God. (2 Timothy 3:16)Why not investigate the evidence for yourself? Youmay well come to the same conclusion.

� For specific examples, see chapters 4 and 5 of the book The Bible—God’s Word or Man’s? published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

(1) As shown in the accompanyingphotograph, the Akkadian symbolfor the number 9 is clearly seen.

(2) In their transliteration of thiscuneiform text, Neugebauer andWeidner changed the “9” to an“8.”

(3) Only the footnote indicates thatthere was a “9” in the originaltext.

(4) Even in their German translation,they put “8.”

(5) In 1988, Sachs and Hungerpublished the text as it actuallyreads, with a “9.”

(6) Yet, they preserve the alterationin their English translation, callingthe “9th” an “error for: 8th.”

Should it be the 9thdayor the 8thday?

5

6

1. Cuneiform is a wedge-shaped formof writing. It was produced by a scribepressing various signs into the surface ofa soft clay tablet, using a sharp stylus witha wedge-shaped point.2. Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles,by A. K. Grayson, published 1975, 2000reprint, page 8.3. The Neo-Babylonian period beganduring the seventh century B.C.E., whenthe Chaldean dynasty of kings ruled theBabylonian Empire. The first ruler wasNabopolassar, the father of Nebuchad-nezzar II. The period ended when the lastking, Nabonidus, was overthrown by Per-sian King Cyrus in 539 B.C.E.4. Neo-Babylonian Business and Admin-istrative Documents, by Ellen WhitleyMoore, published 1935, page 33.5. Archimedes, Volume 4, New Studiesin the History and Philosophy of Scienceand Technology, “Observations and Pre-dictions of Eclipse Times by Early Astron-omers,” by John M. Steele, published2000, page 36.6. Amel-Marduk 562-560 B.C.—A StudyBased on Cuneiform, Old Testament,Greek, Latin and Rabbinical Sources. WithPlates, by Ronald H. Sack, published1972, page 3.7. The tablets BM 80920 and BM 58872are dated in Evil-merodach’s fourth andfifth months of his accession year. Thesewere published by Sack in Amel-Marduk562-560 B.C.—A Study Based on Cunei-form, Old Testament, Greek, Latin andRabbinical Sources. With Plates, pages 3,90,106.8. The tablet in the British Museum(BM 55806) is dated to the tenth month,43rd year.9. Tablets BM 75106 and BM 61325 aredated in the seventh and tenth months ofwhat is considered the last (second) yearof the ruling king Evil-merodach. How-ever, the tablet BM 75489 is dated in thesecond month of the accession year ofNeriglissar, his successor.—Catalogue ofthe Babylonian Tablets in the British Mu-seum, Volume VIII, (Tablets From Sip-par 3) by Erle Leichty, J. J. Finkelstein,and C.B.F. Walker, published 1988, pag-es 25, 35.Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets inthe British Museum, Volume VII, (Tab-lets From Sippar 2) by Erle Leichty andA. K. Grayson, published 1987, page 36.Neriglissar—King of Babylon, by RonaldH. Sack, published 1994, page 232. Themonth on the tablet is Ajaru (secondmonth).10. Consider the example of Neriglis-sar. A royal inscription regarding himstates that he was “the son of Bel-shum-ishkun,” the “king of Babylon.” (Italicsours.) Another inscription calls Bel-shum-ishkun the “wise prince.” The orig-inal word rendered “prince,” rubu, is a ti-tle also meaning “king, ruler.” Since there

