The Gentile Times Reconsidered

THE GENTILE TIMES
RECONSIDERED
Carl Olof Jonsson
Fourth Edition
Revised and Expanded
COMMENTARY PRESS • ATLANTA • 2004

Because of its subject matter, in this book Bible texts are generally
quoted from the New World Translation (represented by the
abbreviation NW), published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society of New York, Inc. Abbreviations for other translations of
Biblical quotations, listed in the text or in the footnotes, are:
ASV American Standard Version

KJV King James Version
LXX Septuagint Version (Greek)
MT Masoretic text (Hebrew)
NAB New American Bible
NASB New American Standard Bible
NEB New English Bible
NIV New International Version
NKJV New King James Version
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
RSV Revised Standard Version
RV Revised Version
THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED
FIRST EDITION © 1983 by

Hart Publishers Ltd. of Lethbridge, Alta., Canada and Good News
Defenders of La Jolla, CA, U.S.A. for Christian Koinonia
International.
SECOND EDITION © 1986
Published by Commentary Press, Atlanta, GA 30336.
THIRD EDITION, REVISED AND EXPANDED © 1998

Published by Commentary Press, Atlanta, GA 30336.
FOURTH EDITION, REVISED AND EXPANDED ©
2004 Published by Commentary Press, Atlanta, GA
30336.
Internet edition: Tönis Tönisson, Vretstorp, 2009
All rights reserved
Manufactured in the United States of America
ISBN: 0-914675-07-9
Library of Congress Catalog Card No.: 86-70168
Contents
Foreword v
Introduction 1
1 The History of an Interpretation 23
2 Biblical and Secular Chronology 72
3 The Length of Reigns
of the Neo-Babylonian Kings 89
4 The Absolute Chronology
of the Neo-Babylonian Era 153
5 The Seventy Years for Babylon 191
6 The “Seven Times” of Daniel 4 236
7 Attempts to Overcome the Evidence 283
Appendix
For Chapter 1 312
For Chapter 2 314
For Chapter 3 321
For Chapter 4 332
For Chapter 5 335
For Chapter 7 353
Additional material
The 20th year of Artaxerxes and the
“Seventy weeks” of Daniel 382
Professor Robert R. Newton, “Ptolemy’s Canon”,
and the “Crime of Claudius Ptolemy” 394
Rolf Furuli’s First Book – A Critical Review 401
Rolf Furuli — Sham Scholarship 457
Rolf Furuli’s Second Book – A Critical Review 484
Indexes 551
FOREWORD
T HE SUBJECT of the “Gentile times” is a crucial one today for

millions of persons. Christ employed that phrase on a single
occasion, as part of his response to his disciples’ question about his
future coming and the end of the age. In the centuries that
followed, numerous interpretations and time-applications of his
expression have developed.
While this book provides a remarkably broad view of the subject
it primarily focuses on one prominent interpretation, one that in a
very real sense defines for millions of Jehovahs Witnesses the time
in which they live, supplies what they consider a powerful criterion
to judge what constitutes “the good news of the Kingdom” which
Christ said would be preached, and acts for them as a touchstone
for assessing the validity of any religious organization’s claim to
represent Christ and the interests of his Kingdom. An unusual fact
is that the foundation of this interpretation is a “borrowed” one,
since, as the author documents, it originated nearly a half century
before their own religious organization began to appear on the
world scene.
Rarely has a single date played such a pervasive and defining role
in a religion’s theology as has the date focused on by this
interpretation: the date of 1914. But there is a date behind that date
and without its support 1914 is divested of its assigned significance.
That prior date is 607 B.C.E. and it is the Witness religion’s linking
of that date with a particular event—the overthrow of Jerusalem by
Babylon—that lies at the crux of the problem.
Those of us who have shared in editing this present work and
who were ourselves, twenty-seven years ago, part of the writing and
editorial staff at the international headquarters of Jehovah’s
Witnesses in Brooklyn, New York, can remember the rather
stunning effect the arrival of a treatise on the “Gentile times” from
Carl Olof Jonsson it Sweden had on us in August of 1977. Not
only the volume of the documentation, but even more so the
weight of the evidence left us feeling somewhat disconcerted. We
were, in effect, at a loss as to what to do with the material. That
treatise later formed the basis for Carl Olof Jonsson’s book The
:
v
vi THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED
Gentile Times Reconsidered, now in its fourth printing.

When we today read this book we become the beneficiaries of
more than three decades of thorough and careful research. Not just
the immense amount of time, but also the means of access to the
sources of information that made possible so intensive a study, are
something very few of us would have at our disposal. The author
has not only made use of such facilities as the British Museum but
also has had personal communication with, and assistance from,
members of its staff, as also Assyriologists of various countries.
The research takes us back some two and a half millennia in the
past. Many of us may think of those times as “primitive” and it
thus may come as a surprise to realize how advanced certain
ancient peoples were, their writings covering not merely historical
events and monarchical dynasties, but also dealing with dated
business documents such as ledgers, contracts, inventories, bills of
sale, promissory notes, deeds, and similar matters. Their
understanding of astronomy, of the progressive and cyclical
movements of the lunar, planetary and stellar bodies, in an age
unequipped with telescopes, is extraordinary. In the light of the
Genesis statement that those celestial luminaries serve to “mark the
fixed times, the days and the years,” this takes on true significance,
particularly in a study in which chronology plays a central role. 1
Nothing, except the modern atomic clocks, surpasses those
heavenly bodies in precision in the measurement of time.
Of the quality of the research into the Neo-Babylonian period,
Professor of Assyriology Luigi Cagni writes:
Time and again during my reading [of Jonsson’s book] I was
overcome by feelings of admiration for, and deep satisfaction with,
the way in which the author deals with arguments related to the
field of Assyriology. This is especially true of his discussion of the
astronomy of Babylonia (and Egypt) and of the chronological
information found in cuneiform texts from the first millennium
B.C.E., sources that hold a central position in Jonsson’s
argumentation.
His seriousness and carefulness are evidenced in that he has
frequently contacted Assyriologists with a special competence in
the fields of astronomy and Babylonian chronology, such as
Professors H. Hunger, A. J. Sachs, D. J. Wiseman, Mr. C. B. F.
Walker at the British Museum and others.
1 Genesis 1:14, NAB.
Foreword vii
With respect to the subject field I am particularly familiar with,

the economic-administrative texts from the Neo-Babylonian and
Achaemenid periods, I can say that Jonsson has evaluated them
quite correctly. I put him to the test during the reading of the
book. When I finished the reading, I had to admit that he passed
the test splendidly?2
Readers of the first or second edition of this book will find
much that is new here. Entire sections, including some new
chapters have been added. Contributing to the readability of the
book is the inclusion of about thirty illustrations, including letters
and other documents. Many of the illustrations are rare and will
undoubtedly be new to most readers.
The original research behind the book inescapably brought the
author on a collision course with the Watch Tower organization
and—not unexpectedly—led to his excommunication as an
“apostate” or heretic in July 1982. This dramatic story, not told in
the first two editions, is now presented in the section of the
Introduction titled “The expulsion.”
The discussion of the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period
has been greatly expanded. The seven lines of evidence against the
607 B.C.E. date presented in the first two editions have since been
more than doubled. The evidence from astronomical texts forms a
separate chapter. The burden of evidence presented in Chapters 3
and 4 is indeed enormous and reveals an insurmountable
disharmony with, and refutation of, the chronology of the Watch
Tower Society for this ancient period.
Despite the wealth of information from ancient secular sources,
this book remains primarily Biblical. In the chapter ‘Biblical and
Secular Chronology” it clears up a common and serious
misconception as to how we arrive at a ‘Biblical chronology,” as
also the erroneous idea that a rejection of the Watch Tower’s 607
B.C.E. date implies a placing of secular chronology as superior to
such “Biblical chronology.”
We are confident that the reading of this unique book will aid
many to gain, not only a more accurate knowledge of the past, but
also a more enlightened outlook regarding their own time, and
increased appreciation of the trustworthiness and historicity of the
Scriptures.
The Editors
2 From the preface to the Italian edition of The Gentile Times Reconsidered by Luigi
Cagni, Professor of Assyriology at the University of Naples, Italy. Professor Cagni
was, among other things, a leading expert on the Ebla tablets ,the about 16,000
cuneiform texts that have been excavated since 1975 in the roya1 palace of the
ancient city of Ebla (present Arabic name: Tell Mardikh) in Syria. Luigi Cagni died
in January, 1998.
viii
THE GENTILE TIMES
RECONSIDERED
INTRODUCTION
T HE DISILLUSIONING and sometimes dramatic process that

ended up in the decision to publish this treatise could fill a
whole book. Due to considerations of space, however, that
background can be only touched upon briefly here. Jehovah’s
Witnesses are taught to put great trust in the Watch Tower Society
and its leadership. Toward the end of my twenty-six years as an
active Jehovah’s Witness, however, the signs indicating that such
trust was mistaken had mounted. To the very last I had hoped that
the leaders of the organization would honestly face the facts
respecting their chronology, even if those facts should prove fatal
to some of the central doctrines and unique claims of their
organization. But when at last I realized that the Society’s leaders—
apparently for reasons of organizational or “ecclesiastical” policy
— were determined to perpetuate what, in the final analysis,
amounts to a deception of millions of persons, doing this by
suppressing information which they regarded and continue to
regard as undesirable, no other course seemed open to me but to
publish my findings, thus giving every individual who has a
concern for truth an opportunity to examine the evidence and draw
his or her own conclusions.
We are each responsible for what we know. If a person has
information on hand that others need in order to get a correct
understanding of their situation in life— information that furthermore is
withheld from them by their religious leaders—then it would be morally
wrong to remain silent. It becomes his or her duty to make that
information available to all who want to know the truth, however
this may appear. That is the reason why this book has been
published.
1
2 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED
The role of chronology in the teachings of the

Watch Tower Society
Few people are fully cognizant of the very central role played by
chronology in the claims and teachings of the Watch Tower
Society. Even many of Jehovah’s Witnesses are not fully aware of
the indissoluble connection between the Society’s chronology and
the message they preach from door to door. Confronted with the
many evidences against their chronology, some Jehovah’s
Witnesses tend to downplay it as something they somehow can do
without. “Chronology is not so important, after all,” they say. Many
Witnesses would prefer not to discuss the subject at all. Just how
important, then, is the chronology for the Watch Tower
organization?
An examination of the evidence demonstrates that it constitutes
the very foundation for the claims and message of this movement.
The Watch Tower Society claims to be God’s “sole channel”
and “mouthpiece” on earth. Summing up its most distinctive
teachings: it asserts that the kingdom of God was established in
heaven in 1914, that the “last days” began that year, that Christ
returned invisibly at that time to “inspect” the Christian
denominations, and that he finally rejected all of them except the
Watch Tower Society and its associates, which he appointed in
1919 as his sole “instrument” on earth.
For about seventy years, the Society employed Jesus’ words at
Matthew 24:34 about “this generation” to teach clearly and
adamantly that the generation of 1914 would positively not pass
away until the final end came at the “battle of Armageddon,” when
every human alive except active members of the Watch Tower
organization would be destroyed forever. Thousands of Jehovah’s
Witnesses of the “1914 generation” fully expected to live to see and
to survive that doomsday and then to live forever in paradise on
earth.
As decades went by, leaving 1914 ever farther behind, this claim
became increasingly difficult to defend. After 80 years had passed,
the claim became virtually preposterous. So, in the November 1,
1995, issue of the Watchtower (pages 10 through 21), a new
definition of the phrase “this generation” was adopted, one that
allowed the organization to “unlink” it from the date of 1914 as a
starting point. Despite this monumental change, they still retained the
1914 date—in fact they could not do otherwise without dismantling
their major teachings regarding Christ’s “second presence,” the
start of the “time of the end,” and the appointment of their
Introduction 3
1914 — The Generation That Would not pass away!

organization as Christ’s unique instrument and God’s sole channel
on earth. Though now recognizing “this generation” as defined by
its characteristics rather than by a chronological period (with a
particular starting point), they still found a way to include 1914 in
their new definition. They accomplished this by including in the
definition an arbitrarily added factor, namely, that the “generation”

is composed of “those persons who see the sign of Christ’s
presence but fail to mend their ways,” resulting in their destruction.
Since the official teaching continues to be that the “sign of Christ’s
presence” became visible from and after 1914, this allows for the
date’s continuing to form a key part of the definition of “this
generation.”
All these factors, then, bear testimony to the highly crucial role
that 1914 plays in the teaching of the Watch Tower Society. Since
the date itself obviously is not stated in Scripture, what is its
source?
That date is a product of a chronological calculation, according
to which the so-called “times of the Gentiles” referred to by Jesus
at Luke 21:24 constitute a period of 2,520 years, beginning in 607
B.C.E. and ending in 1914 CE.1 This calculation is the real basis of the
principal message of the movement. Even the Christian gospel, the “good
news” of the kingdom (Matthew 24:14), is claimed to be closely
associated with this chronology. The gospel preached by other
professed Christians, therefore, has never been the true gospel. Said
The Watchtower of May 1, 1981, on page 17:
Let the honest-hearted person compare the kind of preaching
of the gospel of the Kingdom done by the religious systems of
Christendom during all the centuries with that done by Jehovah’s
Witnesses since the end of World War I in 1918. They are not one
and the same kind. That of Jehovah’s Witnesses is really “gospel,”
or “good news,” as of God’s heavenly kingdom that was established by the
enthronement of his Son Jesus Christ at the end of the Gentile Times in 1914.
[Italics mine.]
In agreement with this, The Watchtower of May 1, 1982, stated
that, “of all religions on earth, Jehovah’s Witnesses are the only
ones today that are telling the people of earth this ‘good news’.”
(Page 10) A Jehovah’s Witness who attempts to tone down the role
of chronology in the Society’s teaching simply does not realize that
he or she thereby radically undermines the major message of the
movement. Such a “toning down” is not sanctioned by the
1 The designations “B.C.E.” (Before the Common Era) and “C.E.” (Common Era)
customarily used by Jehovah’s Witnesses, correspond to “B.C” and “A.D.” They are
often used in scholarly literature, especially by Jewish authors, and have been
adopted by the Watch Tower Society , as will be seen in the subsequent quotations
from the Watch Tower publications . For the sake of consistency, these
designations, B.C.E. and C.E., are regularly used in this work, the exception being
where material is quoted in which the B.C. and A.D. designations are employed.
Introduction 5
Watch Tower leadership. On the contrary, The Watchtower of

January 1, 1983, page 12, emphasized that “the ending of the
Gentile Times in the latter half of 1914 still stands on a historical
basis as one of the fundamental Kingdom truths to which we must hold
today.”2
The hard reality is that the Watch Tower Society views rejection
of the chronology pointing to 1914 as a sin having fatal
consequences. That God’s kingdom was established at the end of
the “Gentile times” in 1914 is stated to be “the most important
event of our time,” beside which “all other things pale into
insignificance.”3 Those who reject the calculation are said to incur
the wrath of God. Among them are “the clergy of Christendom”
and its members, who, because they do not subscribe to that date,
are said to have rejected the kingdom of God and therefore will be
“destroyed in the ‘great tribulation’ just ahead.”4 Members of
Jehovah’s Witnesses who openly question or discard the calculation
run the risk of very severe treatment. If they do not repent and
change their minds, they will be disfellowshipped and classified as
evil “apostates,” who will “go, at death, . . . to Gehenna,” with no
hope of a future resurrection.5 It makes no difference if they still
believe in God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ. When one of the
readers of The Watchtower wrote and asked, “Why have Jehovah’s
Witnesses disfellowshipped (excommunicated) for apostasy some
2 Italics and emphasis added. The Watch Tower Society’s former president, Frederick
W. Franz, in the morning Bible discussion for the headquarters family on
November 17, 1979, stressed even more forcefully the importance of the 1914 date
by saying: “The sole purpose of our existence as a Society is to announce the
Kingdom established in 1914 and to sound the warning of the fall of Babylon the
Great. We have a special message to deliver.” (Raymond Franz, In Search of
Christian Freedom, Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1991, pp. 32, 33).
3 The Watchtower, January 1, 1988, pp. 10, 11.
4 The Watchtower, September 1, 1985, pp. 24, 25.
5 The Watchtower, April 1, 1982, p. 27. In The Watchtower of July 15, 1992, page 12,
such dissidents are described as “enemies of God” who are “intensely hating
Jehovah.” The Witnesses, therefore, are urged to “hate” them “with a complete
hatred.” This exhortation was repeated in The Watchtower of October 1, 1993, page
19, where the “apostates” are stated to be so “rooted in evil” that “wickedness has
become an inseparable part of their nature.” The Witnesses are even told to ask
God to kill them, in imitation of the psalmist David, who prayed of his enemies: “O
that you, O God, would slay the wicked one!” In this way the Witnesses “leave it to
Jehovah to execute vengeance” Such rancorous attacks on former members of the
organization reflect an attitude that is exactly the reverse of that recommended by
Jesus in his Sermon on the Mount.—Matthew 5:43–48.
who still profess belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ?” the
Society answered, among other things:
Approved association with Jehovah’s Witnesses requires
accepting the entire range of the true teachings of the Bible,
including those Scriptural beliefs that are unique to Jehovah’s
Witnesses. What do such beliefs include? . . . That 1914 marked the
end of the Gentile times and the establishment of the Kingdom of God in the
heavens, as well as the time for Christ’s foretold presence. [Italics mine]6
No one, therefore, who repudiates the calculation that the
“Gentile times” expired in 1914, is approved by the Society as one
of Jehovah’s Witnesses. In fact, even one who secretly abandons the
Society’s chronology and thus may still formally be regarded as one
of Jehovah’s Witnesses, has, in reality, rejected the essential
message of the Watch Tower Society and, according to the
organization’s own criterion, is factually no longer a part of the
movement.
How this research began
For one of Jehovah’s Witnesses to question the validity of this
basic prophetic calculation is, then, no easy matter. To many
believers, especially in a closed religious system such as the Watch
Tower organization, the doctrinal system functions as a sort of
“fortress” inside which they may seek shelter, in the form of
spiritual and emotional security. If some part of that doctrinal
structure is questioned, such believers tend to react emotionally;
they take a defensive attitude, sensing that their “fortress” is under
attack and that their security is threatened. This defense mechanism
makes it very difficult for them to listen to and examine the
arguments on the matter objectively. Unwittingly, their need for
emotional security has become more important to them than their
respect for truth.
To reach behind this defensive attitude so common among
Jehovah’s Witnesses in order to find open, listening minds is
extremely difficult—especially when so basic a tenet as the
“Gentile times” chronology is being questioned. For such
questioning rocks the very foundations of the Witness doctrinal
system and therefore often causes Witnesses at all levels to become
belligerently defensive. I have repeatedly experienced such
reactions ever since 1977 when I first presented the material in this
volume to the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses.
6 The Watchtower, April 1, 1986, pp. 30,31.
Introduction 7
It was in 1968 that the present study began. At the time, I was a
“pioneer” or full-time evangelist for Jehovah’s Witnesses. In the
course of my ministry, a man with whom I was conducting a Bible
study challenged me to prove the date the Watch Tower Society
had chosen for the desolation of Jerusalem by the Babylonians, that
is 607 B.C.E. He pointed out that all historians marked that event
as having occurred about twenty years later, in either 587 or 586
B.C.E. I was well aware of this, but the man wanted to know the
reasons why historians preferred the latter date. I indicated that
their dating surely was nothing but a guess, based on defective
ancient sources and records. Like other Witnesses, I assumed that
the Society’s dating of the desolation of Jerusalem to 607 B.C.E.
was based on the Bible and therefore could not be upset by those
secular sources. However, I promised the man I would look into
the matter.
As a result, I undertook a research that turned out to be far
more extensive and thoroughgoing than I had expected. It
continued periodically for several years, from 1968 until the end of
1975. By then the growing burden of evidence against the 607
B.C.E. date forced me reluctantly to conclude that the Watch
Tower Society was wrong.
Thereafter, for some time after 1975, the evidence was discussed
with a few close, research-minded friends. Since none of them
could refute the evidence demonstrated by the data I had collected,
I decided to develop a systematically composed treatise on the
whole question which I determined to send to the headquarters of
the Watch Tower Society at Brooklyn, New York.
That treatise was prepared and sent to the Governing Body of
Jehovah’s Witnesses in 1977. The present work, which is based on
that document, was revised and expanded during 1981 and then
published in a first edition in 1983. During the years that have
passed since 1983, many new finds and observations relevant to the
subject have been made, and the most important of these have
been incorporated in the last two editions. The seven lines of
evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date presented in the first edition,
for example, have now been more than doubled.
Correspondence with the Watch Tower headquarters
In 1977 I began to correspond with the Governing Body
concerning my research. It soon became very evident that they
were unable to refute the evidence produced. In fact, there was not
even an attempt made to do so until February 28, 1980. In the
meantime, however, I was repeatedly cautioned not to reveal my

findings to others. For example, in a letter from the Governing
Body dated January 17, 1978, the following warning was given:
However, no matter how strong the argumentation may
be in support of those views, they must, for the
present, be regarded as your personal viewpoint. It is
not something that you should talk about or try to
advance among other members of the congregation.7
And further, in a letter dated May 15, 1980, they stated:

We are sure you appreciate that it would not be
appropriate for you to begin to state your views and
conclusions on chronology that are different than
those published by the Society so as to raise serious
questions and problems among the brothers.8
I accepted such advice, as I was given the impression that my

spiritual brothers at the Watch Tower headquarters needed time to
reexamine the whole subject thoroughly. In their first reply to my
treatise, dated August 19, 1977, they had stated: “We are sorry that
the press of work here has not allowed us to give it the attention
we would like to up to the present time.” And in the letter of
January 17,1978, they wrote:
We have not had the opportunity of examining this material as
yet, as other urgent matters are occupying our attention.
However, we will look into this material when we have the
opportunity.... You can be assured that your views will be
examined by responsible brothers.... In due course we hope to
look into your treatise and evaluate what is contained therein.
Judging from these and similar statements, Watch Tower

officials at the Brooklyn headquarters seemed prepared to examine
the data presented to them honestly and objectively. In a very short
time, however, the whole matter took quite a different course.
Interrogation and defamation
Early in August, 1978, Albert D. Schroeder, a member of the
Governing Body, held a meeting in Europe with representatives
7 Names of the authors of letters from the Watch Tower Society are never given.
Instead, internal symbols are used. The symbol “GEA” in the upper left corner of
this letter shows that the author was Lloyd Barry, one of the members of the
Governing Body.
8. The symbol “EF” shows the writer of this letter to have been Fred Rusk of the
Writing Department.
Introduction 9
from European Watch Tower branch offices. At that meeting, he