is an obvious discrepancy between thereign of Neriglissar and his predeces-sor, Amel-Marduk, could this “king ofBabylon,” Bel-shum-ishkun, have ruledfor a time between the two? Profes-sor R. P. Dougherty acknowledged that“the evidence of Neriglissar’s noble an-cestry cannot be disregarded.”—Nab-onidus and Belshazzar—A Study of theClosing Events of the Neo-Babylonian Em-pire, by Raymond P. Dougherty, pub-lished 1929, page 61.11. Astronomical Diaries and RelatedTexts From Babylonia, Volume V, editedby Hermann Hunger, published 2001,pages 2-3.12. Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol-ume 2, No. 4, 1948, “A Classification ofthe Babylonian Astronomical Tablets ofthe Seleucid Period,” by A. Sachs, pag-es 282-283.13. Astronomical Diaries and Relat-ed Texts From Babylonia, Volume V,page 391.14. Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology, by David Brown, published2000, pages 164, 201-202.15. Bibliotheca Orientalis, L N° 1/2,Januari-Maart, 1993, “The AstronomicalDiaries as a Source for Achaemenid andSeleucid History,” by R. J. van der Spek,pages 94,102.16. Astronomical Diaries and RelatedTexts From Babylonia, Volume I, by Abra-ham J. Sachs, completed and editedby Hermann Hunger, published 1988,page 47.17. Babylonian Eclipse ObservationsFrom 750 BC to 1 BC, by Peter J. Hu-ber and Salvo De Meis, published 2004,page 186. According to VAT 4956, thiseclipse occurred on the 15th of thethird Babylonian month, which suggeststhat the month of Simanu began 15days earlier. If the eclipse fell on July 15,588 B.C.E. according to our Julian calen-dar, then the first day of Simanu wouldbe June 30/July 1, 588 B.C.E. There-fore, the first Babylonian month (Nisanu)would have started the new year twomonths earlier, on May 2/3. While nor-mally the year of this eclipse would havebegun on April 3/4, VAT 4956 states online 6 that an extra month (intercalary)was added after the twelfth (last) month(Addaru) of the preceding year. (Thetablet reads: “8th of month XII2.”) There-fore, this made the new year actually notstart until May 2/3. Thus, the date of thiseclipse in 588 B.C.E. well fits the data onthe tablet.18. According to Berichte uber die Ver-handlungen der Konigl. Sachsischen Ge-sellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig(Reports Regarding the Discussions ofthe Royal Saxonian Society of Sciencesat Leipzig); Volume 67; May 1, 1915; inthe article “Ein astronomischer Beobach-tungstext aus dem 37. Jahre Nebukadne-zars II” (An Astronomical Observer’s Textof the 37th Year Nebuchadnezzar II), byPaul V. Neugebauer and Ernst F. Weidner,pages 67-76, there are 13 sets of obser-

vations of the moon wherein it is de-scribed in relationship with a certain staror constellation. They also list 15 setsof planetary observations. (Pages 72-76)Though the cuneiform sign for the moonis clear and unambiguous, some of thesigns for the names of the planets andtheir positions are unclear. (Mesopota-mian Planetary Astronomy—Astrology, byDavid Brown, published 2000, pages 53-57) Because of this, the planetary obser-vations are open to speculation and toseveral different interpretations. Since themoon can easily be tracked, the positionsof those other celestial bodies mentionedon VAT 4956 and connected to the mooncan be identified and their positions dat-ed with a good measure of certainty.18a. These time inter vals (“lunarthrees”) are the measurement of timefrom, for example, sunset to moonset onthe first day of the month and duringtwo other periods later in the month.Scholars have tied these time measure-ments to calendar dates. (“The Ear-liest Datable Observation of the Au-rora Borealis,” by F. R. Stephenson andDavid M. Willis, in Under One Sky—As-tronomy and Mathematics in the An-cient Near East, edited by John M. Steeleand Annette Imhausen, published 2002,pages 420-428) For ancient observers tomeasure this period required some sortof clock. Such measurements were not re-liable. (Archimedes, Volume 4, New Stud-ies in the History and Philosophy of Scienceand Technology, “Observations and Pre-dictions of Eclipse Times by Early Astron-omers,” by John M. Steele, published2000, pages 65-66) On the other hand,calculating the position of the moon in re-lation to other celestial bodies was donewith greater certainty.19. This analysis was made with the as-tronomy software entitled TheSky6�. Inaddition, the analysis was augmentedby the comprehensive freeware programCartes du Ciel/Sky Charts (CDC) and adate converter provided by the U.S. Na-val Observatory. Because the cuneiformsigns for many of the planetary positionsare open to speculation and to several in-terpretations, these positions were notused in this survey to pinpoint the year in-tended by this astronomical diary.20. Berichte uber die Verhandlungen derKonigl. Sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wis-senschaften zu Leipzig (Reports Regard-ing the Discussions of the Royal Sax-onian Society of Sciences at Leipzig);Volume 67; May 1, 1915; “Ein astrono-mischer Beobachtungstext aus dem 37.Jahre Nebukadnezars II, (-567/66)” (AnAstronomical Observer’s Text of the 37thYear Nebuchadnezzar II), by Paul V. Neu-gebauer and Ernst F. Weidner, page 41.21. VAT 4956 reads on line three: “Themoon stood 1 cubit [or 2 degrees] infront of ß Virginis.” The previously men-tioned analysis concluded that on Ni-sanu 9, the moon was 2°04� in front ofand 0° below the star ß Virginis. It wasconsidered an exact match.

Notes for “WhenWasAncientJerusalemDestroyed?—Part Two”