told the audience that there was a campaign going on both inside
the movement and from outside to have the Society’s 607 B.C.E.–
1914 C.E. chronology overthrown.9 The Society, however, had no
intention of abandoning it, he stated.
Three weeks later, on September 2, I was summoned to a
hearing before two representatives of the Watch Tower Society in
Sweden, Rolf Svensson, one of the two district overseers in the
country, and Hasse Hulth, a circuit overseer. I was told that they
had been commissioned by the Society’s branch office to hold such
a hearing because “the brothers” at the Brooklyn headquarters
were deeply concerned about my treatise. Once again I was
cautioned not to spread the information I had gathered. Rolf
Svensson also told me that the Society did not need or want
individual Jehovah’s Witnesses to become involved in research of
this kind.
Partly as a result of this meeting, I resigned from my position as
an elder in the local congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses and also
from all my other tasks and assignments in the congregation and
the circuit. I did this in the form of a lengthy letter, addressed to
the local eldership and the circuit overseer, Hasse Hulth, in which I
briefly explained the reasons for the position I had taken. Soon it
became widely known among my Witness brothers in different
parts of Sweden that I had rejected the chronology of the Society.
In the following months, I and others who had questioned the
chronology began to be condemned privately as well as from the
platforms of Kingdom Halls (congregational meeting places) and at
Witness assemblies or conventions. We were publicly characterized
in the most negative terms as “rebellious,” “presumptuous”, “false
prophets,” “small prophets who have worked out their own little
chronology,” and “heretics.” We were called “dangerous elements
in the congregations,” “evil slaves,” “blasphemers,” as well as
“immoral, lawless ones.” Privately, some of our Witness brothers,
including a number of the Watch Tower Society’s traveling
representatives, also intimated that we were “demon-possessed,”
that we had “flooded the Society with criticism” and that we
“should have been disfellowshipped long ago” These are just a
9 Except for my treatise, which came from inside the movement, Schroeder could
have had in mind two non-Witness publications which attack the Society’s
chronology: The Jehovah’s Witnesses and Prophetic Speculation, by Edmund C.
Gross (Nutley, N. J.: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1972), and 1914
and Christ’s Second Coming by William MacCarty (Washington, D. C.: Review and
Herald Publishing Association, 1975).
Introduction 11
few examples of the widespread defamation, one that has gone on

ever since, although no names, for obvious legal reasons, have ever
been mentioned publicly.
That such obvious slander was not just a local phenomenon, but
had the sanction of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses,
was evident from the fact that similar statements were printed in
The Watchtower magazine.10
This description of the situation that developed has not been
given in order to criticize Jehovah’s Witnesses as individuals. These
people are usually kind and sincere in their belief. The description
has rather been given to illustrate how easily an individual may
unwittingly fall prey to the irrational, psychological reactions
described earlier in this introduction. In a letter to Albert
Schroeder, dated December 6, 1978, I described the new turn of
events, calling attention to the sad fact that although my treatise
had been composed with the greatest thoughtfulness and sent to
the Society in all sincerity, I had become the victim of
backstabbing, vilification and character assassination:
How tragic, then, to observe how a situation develops, where
the attention is drawn away from the question raised— the validity
of the 607 B .C.E. date—and directed to the person who raised it,
and he—not the question — is regarded as the problem! How is it
possible that a situation of this kind develops in our movement?
The answer to this question, one to which the Society never
officially responded, is to be found in the psychological defense
mechanism described by Dr. H. Dale Baumbach:
Insecure individuals, when faced with a problem which
highlights their insecurity, instinctively respond by attempting to
10 Abandoning the 607 B.C.E.–1914 C.E. calculation also implies abandoning those
interpretations founded upon it such as the idea that God’s kingdom was
established in 1914 and that Christ’s “invisible presence” began in that year. Of
Jehovah’s Witnesses who cannot embrace such views, The Watchtower of July 15,
1979, stated on page 13: “Lawless persons have even tried to penetrate the true
Christian congregation, arguing that the ‘promised presence’ of our Lord is not in
this day . . . Persons of this kind are included in Jesus’ warning recorded at
Matthew 7:15–23: ‘Be on the watch for the false prophets that come to you in
sheep’s covering, but inside they are ravenous wolves. . . . In that day I will confess
to them: I never knew you! Get away from me, you workers of lawlessness.”
Further, The Watchtower of August 1,1980, page 19, said: “Peter was also speaking
of the danger of being led away’ by some within the Christian congregation who
would become ‘ridiculers,’ making light of the fulfillment of prophecies concerning
Christ’s ‘presence’ and adopting a law-defying attitude toward ‘the faithful and
discreet slave,’ the Governing Body of the Christian congregation and the
appointed elders” [Italics mine] See also paragraph 11 on the same page and
paragraph 14 on page 20 of the same issue.
destroy that which addresses their insecurity or to banish it to the

recesses of the mind.11
Awareness of this defense mechanism, it is hoped, will help
those readers who are associated with Jehovah’s Witnesses to
examine the evidence presented in this work with due
consideration and an open mind.
Eventually the Watch Tower Society did attempt to refute the
evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date, but this was not done until a
special representative of the Governing Body in Sweden had
written to the Society asking them to provide an answer to the
content of the treatise sent to them, telling them that the author was
still waiting for a reply. This representative was the coordinator of
the Society’s work in Sweden, Bengt Hanson.
Hanson had paid me a visit on December 11, 1979, to discuss
the situation that had developed. During our discussion, he was
brought to realize that it was the evidence I had presented to the
Society against the 607 B.C.E. date—not me, my motives or
attitude—that was the real issue. If the evidence against the 607
B.C.E. date was valid, this was a problem that should be of equal
concern to every Witness in the organization. Under such
circumstances, my personal attitude and motives were as irrelevant
as those of other Witnesses.
As a result of this, early in 1980, Hanson wrote a letter to the
Governing Body explaining the situation, telling them that I was
still waiting for a reply to the evidence I had brought against their
chronology. And so, at long last, nearly three years after my
sending them the research material, in a letter dated February 28,
1980, an attempt was made to tackle the question instead of the
questioner.
The argumentation presented, however, turned out to be largely
a repetition of earlier arguments found in various places in the
Watch Tower Society’s literature, arguments which had already been
demonstrated in the treatise to be unsatisfactory. In a letter dated March
31, 1980, I answered their arguments and added two new lines of
evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date. Thus the Society not only
11 Spectrum, Vol. 11, No.4, 1981, p.63. (This journal was published by the
Associations of Adventist Forums, Box 4330, Takoma Park, Maryland, U.S.A.) The
Awake! magazine of November 22, 1984, similarly explained that such behaviour
is a sign of “a closed mind,” saying: “For example, if we are unable to defend our
religious views , we may find ourselves lashing out against those who challenge
our beliefs, not with logical arguments, but with slurs and innuendos . This
smacks of prejudice and of a closed mind.” (Page 4; compare also the Awake! of
May 22, 1990, page 12.)
Introduction 13
failed to defend its position successfully, but the evidence against it

also became considerably stronger.
No further attempt to deal with the whole matter was made by
the Society until the summer of 1981, when a short discussion of it
appeared as an “Appendix” to the book “Let Your Kingdom Come”
(pages 186–189). This latest discussion added nothing new to the
earlier arguments, and to anyone who has carefully studied the
subject of ancient chronology, it appears to be no more than a
feeble attempt to save an untenable position by concealing facts.
This is clearly demonstrated in the last chapter of this present
work, titled “Attempts to overcome the evidence.” The contents of
the Watch Tower Society’s “Appendix,” however, finally convinced
me that the leaders of this organization were clearly not prepared to let facts
interfere with traditional fundamental doctrines.
”Waiting upon Jehovah”
It may be noted that while the Society’s officers feel perfectly free
to publish any argument in support of their chronology, they have
gone to great lengths to try to keep Jehovah’s Witnesses at large in
ignorance of the heavy burden of evidence against it. Thus they had
not only repeatedly cautioned me not to share my evidence against
the 607 B.C.E. date with others, but they have also supported the
widespread defamation of any and all Jehovah’s Witnesses who
have questioned the organization’s chronology. This mode of
procedure is not only unfair towards those who have questioned it;
it is also most unfair towards Jehovah’s Witnesses in general. They
have a right to hear both sides of the issue and learn all the facts.
That is why I decided to publish The Gentile Times Reconsidered.
Interestingly, various arguments have been advanced by
representatives of the Watch Tower Society to justify the position
that facts and evidence which go contrary to its teachings should
not be made known among Jehovah’s Witnesses. One line of
reasoning goes as follows: Jehovah reveals the truth gradually
through his “faithful and ‘discreet slave” class, whom Christ has
appointed “over all his belongings.” (Matthew 24:47, NW) This
“slave” class expresses itself through those who oversee the
publishing and writing of Watch Tower literature. We should,
therefore, wait upon Jehovah—wait, in other words, until the
organization publishes “new truths.” Anyone who “runs ahead” of
the organization is therefore presumptuous, for he thinks he knows
better than “the faithful and discreet slave.”
Such an argument, however, is invalid if the Society’s suppositions

regarding Bible chronology are wrong. How so? Because the very concept
that it is possible today to identify a “faithful and discreet slave
class,” whom Christ, as the “master” in the parable at Matthew
24:45–47, has appointed “over all his belongings,” rests
unequivocally on the chronological calculation that the “master” arrived
in 1914 and made such an appointment a few years later in 1919.
If, as will be shown in this work, the Gentile times did not end in
1914, then the basis for claiming that Christ returned in that year
disappears, and Watch Tower leaders cannot claim to have been
appointed “over all his belongings” in 1919. If this is so, neither
can they rightfully claim a divinely-assigned monopoly on
publishing “the truth.”
It should also be noted that it is the “master” of the parable
who, on his arrival, decides who is “the faithful and discreet slave,”
not the slaves themselves. So, for a group of individuals to claim—in
the “master’s” absence—to be “the faithful and discreet slave,”
elevating themselves over all the master’s “belongings,” is itself
grossly presumptuous. On the other hand, an individual who claims for
himself no lofty position can hardly be regarded as presumptuous if
he publishes information that contradicts some of the teachings of
the Watch Tower Society.
To “wait upon Jehovah,” of course, is the duty of every
Christian. Unfortunately, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society,
like many other apocalyptic movements, has time and again
“announced” that the time has come for the fulfillment of God’s
prophecies, doing this in each case without regard to God’s own
“times and seasons” for their fulfillment. This has been the case
ever since the very beginning in the 1870s.
When the leaders of the Watch Tower movement for about 55
years (1876–1931) persistently taught that Christ had arrived
invisibly in 1874, were they setting an example of “waiting upon
Jehovah”?
When they taught that the “remnant” of Christ’s church would
be changed (1 Thessalonians 4:17), first in 1878, then in 1881, then
in 1914, then in 1915, then in 1918, and then again in 1925, did
they “wait upon Jehovah”?12
12 The Watch Tower, February 1, 1916, p. 38; September 1, 1916, pp. 264, 265; July
1, 1920, p. 203.
Introduction 15
When they taught that the end of the present system of things
would come in 1914, then in 1918–20, then in 1925, then about
1941–42, and then again about 1975, were they “waiting upon
Jehovah”?13
If 1914 is not the terminal point of the “Gentile times” as the
Watch Tower Society continues to hold, then the numerous
current “prophetic” applications stemming from it are additional
proofs that the Society still is not prepared to “wait upon Jehovah.”
In that light and under such circumstances it seems a bit misplaced
to advise others to “wait upon Jehovah.” The one who genuinely
wants to wait upon Jehovah cannot simply wait until the leaders of
the Watch Tower Society are prepared to do that. If, upon careful
consideration of the evidence he comes to the conclusion that the
Watch Tower Society has produced, within the framework of its
chronology, a clearly arbitrary “fulfillment” of Bible prophecy in
our time, then he needs to dissociate himself from the persistent
attempts made to impose that arbitrary position on others as
required belief. Then he could rightly be said to be prepared to
start “waiting upon Jehovah.”
The expulsion
For over a century the Watch Tower publications have been filled
with a massive and continuous criticism of the errors and evils of
other Christian denominations. Even if this criticism often has
been sweeping and superficial, it has not infrequently also hit the
target. The Watch Tower literature often has denounced the
intolerance shown in the past by various churches against dissident
members. “Christendom has had it fanatics—from people who set
themselves on fire in political protest to individuals acting intolerantly
toward those holding different religious views,” noted The Watchtower of July
15, 1987, page 28. This kind of intolerance found a frightening
expression in the Inquisition, which was established by the Roman
Catholic Church in the 13th century and lasted for over six
centuries. The word “Inquisition” is derived from the Latin word
inquisition, meaning “examination.” It is briefly described as “a
court established by the Roman Catholic Church in order to
13 The Time Is At Hand (= Vol. 2 of the series Studies in the Scriptures, published in
1889), pp. 76-78; The Finished Mystery (= Vol. 7 of Studies in the Scriptures,
published in 1917), pp. 129,178,258,404,542; Millions Now Living Will Never Die!
(1920), p. 97; The Watchtower, Sept. 9, 1941,p. 288; Awake!, Oct. 8, 1966, pp. 19,
20; The Watchtower, May 1, 1968, pp. 271–272.
discover and punish heretics and apostates.”14 What was the

situation of the people under this intolerant clergy rule? The
Watchtower of September 1, 1989, explains on page 3:
No one was free to worship as he pleased or to express
opinions conflicting with those of the clergy. This clerical
intolerance created a climate of fear throughout Europe. The
church established the Inquisition to root out individuals who
dared to hold different views.
Such statements might give the impression that the Watch Tower
Society, in contrast to the Roman Catholic Church in the Middle
Ages, acts with tolerance toward members who “hold different
religious views” and defends their right to express opinions
conflicting with the teachings of the organization. The truth is,
however, that this organization takes exactly the same attitude to
members holding different religious opinions as did the medieval
Catholic Church. “Beware of those who try to put forward their
own contrary opinions,” cautioned The Watchtower of March 15,
1986, page 17. In answer to the question why Jehovah’s Witnesses
have “disfellowshipped (excommunicated) for apostasy some who
still profess belief in God, the Bible, and Jesus Christ,” the Watch
Tower Society said:
Those who voice such an objection point out that many
religious organizations claiming to be Christian allow dissident
views. . . . However, such examples provide no grounds for our
doing the same. . . . Teaching dissident or divergent views is not
compatible with true Christianity.15
The Watch Tower Society has even established examination
courts similar to those organized by the Roman Catholic Church in
the Middle Ages, the only essential difference being that the
Society’s “judicial committees” have no legal authority to torture
their victims physically. I knew that the conclusions I had reached
would eventually cause me to be tried and expelled by such a
“court of inquisition,” provided that I did not leave the
organization of my own accord before that. But I knew, too, that
the consequences in both cases would be the same.
After twenty-six years as an active Jehovah’s Witness I was now,
in 1982, prepared to leave the Watch Tower organization. It was
quite clear to me that this would mean a complete break with the
14 The Swedish encyclopaedia Nordisk Familjebok, Vo1.11 (Malmö: Förlagshuset
Norden AB, 1953), p. 35.
15 The Watchtower, April 1, 1986, pp. 30, 31.
Introduction 17
whole social world I had been a part of during all those years. The
rules of the Watch Tower Society require Jehovah’s Witnesses to
cut off all contacts with those who break with the organization,
whether this break occurs by excommunication or by a voluntary
resignation. I knew that I would not only lose virtually all my
friends, but also all my relatives within the organization (of which
there were over seventy, including a brother and two sisters with
their families, cousins and their families, and so on). I would be
regarded and treated as “dead,” even if my physical “execution”
would have to be postponed until the imminent “battle of
Armageddon,” a battle in which the Witnesses expect Jehovah God
to annihilate forever all who are not associated with their
organization.16
For some time I had been trying to prepare myself emotionally
for this break. My plan was to publish my treatise as a public
farewell to the movement. However, I did not manage to get the
material ready for publication before a letter arrived from the
Watch Tower Society’s branch office in Sweden, dated May 4,
1982. The letter was a summons to an examination before a
“judicial committee” consisting of four representatives of the
Society, who had been appointed, the letter said, to “find out about
your attitude toward our belief and the organization.”17
I realized that my days within the organization now were
numbered, and that I might not be able to get my treatise ready in
time for publication. In a letter to the branch office I tried to have
the meeting with the judicial committee postponed. I pointed out
that, as they very well knew, the grounds for my “attitude toward
our belief and the organization” consisted of the evidence I had
presented against the Society’s chronology, and if they genuinely
16 The disfellowshipping (excommunication) rules are discussed, for instance, in The
Watchtower, September 15, 1981, pages 16–31, and in The Watchtower, April
15,1988, pages 27, 28. With respect to the impending destruction of the present
world system The Watchtower of September 1, 1989, states on page 19: “Only
Jehovah’s Witnesses, those of the anointed remnant and the ‘great crowd’, as a
united organization under the protection of the Supreme Organizer, have an
Scriptural hope of surviving the impending end of this doomed system dominated
by Satan, the Devil.” (Compare also The Watchtower, September 15, 1988, pages
14, 15)
17 The action was probably taken at the request of the headquarters in Brooklyn, New
York. As Raymond Franz, who was a member of the Governing Body until Spring,
1980, wrote to me afterwards in a letter dated August ‘7, 1982: “I suppose it was
somewhat of a foregone conclusion that the Society would take action toward you.
In my own case, I feel that it had to be only a matter of time unti1 they did
something about me, no matter how low a profile I kept. I would not doubt that in
your case the Branch office contacted Brooklyn and was advised to take action.”
wanted to change my attitude, they had to start with the burden of

evidence that was the basis for it. I requested, therefore, that the
members of the committee be allowed to make a thorough
examination of my treatise. After that we might reasonably have a
meaningful meeting.
But neither the branch office nor the four members of the
judicial committee showed any interest in the kind of discussion I
had proposed, and they did not even comment on the conditions I
had stated for having a meaningful meeting with them. In a brief
letter they just repeated the summons to the committee
examination. It seemed obvious that I was already judged in
advance, and that the trial I had been summoned to would only be
a meaningless and macabre farce. I therefore chose to stay away
from the examination and was consequently judged and
disfellowshipped in my absence on June 9, 1982.
Attempting to gain time I appealed the decision. A so-called
“appeal committee” of four new members was appointed, and
once again I repeated in a letter the conditions I found reasonable
for having a meaningful conversation with them. The letter was not
even answered. On July 7, 1982, therefore, the new committee met
for another sham trial in my absence, and as expected it just
confirmed the decision of the first committee. In both instances
the sole “judicial” issue considered obviously was, Did I or did I
not agree totally with Watch Tower teaching? The question of
whether the reasons for my position were valid was simply treated
as irrelevant.
Are the conclusions destructive of faith?
As pointed out earlier, the conclusions arrived at in this work upset
the central claims and apocalyptic interpretations of the Watch
Tower Society. Such conclusions, therefore, could cause some
unrest among Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the leaders of the Society
clearly feared that their dissemination would disrupt the unity of
their flock. I was well aware that my efforts would be interpreted
by Watch Tower officials as an attempt to destroy faith and to
disrupt the unity of the “true Christian congregation.” But faith
should rightly be in harmony with truth, with fact, and this includes
historical facts. Thus I felt confident that publishing the facts on
the subject at hand would not disturb peace and unity among those
who are truly Christians. True unity is founded upon love among
them, for love is the “perfect bond of union.”— Colossians 3:14.
On the other hand, there is also a false unity, founded, not upon
love, but upon fear. Such “unity” is characteristic of authoritarian
Introduction 19
organizations, political as well as religious. It is a mechanistic unity

enforced by the leaders of such organizations who want to
maintain their authority and keep control over individuals—a unity
that does not depend on truth. In such organizations, individuals
relinquish to central authorities their right and responsibility to
think, speak, and act freely. Since the evidence and the conclusions
that are presented in this work overthrow the authoritarian claims
of the Watch Tower Society, the publication of this work may be a
threat to the enforced unity within this organization. But the true
unity founded upon love among Christian individuals, whose
“fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ,” will
surely not be affected by this.—John 17:21–23; 1 John 1:3, NIV.
Thus, even if the prophetic claims and interpretations of the
Watch Tower Society are found to be groundless, nothing of real
value will be lost when these things dissolve and disappear. A
Christian still has God’s Word, the real source of truth and hope.
Christ is still his Lord, his only hope for future life. And he will still
enjoy Christian peace and unity, with his Father, with Jesus Christ,
and with those individuals on earth who turn out to be his true
brothers and sisters. Even if he were to be expelled from an
authoritarian religious system because he accepts what he clearly
sees to be true, Christ will not forsake him, for he said: “Where two
or three come together in my name, there I am with them.” (John
9:30,34–39; Matthew 18:20, NW) The answer to the question,
“Where shall we go without the organization?” is still the same as
at the time of the apostles, when Peter said: “Lord, whom shall we
go away to? You have sayings of everlasting life.” (John 6:68) It is
Christ, not an organization, who has “sayings of everlasting life.”18
During the years that have passed since this research started, I
have come to know, personally or by letter, a growing number of
Jehovah’s Witnesses at different levels of the Watch Tower
organization who have examined thoroughly the question of
chronology and independently arrived at the same conclusions that
are presented in this volume. Some of these men tried very hard to
defend the Society’s chronology before they were forced by the
biblical and historical evidence to abandon it. Among such were
members of the Watch Tower research committee appointed to
18 In the Watch Tower Society’s comments on this text, the “organization” has been
substituted for Christ as the one to whom one should go to find “everlasting life.”
See for example The Watchtower, February 15, 1981, page 19, and December 1,
1981, page 31.
produce the Society’s Bible dictionary, Aid to Bible Understanding.

The section on chronology in this work on pages 322 through 348
is still the most able and thorough discussion of Watch Tower
chronology ever published by that organization.19 Yet the
individual who wrote the article in question ultimately came to
realize that the Society’s 607 B.C.E. date for the fall of Jerusalem to
the Babylonians could not be defended, and later he abandoned it
altogether, with all the calculations and teachings founded upon it.
In a letter to me, he stated:
In developing the subject ‘Chronology’ for Aid to Bible
Understanding, the Neo-Babylonian period, extending from the
reign of Nebuchadnezzar’s father Nabopolassar to the reign of
Nabonidus and the fall of Babylon, presented a particular problem.
As Jehovah’s Witnesses, we were obviously interested in finding
and presenting some evidence, however small, in support of the
year 607 B.C.E. as the date of the destruction of Jerusalem in
Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth year. I was well aware of the fact
that historians consistently point to a time some twenty years later
and that they place the start of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign in 605
B.C.E. (his accession year) rather than 625 B.C.E., the date used in
Watch Tower publications. I knew that the 607 B.C.E. date was
crucial to the Society’s interpretation of the ‘seven times’ of Daniel
chapter four as pointing to the year 1914 C.E.
A large amount of research went into the effort. At that time
(1968), Charles Ploeger, a member of the Watch Tower
headquarters staff, was assigned as an assistant to me. He spent
many weeks searching through the libraries of New York City for
any sources of information that might give some validity to the
date of 607 B.C.E. as the time of Jerusalem’s destruction. We also
went to Brown University to interview Dr. A. J. Sachs, a specialist
in astronomical texts relating to the Neo-Babylonian and adjoining
periods. None of these efforts produced any evidence in support
of the 607 B.C.E. date.
19 Aid to Bible Understanding was published in its entirety in 1971. A slightly revised
edition in two volumes was published in 1988. The most important new feature is
the addition of visual aids (maps, pictures, photographs, etc.), all in full color. The
name of the dictionary was changed, however, to Insight on the Scriptures,
evidently because the three principal authors, Raymond Franz, Edward Dunlap,
and Reinhard Lengtat, left the headquarters in 1980, and that two of them, Franz
and Dunlap, were disfellowshipped because of their divergent views. In Insight on
the Scriptures, more than half of the contents of the original article on
“Chronology” has been cut off (see Vol. 1, pp. 447–467), the reason likely being the
information on the subject presented in the treatise sent to the headquarters in
1977, along with a recognition of the tenuous nature of the organization’s claims.
Introduction 21
In view of this, in writing the article on ‘Chronology’ I devoted

a considerable portion of the material to efforts at showing the
uncertainties existent in ancient historical sources, including not
only Babylonian sources but also Egyptian, Assyrian and Medo-
Persian. Though I still believe that a number of the points
presented as to such uncertainties are valid, I know that the
argumentation was born of a desire to uphold a date for which
there was simply no historical evidence. If the historical evidence
did, in fact, contradict some clear statement in Scripture I would
not hesitate to hold to the Scriptural account as the more reliable.
But I realize that the issue is not some contradiction of clear
Scriptural statement but contradiction of an interpretation placed
upon portions of Scripture, giving to them a meaning that is not
stated in the Bible itself. The uncertainties that are to be found in
such human interpretations are certainly equal to the
uncertainties to be found in chronological accounts of ancient
history.20
Acknowledgements
Before this introduction is concluded, I would like to thank the
many knowledgeable persons all over the world, some of whom
were still active Jehovah’s Witnesses at the time the treatise was
written, who, by their encouragement, suggestions, criticism and
questions have greatly contributed to this treatise. First among
these I should mention Rud Persson in Ljungbyhed, Sweden, who
participated in the work from an early stage and who more than
anyone else assisted in these respects. Other friends of the same
background, especially James Penton and Raymond Franz, have
been of great help in preparing the book for publication by
polishing my English and grammar.
With respect to the ideo-historical section (chapter one), my
contacts with Swedish scholar Dr. Ingemar Lindén stimulated my
interest and initiated my research in this area. Alan Feuerbacher,
Beaverton, Oregon (now in Fort Collins, Colorado) provided
important documents for this section. For the chapters on Neo-
Babylonian chronology (chapters three and four) the contacts with
authorities on the Babylonian cuneiform texts have been of
invaluable help. This applies particularly to Professor D. J.
Wiseman in England, who is a leading expert on the Neo-
Babylonian period; Mr. C. B. F. Walker, Deputy Keeper in the
Department of the Ancient Near East in the British Museum,
20 Raymond Franz, former Governing Body member, wrote this letter, dated June 12,
1982.
London; Professor Abraham J. Sachs in the U.S.A; Professor

Hermann Hunger in Austria, who since the death of Abraham
Sachs in 1983 is the leading expert on Babylonian astronomical
observational texts; Dr. John M. Steele in Toronto, Canada, and
Dr. Beatrice André at the Louvre Museum in Paris. On the
exegetical sections (chapters 5–7), finally, a number of capable
linguists and Hebraists willingly shared their expertise, especially
Dr. Seth Erlandsson in Västerås, Sweden; Dr. Tor Magnus Amble
and Dr. Hans M. Barstad, both in Oslo, Norway, and Professor
Ernst Jenni in Basel, Switzerland.
First of all, however, my thanks go to the God of the Bible, who
in the Old Testament from the time of Moses onwards carries the
personal name Yahweh or Jehovah, but whom we in the New
Testament meet and can approach as our heavenly Father, as this
research has been done under constant prayer for his help and
understanding. All honor goes to Him, since it is his Word of truth
that has been the basis of this study. Although certain religious
theories and interpretations were found to be untenable and had to
be rejected, his prophetic Word was confirmed, over and over
again, during the biblical and historical research connected with the
subject under discussion. This faith-strengthening experience has
been a real and lasting blessing to me. My hope is that the reader
will be blessed in a similar way.
Carl Olof Jonsson

Göteborg, Sweden, 1982
Revised in 1998 and 2004
1
THE HISTORY OF AN
INTERPRETATION
A LL IDEAS have a beginning. People who believe in an idea,

however, are often completely unaware of its background,
origin and development. Ignorance of that history may strengthen
the conviction that the idea is true, even when it is not. As happens
in other cases, this ignorance may provide fertile soil for fanaticism.
True, knowledge of the historical development of an idea does
not necessarily disprove it, but such knowledge does enable us to
improve our judgment of its validity. A clear example of an idea—
in this case, an interpretation — that is obscured by ignorance is a
widely-held concept concerning the “Gentile times” referred to by
Christ at Luke 21:24:
They will fall by the edge of the sword and be taken away as
captives among all nations; and Jerusalem will be trampled on by
the Gentiles, until the times of Gentiles are fulfilled.—NRSV.
Millions of persons internationally have come to accept the
belief that this prophetic statement definitely points to and is linked
with a specific date in the twentieth century and they even build
their present plans and future hopes on that belief. What is its
history?
The “year-day principle”
The length of the period called the “Gentile times” (translated “the
appointed times of the nations” in the Watch Tower Society’s New
World Translation) has been calculated by some expositors, including
the Watch Tower Society, to be 2,520 years. This calculation is
founded upon the so-called “year-day principle.” According to this
principle, in biblical time-related prophecies a day always stands for
23
From the Awake! magazine of October 8, 1973, page 18.

The calculation of the “times of the Gentiles” as a period
of 2,520 years, beginning in 607 B.C.E. and ending in
1914 C.E., is the chronological basis of the apocalyptic
message preached worldwide by the Watch Tower
Society.
a year, “just as on a map one inch may stand for one hundred
miles.”1 In the Bible there are two passages where prophetic
periods are explicitly counted that way: Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel
4:6.
In the first text, as punishment for their errors, the Israelites
were to wander in the desert for forty years, measured out by the
number of days the spies had spied out the land, forty days, “a day
for a year.”
In the second text Ezekiel was told to lie on his left side for 390
days and on his right side for 40 days, prophetically carrying the
errors of Israel and Judah committed during just as many years, “a
day for a year.”
It should be noted, however, that these specific interpretations
are given to us by the Bible itself. “A day for a year” is nowhere stated
to be a general principle of interpretation that applies also to other
prophetic periods.
The development of the concept that the year-day principle can
indeed apply to any time-related biblical prophecy has a long
history. The shifting nature of its application during that history
surely reveals something as to its reliability.
Its use by Jewish scholars
1 LeRoy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers (Washington, D.C.: Review
and Herald Publishing Association, 1948), Vol. II, p. 124.
24
The History of an Interpretation 25
Jewish rabbis were the first to begin applying this way of counting
prophetic time beyond the two references cited, and they did this
with the “seventy weeks” of Daniel 9:24–27, the first verse of
which states: “Seventy weeks are decreed for your people and your
holy city to finish the transgression, to put an end to sin, and to
atone for iniquity, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal both
vision and prophet, and to anoint a most holy place.”2
Despite this, the fact is that the “year-day” application was not
stated as a general principle until the first century C.E., by the rabbi,
Akibah ben Joseph (c. 50–132 C.E.).3
Hundreds of years passed and it was only at the beginning of the
ninth century that a number of Jewish rabbis began to extend the
year-day principle to other time periods in the book of Daniel.
These included the 2,300 “evenings and mornings” of Daniel 8:14,
and the 1,290 days and 1,335 days of Daniel 12:11, 12, all of which
were viewed as having Messianic implication.
The first of these rabbis, Nahawendi, considered the 2,300
“evenings and mornings” of Daniel 8:14 as years, counting them
from the destruction of Shiloh (which he dated to 942 B.C.E.) to
the year 1358 C.E. In that year he expected the Messiah would
come!4
Nahawendi was soon followed by others, such as Saadia ben
Joseph from the same century and Solomon ben Jeroham from the tenth
century. The latter applied the year-day principle to the 1,335 days
of Daniel 12:12. Counting them from the time of Alexander the
Great, he arrived at the year 968 C.E. as the date for the
redemption of Israel.
The famous rabbi, Rashi (1040–1105), ended the 2,300 year-days
in 1352 C.E., when he thought the Messiah would come.
2 While this prophecy speaks of weeks, this of itself does not mean that it lends
itself to an application of the “year-day principle.” To a Jew the Hebrew word for
“week,” shabû’a, did not always signify a period of seven days as in English.
Shabû’a literally means a “(period of) seven,” or a “heptad.” The Jews also had a
“seven” (shabû’a) of years. (Leviticus 25:3, 4, 8, 9) True, when “weeks of years”
were meant, the word for “years” was usually added. But in the later Hebrew this
word was often left to be understood as implied. When “weeks of days” were
meant, the word for “days” could sometimes be appended, as in the other passage
in Daniel where shabû’a is found. (10:2, 3) Daniel 9:24, therefore, simply asserts
that “seventy sevens are determined,” and from the context (the allusion to the
“seventy years” in verse 2) it may be concluded that “seventy sevens of years” are
intended. It is because of this apparent textual connection—and not because of
any “year-day principle”—that some translations (Moffatt, Goodspeed, AT, RS) read
“seventy weeks of years” in Daniel 9:24.
3 Froom, Vol. II, pp. 195, 196.
4 Ibid., p. 196. Nahawendi also counted the 1,290 days of Daniel 12:11 as a period
of years, beginning with the destruction of the second temple [70 C.E.] and
thereby arriving at the same date, 1358 C.E.
25
Abraham bar Hiyya Hanasi (c. 1065–1136) speculated that the

2,300-, the 1,290- and the 1,335-year periods would terminate on
different dates in the fifteenth century. The end of the 2,300 year-
days, for instance, was set at 1468 C.E .5
Even up into the nineteenth century, many other Jewish
scholars were continuing to use the year-day principle to fix dates
for the coming of the Messiah.
The methods the rabbinical scholars used in applying the year-
day principle during those ten centuries were varied and the dates
they arrived at differed. Whatever method employed, however, one
thing was true: all the end-dates eventually proved empty of
fulfillment.
Since the use of the year-day principle was relatively common
among Jewish sources from early centuries, was this also the case
among Christian Bible expositors?
Of greater interest, does the history of its use within the
Christian community—and the results obtained—demonstrate a
contrast, or does it follow a similar pattern? What has been its
fruitage?
The “year-day principle” among Christian expositors
As we have seen, rabbi Akibah ben Joseph had presented the year-
day method as a principle back in the first century C.E. We find no
application of it—in that way, as a principle—among Christian
scholars, however, for the following one thousand years.
True, several expositors from the fourth century onward
suggested a mystical or symbolic meaning for the 1,260 days of
Revelation, yet before the twelfth century they never applied the
year-day rule to those days, nor to any other time period, with the
sole exception of the 3 1/2 days of Revelation 11:9. That period
was interpreted to be 3 1/2 years by a number of expositors, the
first of whom was Victorinus in the fourth century.6 This, of course,
was far from holding to a year-day rule or principle.
Joachim of Floris (c. 1130–1202), abbot of the Cistercian
monastery in Corace, Italy, was most probably the first Christian
expositor to apply the year-day principle to the different time
periods of Daniel and Revelation. This was pointed out during the
19th century by Charles Maitland, a leading opponent of the idea, in
a number of works and articles. For example, in refuting those
holding that
5 Ibid., pp. 201, 210, 211.
6 E. B. Elliott, Honae Apocalypticae, 3rd ed. (London, 1847), Vol. III, pp. 233–240.
26
the 1,260 days of Revelation 11:3 were 1,260 years, Maitland

concluded, after a thorough investigation, that the system of the
1260 years “was never heard of till dreamed into the world by a
wild Abbot in 1190.”7
Though many nineteenth-century adherents of the year-day
principle tried to refute Maitland’s statement concerning the
novelty of the principle, all their attempts proved unsuccessful.
After a very thorough examination of all available sources, even the
most learned of his opponents, the Reverend E. B. Elliott, had to
admit that “for the first four centuries, the days mentioned in Daniel’s
and Apocalyptic prophecies respecting Antichrist were interpreted
literally as days, not as years, by the Fathers of the Christian
Church.”8 He thus had to agree with Maitland that Joachim of
Floris was the first Christian writer to apply the year-day principle
to the 1,260 days of Revelation 11:3 stating:
At the close of the 12th century Joachim Abbas, as we have just
seen, made a first and rude attempt at it: and in the 14th, the
Wycliffite Walter Brute followed.9
Joachim, who was probably influenced by Jewish rabbis,
counted the 1,260 “year-days” from the time of Christ and believed
that they would soon end in an “age of the Spirit.” Although he did
not fix a specific date for this, it seems that he looked forward to
the year 1260 C.E. After his death, that year came “to be
considered by Joachim’s followers as the fatal date that would
begin the new age, so much so that when it passed without any
notable event some ceased to believe any of his teachings.”10
Joachim’s works initiated a new tradition of interpretation, a
tradition in which the “year-day principle” was the very basis of
7 Charles Maitland, The Apostles’ School of Prophetic Interpretation (London, 1849),
pp. 37, 38
8 E. B. Elliott, Horae Apocalypticae, 3rd ed. (London, 1847), Vol. HI, p. 233.
9 Ibid., p. 240. The late Dr. LeRoy Edwin Froom, who was a modern defender of the
year-day theory, arrived at a similar conclusion in his massive four-volume work,
The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers. In Volume I (1950) on page 700, he states:
“Heretofore, for thirteen centuries the seventy weeks had been recognized generally
as weeks of years. But the first thousand years of the Christian Era did not
produce any further applications of the principle, among Christian writers, save
one or two glimpses of the ‘ten days’ of Revelation 2:10 as ten years of persecution,
and the three and a half days of Revelation 11 as three and a half years. But now
Joachim for the first time applied the year-day principle to the 1260-day prophecy.’
10 Froom, Vol. I, p. 716.
27
prophetic interpretations. During the following centuries

innumerable dates were fixed for Christ’s second advent, most of
them built upon the year-day principle. At the time of the
Reformation (in the sixteenth century), Martin Luther and most of
the other reformers believed in that principle, and it was largely
accepted among Protestant scholars far into the nineteenth century.
The principle applied to the Gentile times
As we have seen, Joachim of Floris applied the year-day principle
to the 1,260 days of Revelation 11:3. The preceding verse converts
this period into months, stating that “the nations . . . will trample
the holy city underfoot for forty-two months.” (Revelation 11:2,
NW) Since this prediction about the “holy city” closely parallels
Jesus’ words at Luke 21:24 that “Jerusalem will be trampled under
foot by the Gentiles, until the times of the Gentiles be fulfilled”
(NASB), some of Joachim’s followers soon began to associate the
“times of the Gentiles” with this calculated period in which the
1,260 days became 1,260 years.
However, because they believed that Revelation 11:2, 3 and 12:6,
14 dealt with the Christian church, Jerusalem or the “holy city”
usually was interpreted to mean the church of Rome.11 The period
of the “times of the Gentiles,” therefore, was thought to be the
period of the affliction of the church, the end of which affliction
was originally expected in 1260 C.E.
Others, however, believed the “holy city” to be the literal city of
Jerusalem. The well known scholastic physician, Arnold of Villanova
(c. 1235–1313), identified the Gentile times with the 1,290 days of
Daniel 12:11, converting them from 1290 days to 1290 years.
Counting these from the taking away of the Jewish sacrifices after
the destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 C.E., he
expected the end of the Gentile times in the fourteenth century.
The Crusades were still being waged in his day and Arnold linked
them with the hoped-for expiration of the Gentile times in the near
future, arguing that, unless the end of the times of the Gentiles was
near, how could the “faithful people” regain the Holy Land from
11 Ibid., pp. 717, 723, 726, 727. The information here is based on the work De
Seminibus Scripturarum, fol. 13v, col. 2 (as discussed in Froom), which was
written in 1205 A.D. The manuscript is known as Vat. Latin 3813.
28
the unbelievers?12
At the end of the fourteenth century, Walter Brute, one of John
Wycliffe’s followers in England offered yet another interpretation.
According to him, the “times of the Gentiles” were the period
when the Christian church was dominated by heathen rites and
customs. This apostasy, he held, started after the death of the last
apostle in about 100 C.E. and would continue for 1,260 years. This
period, and also the 1,290 “year-days,” which he reckoned from the
destruction of Jerusalem 30 years earlier (in 70 C.E.), had already
expired in his days. He wrote:
Now if any man will behold the Chronicles, he shall find, that
after the destruction of Jerusalem was accomplished, and after the
strong hand of the holy people was fully dispersed, and after the
placing of the abomination; that is to say, the Idol of Desolation of
Jerusalem, within the Holy place, where the Temple of God was
before, there had passed 1290 days, taking a day for a year, as
commonly it is taken in the Prophets. And the times of the
Heathen people are fulfilled, after whose Rites and Customs God
suffered the holy City to be trampled under foot for forty and two
months.13
Since the times of the Gentiles already had expired according to
his calculations, Brute thought that the second coming of Christ
must be right at hand.
Constantly changing dates
Time passed and left the many apocalyptic fixed dates behind, the
predictions tied to them remaining unfulfilled. By now, counting
the 1,260 or 1,290 years from the destruction of Jerusalem in 70
C.E., or from the death of the apostles could no longer produce
meaningful results. So, the starting point had to be moved forward to
a later date.
Groups persecuted and branded as heretics by the Roman
church soon began to identify the ‘trampling Gentiles’ with the
papacy of Rome. These persecuted groups commonly viewed
themselves as “the true church”—pictured in Revelation 12 as a
woman who had to flee into “the wilderness” for “a thousand two
12 Arnold of Villanova, Tractatus de Tempore Adventus Antichristi (”Treatise on the
Time of the Coming of Antichrist”), part 2 (1300); reprinted in Heinrich Finke, Aus
den Tagen Bonifaz VIII (Munster in W., 1902), pp. CXLVIII–CLI, CXLVII. (See also
Froom, Vol. I, pp. 753–756.)
13 From Registrum Johannis Trefnant, Episcopi Herefordensis (containing the
proceedings of the trial of Walter Brute for heresy), as translated in John Foxe,
Acts and Monuments, 9th ed. (London, 1684), Vol. I, p. 547. (See also Froom, Vol.
II, p. 80.)
29
hundred and sixty days,” the period of trampling spiritual

Jerusalem. (Revelation 12:6,14) This view now allowed them to
advance the starting-point from the first century to a time somewhere
in the fourth century, with its growth of authority on the part of the
Roman church.
This “adjusted” view was very common among the Reformers.
John Napier (1550–1617), the distinguished Scottish mathematician
and student of prophecy, began the period about 300 or 316 C.E.,
and came up with the end of the Gentile times in the latter half of
the sixteenth century.14
More time passed and the starting-point was once again moved
forward, this time into the sixth or seventh centuries, the period
when the popes had reached a real position of power. George Bell,
for example, writing in the London Evangelical Magazine of 1796,
counted the 1260 years from either 537 or 553 C.E., and predicted
the fall of Antichrist (the Pope) in “1797, or 1813.15 Of the 1,260
years Bell says:
The holy city is to be trodden under foot by the Gentiles, or
Papists, who, though they are Christians in name, are Gentiles in
worship and practice; worshipping angels, saints, and images, and
persecuting the followers of Christ. These Gentiles take away the
daily sacrifice, and set up the abomination that maketh the visible
church of Christ desolate for the space of 1260 years.16
This was written in 1795 in the midst of the French Revolution.
Shortly afterward the Pope was taken captive by French troops and
forced into exile (in February, 1798). Very interestingly, these
startling events in France and Italy had to some extent been
“predicted” nearly a century in advance by several expositors, the
best known of whom was the Scottish pastor, Robert Fleming, Jr. (c.
1660–1716).17 Surely, many felt, these major historical events had
confirmed the rightness of their predictions! Because of this, the
year 1798 was very soon quite commonly held among biblical
commentators to be the terminal date for the 1,260 years.
This view—with some minor differences—was also adopted by
Charles Taze Russell and his followers. And it is still prevalent
among the Seventh-Day Adventists.
14 John Napier, A Plaine Discovery of the Whole Revelation of Saint John (Edinburgh,
1593), pp. 64, 65. (See Froom, Vol. II, p. 458.)
15 G. Bell, “Downfall of Antichrist,” Evangelical Magazine (London), 1796, Vol. 4, p.
54. (See Froom, Vol. 2,p. 742.) Although published in 1796, the article was written
July 24,1795.
16 G. Bell, ibid., p. 57. (See Froom, Vol. II, p. 742.)
17 Robert Fleming, Jr., The Rise and Fall of Papacy (London, 1701),p. 68. (For
additional notes on this prediction, see Chapter 6, section D: “1914 in
perspective.”)
30
Political and social upheaval fuels prophetic

speculations
The French Revolution of 1789–1799 had extraordinary impact
extending far beyond French borders. Following the violent
removal of the French monarchy and the proclamation of the
Republic in 1792, new extremist leaders not only brought about a
period of terror and chaos in France itself, but they inaugurated an
almost unbroken period of wars of conquest, which lasted until
1815, when Emperor Napoleon I was defeated at Waterloo. The
Revolution’s chaotic aftermath in Europe and other parts of the
world excited intensified interest in prophetic study, especially as
some of these upheavals had been partially predicted by expositors
of the prophecies.
Historians recognize the French Revolution as marking a major
turning-point in world history. It brought to an end a long era of
relative stability in Europe, uprooting the established order and
deeply changing political and religious thought.
Comparing the wars of the French Revolution and Napoleon
Bonaparte with the earlier Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648) and the
later World War I (1914–1918), historian Robert Gilpin says of
these three wars that “each was a world war involving almost all the
states in the [international] system and, at least in retrospect, can be
considered as having constituted a major turning point in human
history .”18
Another well-known historian, R. R. Palmer, in discussing the
momentous role of the French Revolution in modern history, says:
Even today in the middle of the twentieth century, despite all
that has happened in the lifetime of men not yet old, and even . . .
in America or in any other part of a world in which the countries
of Europe no longer enjoy their former commanding position, it is
still possible to say that the French Revolution at the end of the eighteenth
century was the turning point of modern civilization.19
The resultant uprooting of long-standing European political and
social institutions caused many to believe that they were indeed
living in the last days. Men of many backgrounds—ministers,
politicians, lawyers, and laymen—became involved in prophetic
18 Professor Robert Gilpin, “The Theory of Hegemonic War,” The Journal of

Interdisciplinary History, (published in Cambridge, MA, and London, England), Vol.
18:4, Spring 1988, p. 606. (Emphasis added.)
19 R. R. Palmer in his foreword to Georges Lefebvre’s The Coming of the, French
Revolution (New York: Vintage, 1947), p. v.
31
study. A voluminous body of literature on the prophecies was

produced, numerous prophetic periodicals were started, and
prophetic conferences were held on both sides of the Atlantic.
The apocalyptic revival commenced in England, but soon
spread to the European Continent and the United States of
America where, in the latter case, it culminated in the well-known
Millerite movement. Based on interpretations of Daniel 8:14, the
predictions now developed generally pointed to 1843, 1844, or
1847 as the time for Christ’s second advent.
It was in this feverish atmosphere that a new interpretation of
the Gentile times was born, in which, for the first time, the oft-used
figure of 1,260 years was doubled to 2,520 years.
The chart presented on the facing page shows the results that
the “year-day” method of counting prophetic time-periods
produced over a period of seven centuries. Though almost all of
the thirty-six scholars and prophetic expositors listed were working
from the same basic Scriptural text referring to 1,260 days, very
rarely did they agree on the same starting and ending points for the
period’s fulfillment. The ending dates for the Gentile times set by
them or their followers ran all the way from 1260 C.E. to 2016
C.E. Yet all of them advanced what to them were cogent reasons
for arriving at their dates. What results now came from the
doubling of this figure in connection with Jesus’ statement about
the “Gentile times”?
John Aquila Brown
In the long history of prophetic speculation, John Aquila Brown in
England plays a notable role. Although no biographical data on
Brown has been found so far, he strongly influenced the
apocalyptic thinking of his time. He was the first expositor who
applied the supposed 2,300 year-days of Daniel 8:14 so that they
ended in 1843 (later 1844).20 This became a key date of the Second
Advent movement.21 He was also the first who arrived at a
prophetic time period of 2,520 years. Brown’s calculation of 2,520
years was based on his exposition of the “seven times” contained
20 Brown first published his chronology in an article in the London monthly The
Christian Observer of November 1810. According to his understanding of the
Gentile times, the “trampling Gentiles” were the Mohammedans (or Muslims), and
he therefore regarded the 1,260 years so widely commented on as Mohammedan
lunar years, corresponding to 1,222 solar years. He reckoned this period from 622
C.E. (the first year of the Mohammedan Hegira era) to 1844, when he expected the
coming of Christ and the restoration of the Jewish nation in Palestine.—J. A.
Brown, The Even-Tide, Vol. 1 (1823), pp. vii, xi, 1–60.
32
TABLE 1: THE MULTIPLE, SHIFTING APPLICATIONS

OF THE 1,260 YEARS
Expositor Publication Application Remarks

date (all dates C.E.)
Joachim of Floris 1195 1–1260
Arnold of Villanova 1300 c. 74–1364 Gentile Times=1290 years
Walter Brute 1393 134–1394
Martin Luther 1530 38–1328 Gentile times =1290 years
A. Osiander 1545 412–1672
J.Funck 1558 261–1521
G. Nigrinus 1570 441–1701
Aretius 1573 312–1572
John Napier 1593 316–1576
D. Pareus 1618 606–1866
J. Tillinghast 1655 396–1656
J. Artopaeus 1665 260–1520
Cocceius 1669 292–1552
T. Beverley 1684 437–1697
P. Jurieu 1687 454–1714
R. Fleming, Jr. 1701 552–1794 1260 years of 360 days
″ ″ 1701 606–1848 = 1242 Julian years
William Whiston 1706 606–1866
Daubuz 1720 476–1736
J. Ph. Petri 1768 587–1847
Lowman 1770 756–2016
John Gill 1776 606–1866
Hans Wood 1787 620–1880
J. Bicheno 1793 593–1789
A. Fraser 1795 756–1998 1242 Julian years
George Bell 1796 537–1797
″ ″ 1796 553–1813
Edward King 1798 538–1798
Galloway 1802 606–1849 1242 Julian years
W. Hales 1803 620–1880
G. S. Faber 1806 606–1866
W. Cuninghame 1813 533–1792
J. H. Frere 1815 533–1792
Lewis Way 1818 531–1791
W. C. Davis 1818 588–1848
J. Bayford 1820 529–1789
John Fry 1822 537–1797
John Aquila Brown 1823 622–1844 1260 lunar years
The table shows a sample of the many different applications of the 1,260
and 1,290 “year-days” from Joachim of Floris in 1195 to John Aquila
Brown in 1823. It would have been easy to extend the table to include
expositors after Brown. However, the table ends with him because at this
time another interpretation of the Gentile times began to surface, in
which the 1,260 years were doubled to 2,520 years.
33
John Aquila Brown’s book The Even-Tide (London, 1823), in which the
“seven times” of Daniel 4 for the first time were explained to mean
2,520 years.
34
in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the chopped-down tree in Daniel,

chapter 4. It was first published in 1823 in his two-volume work
The Even-Tide; or, Last Triumph of the Blessed and Only Potentate, the King
of Kings, and Lord of Lords. 22
He specifically states that he was the first to write on the subject:
Although many large and learned volumes have been written on
prophetical subjects during a succession of ages; yet, having never
seen the subject, on which I am about to offer some remarks, touched
upon by any author, I commend it to the attention of the reader, not
doubtingly, indeed, but with strong confidence that it will be
found still further to corroborate the scale of the prophetical
periods, assumed as the basis of the fulfillment of prophecy.23
In his interpretation, Brown differed from other later expositors
in that he nowhere connects the “seven times” of
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream with the “seven times” of prophetic
punishment directed against Israel at Leviticus 26:12–28.
“Nebuchadnezzar was a type,” Brown wrote, “of the three
successive kingdoms which were to arise.” Of the “seven times,” or
years, of Nebuchadnezzar’s affliction, he said:
21 The second advent was expected to occur during the year 1843/44, counted from
Spring to Spring as was done in the Jewish calendar. It has been maintained that
expositors in the United States arrived at the 1843 date as the end of the 2,300
years independently of Brown. Although that may be true, it cannot be proved, and
interestingly, the London, England, Christian Observer, a periodical founded in
1802 which frequently dealt with prophecy, also had an American edition
published at Boston which ran article for article with the British edition. So
Brown’s article on the 2,300 years could have been read by many in the United
States as early as 1810. Soon afterwards, the 1843 date began to appear in
American prophetic expositions.
22 Published in London; the pertinent material is found in Vol. II, pp. 130–152.
23 Perhaps some may be inclined to object to this statement on account of the table
on pages 404 and 405 of Froom’s The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Volume IV. It
is true that this table seems to show James Hatley Frere as the first to write on the
2,520 years in 1813. But the part of the table farthest to the right on page 405
entitled, “Dating of other time periods,” does not have any close connection with
the “Publication date” column on page 404. It simply states the author’s general
position on other time periods. Besides, Frere never held the times of the Gentiles
(or the “seven times”) to be a period of 2,520 years. In his first book on prophecy, A
Combined View of the Prophecies of Daniel, Esdras, and St. John (London, 1815), he
does not comment on Daniel 4 or Luke 21:24. The “holy city” of Revelation 11:2 he
explains to be “the visible church of Christ” and “during the period of 1260 years,
the whole of this city is trodden under foot of the Gentiles, excepting the interior
courts of its temple.” (Page 87) Many years later Frere calculated the Gentile times
to be a period of 2,450 years from 603 B .C.E. to 1847 C.E. See, for example, his
book, The Great Continental Revolution, Marking the Expiration of the Times of the
Gentiles AD. 1847–8 (London, 1848). Note especially pages 66–78. John A. Brown,
of course, was well acquainted with the many contemporary writings on prophecy,
and Frere was one of the best known expositors in England. So there seems to be
no reason to doubt Brown’s own statement of priority with respect to the 2,520
years.
35
[These] would, therefore, be considered as a grand week of

years, forming a period of two thousand five hundred and twenty
years, and embracing the duration of the four tyrannical
monarchies; at the close of which they are to learn, like
Nebuchadnezzar, by the “season and time” of the two judgements,
that “the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to
whomsoever he will.”
Brown calculated the 2,520 years as running from the first year
of Nebuchadnezzar, 604 B.C.E., to the year 1917, when “the full
glory of the kingdom of Israel shall be perfected.”24
Brown did not himself associate this period with the Gentile
times of Luke 21:24. Nonetheless his calculation for the 2,520
years, and his having based these on Daniel chapter 4, have since
played a key role in certain modern interpretations of those Gentile
times.
The 2,520 years linked with the Gentile times
It was not long before other expositors began identifying the new
calculation of 2,520 years with the “Gentile times” of Luke 21:24.
But, even as with the 1,260 days, they came up with differing
results.
At the Albury Park Prophetic Conferences (held annually at Albury
near Guildford, south of London, England from 1826 to 1830), the
“times of the Gentiles” was one of the topics considered. Right
from the first discussions in 1826 they were connected with the
2,520 year period by William Cuninghame. He chose as his starting
point the year when the ten tribes were carried into captivity by
Shalmaneser (which he dated to 728 B.C.E.), thus arriving at 1792
C.E. as their last or termination date, a date that by then was
already in the past?25
Many biblical commentators counted the “seven times of the
Gentiles” from the captivity of Manasseh, which they dated to 677
B .C.E. This was obviously done so that the Gentile times would
24 The Even-Tide, Vol. II, pp. 134, 135; Vol. I, pp. XLIII, XLIV.
25 Henry Drummond, Dialogues on Prophecy (London, 1827), Vol. I, pp. 33, 34. In this
report from the discussions at Albury, the participants are given fictitious names.
Cuninghame (”Sophron”) arrives at the 2,520 years by doubling the 1,260 years,
not by referring to the “seven times” of Daniel 4 or Leviticus 26. In support of this
he refers to the authority of Joseph Mede, an expositor living in the seventeenth
century. Although Mede had suggested that the times of the Gentiles might refer to
the four kingdoms beginning with Babylon, he never stated the period to be 2,520
years. (Mede, The Works, London, 1664, Book 4, pp. 908–910, 920.) In a later
conversation “Anastasius” (Henry Drummond) connects the 2,520 years with the
“seven times” of Leviticus 26 and, “correcting” the starting-point of Cuninghame
from 728 to 722 B .C., he arrives at 1798 C.E. as the terminal date. (Dialogues,
Vol. I, pp. 324, 325)
36
Above: The Albury Park residence, near Guildford, south of London, the
place of the Albury Park Prophetic Conferences, 1826–1830. At these
conferences certain ideas were developed that 50 years later were to
become central parts of the message of the Watch Tower Society, viz.,
the Gentile times as a period of 2,520 years, and the idea of Christ’s second coming
as an invisible presence.
Below: Henry Drummond, owner of Albury Park and host of the
conferences, who also published annual reports on the discussions
(Dialogues on Prophecy).
37
end at the same time already being assigned to the 2,300 day-years,
that is, in 1843 or 1844.26 In 1835, William W. Pym published his
work, A Word of Warning in the Last Days, in which he ended the
“seven times” in 1847. Interestingly, he builds his calculation of the
2,520 years of Gentile times on the “seven times” mentioned in
Leviticus 26 as well as the “seven times” of Daniel 4:
In other words, the judgements threatened by Moses, which
should last during the seven times , or 2520 years; and the
judgements revealed to Daniel, which should come to an end by
the cleansing of the sanctuary after a portion of the greater number
2520.27
Others, however, were looking forward to the year 1836 C.E., a
year fixed on entirely different grounds by the German theologian
J. A. Bengel (1687–1752), and they tried to end the “seven times” in
that same year.28
Illustrating the state of flux existing, Edward Bickersteth (1786-
1850), evangelical rector of Watton, Hartfordshire, tried different
starting-points for the “seven times of the Gentiles,” coming up
with three different ending dates:
If we reckon the captivity of Israel as commencing in 727
before Christ, Israel’s first captivity under Salmanezer, it would
terminate in 1793, when the French revolution broke out: and if
677 before Christ, their captivity under Esarhaddon (the same
period when Manasseh , king of Judah, was carried into captivity,)
(2 Kings xvii. 23, 24.2 Chron. xxxiii. 11,) it would terminate in
1843: or, if reckoned from 602 before Christ, which was the final
dethronement of Jehoiakim by Nebuchadnezzar, it would
terminate in 1918. All these periods may have a reference to
corresponding events at their termination, and are worthy of
serious attention.29
One of the best known and most learned millenarians of the
19th century was Edward Bishop Elliott (1793–1875), incumbent of
St. Mark’s Church in Brighton, England. With him, the date of
1914 first receives mention. In his monumental treatise Horae
Apocalypticae (”Hours with the Apocalypse”) he first reckoned the
2,520 years from 727 B.C.E. to 1793 C.E., but added:
26 John Fry (1775–1849) was among those doing this, in his Unfulfilled Prophecies of
Scripture, published in 1835.
27 Found on page 48 of his work. Quoted in Froom, Vol. Ill, p. 576.
28 So did W. A. Holmes, chancellor of Cashel, in his book The Time of the End which
was published in 1833. He dated the captivity of Manasseh under Esarhaddon to
685 B CE., and counting the 2,520 years from that year, he ended the “seven
times” in 1835–1836.
29 Edward Bickersteth, A Scripture Help, first edited in 1815. After 1832 Bickersteth
began to preach on the prophecies , which also influenced later editions of A
Scripture Help. The quotation is taken from the 20th edition (London, 1850), p.
235.
38
Of course if calculated from Nebuchadnezzar’s own accession

and invasion of Judah, B.C. 606, the end is much later, being A.D.
1914; just one half century, or jubilean period, from our probable
date of the opening of the Millennium [which he had fixed to
“about A.D.1862”].30
One factor that should be noted here is that in Elliott’s
chronology 606 B.C.E. was the accession-year of Nebuchadnezzar,
while in the later chronology of Nelson H. Barbour and Charles T.
Russell 606 B.C.E. was the date assigned for Nebuchadnezzar’s
destruction of Jerusalem in his 18th year.
The Millerite movement
The leading British works on prophecy were extensively reprinted
in the United States and strongly influenced many American
writers on the subject. These included the well-known Baptist
preacher William Miller and his associates, who pointed forward to
1843 as the date of Christ’s second coming. It is estimated that at
least 50,000, and perhaps as many as 200,000 people eventually
embraced Miller’s views.31
Virtually every position they held on the different prophecies
had been taught by other past or contemporary expositors. Miller
was simply following others in ending the “Gentile times” in 1843.
At the First General Conference held in Boston, Massachusetts, on
October 14 and 15, 1840, one of Miller’s addresses dealt with
Biblical chronology. He placed the “seven times,” or 2,520 years, as
extending from 677 B.CE. to 1843 CE.32 The second coming of
Christ was expected no later than 1844.
The date predicted for so long and by so many, with claimed
Biblical backing, came and went, with nothing to fulfill the
expectations based on it.
After the “Great Disappointment” of 1844, some, and among
them Miller himself, openly confessed that the time was a
mistake.33 Others, however, insisted that the time itself was right,
30 E.B. Elliott, Horae Apocalypticae, lst ed. (London: Seeley, Bumside, and Seeley,
1844),Vol. III, pp. 1429–1431. Elliott’s work ran through five editions (1844,1846,
1847,1851, and 1862).In the last two he did not directly mention the 1914 date,
although he still suggested that the 2,520 years might be reckoned from the
beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign.
31 David Tallmadge Arthur, “Come out of Babylon”: A Study of Millerite Separatism and
Denominationalism, 1840–1865 (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Rochester, 1970), pp. 86–88.
32 William Miller, “A Dissertation on Prophetic Chronology” in The First Report of the
General Conference of Christians Expecting the Advent of the Lord Jesus Christ
(Boston, 1842), p. 5. Other Millerites who stressed the 2,520 years included
Richard Hutchinson (editor of The Voice of Elijah) in an 1843 pamphlet, The Throne
of Judah Perpetuated in Christ, and Philemon R. Russell (editor of the Christian
Herald and Journal) in the March 19, 1840 issue of that periodical. The 2,520
years also appear on charts used by Millerite evangelists. (See Froom, Vol. IV, pp.
699–701, 726–737.)
39
E. B. Elliott’s Horae Apocalypticae, Vol. III (1844)

E. B. Elliott was most probably the first expositor to reckon the
“times of the Gentiles” from 606 B.C.E. to 1914 CE. It should be
noted, however, that in his chronology the starting-point, 606 B.C.E,
was the accession-year of Nebuchadnezzar, while in the chronology of
Barbour and Russell this was Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth year. Their
chronologies, therefore, were conflicting, although the dates
accidentally happened to be the same.
40
The “1843” chart

used by William Miller (inset) and his associates in presenting the
1843 message. Miller presented fifteen separate “proofs” in support
of his 1843 date, most of which were calculations based on the
various year-day periods, including the 2300 and 2520 year-days.
41
but the event anticipated was wrong. Expressing what has become
a familiar justification, they had expected “the wrong thing at the
right time.”
This position was taken by a group which later came to be
known as the Seventh-Day Adventists. They declared that Jesus,
instead of descending to earth in 1844, entered the most holy place
of the heavenly sanctuary as mankind’s great high priest to
introduce the antitypical atonement day.34 This group, which
separated from the rest of the “Second Adventists” in the end of
the 1840’s, caused the first major division within the original
movement.
Some leading Millerites who also held to the 1844 date—among
them Apollos Hale, Joseph Turner, Samuel Snow, and Barnett Matthias—
claimed that Jesus had indeed come as the Bridegroom in 1844,
although spiritually and invisibly, “not in personally descending
from heaven, but taking the throne spiritually.” In 1844, they declared,
the “kingdom of this world” had been given to Christ.35
Offshoots of the Millerite movement
Thus, following 1844, the Millerite “Second Advent” movement
gradually broke into several Adventist groups.36 A proliferation of
new dates began to appear: 1845, 1846, 1847, 1850, 1851, 1852,
1853, 1854, 1866, 1867, 1868, 1870, 1873, 1875, and so on, and
these dates, each having their promoters and adherents,
contributed to even greater fragmentation. A leading Second
Adventist, Jonathan Cummings, declared in 1852 that he had received
33 “That I have been mistaken in the time, I freely confess; and I have no desire to
defend my course any further than I have been actuated by pure motives, and it
has resulted in God’s glory. My mistakes and errors God, I trust, will forgive . . . .”
(Wm. Miller’s Apology and Defence, Boston, 1845, pp. 33, 34.) George Storrs, who
had been one of the leaders in the last stage of the Millerite movement, the so-
called “seventh month movement,” in which the advent had been finally fixed to
October 22, 1844, was even more outspoken. Not only did he openly and
repeatedly confess and regret his error, but he also declared that God had not been
in the “definite time” movement, that they had been “mesmerized” by mere human
influence, and that “the Bible did not teach definite time at all” (See D. T. Arthur,
op. cit., pp. 89–92.)
34 For a clarifying discussion of the development of this doctrine, see Dr. Ingemar
Linden, The Last Trump. A historico-genetical study of some important chapters in
the making and development of the Seventh-Day Adventist Church (Frankfurt am
Main, Bern, Las Vegas: Peter Lang, 1978), pp. 129–133. Years later the doctrine
was changed to mean that the so-called “investigative judgment” of the believers—
dead and living—began on October 22, 1844.
35 Froom, Vol. IV, p. 888. A detailed discussion of these views is given by Dr. D. T.
Arthur, op. cit., pp. 97–115.
36 In 1855 a prominent Second Adventist, J. P. Cowles, estimated that there existed
“some twenty-five divisions of what was once the one Advent body. (See D. T.
Arthur, op. cit., p. 319.)
42
a “new light” on the chronology, and that the second advent was to
be expected in 1854. Many Millerites joined Cummings, and in
January, 1854, they started a new periodical, the World’s Crisis, in
advocacy of the new date.37
Other factors besides dates began to play a role in the
composition of the Second Advent movement. Right up to the
present time they appear as distinctive features among a number of
movements that developed from Second Adventism, including the
Seventh-Day Adventist Church, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and certain
Church of God denominations. These factors included the
doctrine of conditional—not inherent—immortality of the soul,
with its corollary tenet that the ultimate destiny of those who are
rejected by God is destruction or annihilation, not conscious
torment. The trinitarian belief also became an issue among some
sectors of the Second Adventists. (For further details on these
developments and their effect in contributing to division among
the offshoots of the Millerite movements, see the Appendix for
Chapter One.)
Most of these developments had already taken place by the time
that Charles Taze Russell, still in his teenage years, began the
formation of a Bible study group in Allegheny, Pennsylvania. From
the end of the 1860’s onward, Russell increasingly got into touch
with some of the Second Adventist groups which developed. He
established close connections with certain of their ministers and
read some of their papers, including George Storrs’ Bible Examiner.
Gradually, he and his associates took over many of their central
teachings, including their conditionalist and anti-trinitarian
positions and most of their “age to come” views. Finally, in 1876,
Russell also adopted a revised version of their chronological
system, which implied that the 2,520 years of Gentile times would
expire in 1914. In all essential respects, therefore, Russell’s Bible
Student movement may be described as yet another offshoot of the
Millerite movement.
What, then, was the most direct source of the chronological
system that Russell, the founder of the Watch Tower movement,
adopted, including not only the 2,520 year-period for the Gentile
times, its ending in 1914, but also the year 1874 for the start of an
invisible presence by Christ? That source was a man named Nelson
H. Barbour.
Nelson H. Barbour
37 Isaac C. Wellcome, History of the Second Advent Message (Yarmouth, Maine,
Boston, New York, London, 1874), pp. 594–597.
43
Nelson H. Barbour was born near Auburn, New York, in 1824. He

joined the Millerite movement in 1843, at the age of 19. He “lost
his religion” completely after the “Great Disappointment” in 1844
and went to Australia where he became a miner during the gold
rush there.38 Then, in 1859 he returned to America by way of
London, England. In a retrospect Barbour tells how his interest in
the prophetic time periods was again aroused during this voyage:
The vessel left Australia with an advent brother [Barbour
himself] on board, who had lost his religion, and been for many
years in total darkness. To wile away the monotony of a long sea
voyage, [an] English chaplain proposed a systematic reading of the
prophecies; to which the brother readily assented; for having been
a Millerite in former years, he knew right well there were
arguments it would puzzle the chaplain to answer, even though the
time had passed.39
During this reading Barbour thought he discovered the crucial
error in Miller’s reckoning. Why did Miller begin the 1,260 “year-
days” of Revelation 11 in 538 C.E. and start the 1,290 and 1,335
year-days of Daniel 12 thirty years earlier in 508 C.E.? Should not all
three periods start at the same date? Then the 1,290 years would
end in 1828 and the 1,335 years in—not 1843 but―1873. “On
arriving in London [in 1860], he went to the library of the British
Museum, and among many other extensive works on the
prophecies found Elliott’s Horae Apocalypticae” in which Elliott
reproduced a table, “The Scripture Chronology of the World,”
prepared by his friend, Reverend Christopher Bowen. The table
showed that 5,979 years since man’s creation ended in 1851.40
Adding 21 years to the 5,979 years, Barbour discovered that 6,000
years would end in 1873. This he saw as a remarkable and stirring
confirmation of his own calculation of the 1,335-year period.
On returning to the United States, Barbour tried to interest
other Second Adventists in his new date for the coming of the
Lord. From 1868 onward he began to preach and publish his
findings. A number of his articles on chronology were published in
the World’s Crisis and the Advent Christian Times, the two leading
papers of the Advent Christian Association. In 1870 he also
38 Nelson H. Barbour, Evidences for the Coming of the Lord in 1873; or the Midnight
Cry, 2nd ed. (Rochester., 1871), p. 32.
39 Ibid., p. 32.
40 Ibid., p.33; E. B. Elliott, Horae Apocalypticae, 4th ed. (London: Seeleys,1851), Vol.
IV; fly-leaf appended at p. 236. Elliott’s work at that time, 1860, was a standard
work advocating 1866 as the time of the coming of the Lord.
44
published the 100-page pamphlet Evidences for the Coming of the Lord
in 1873; or the Midnight Cry, the second edition of which has been
quoted above.41 In 1873 he started a monthly of his own called The
Midnight Cry, and Herald of the Morning, the circulation of which
within three months ran up to 15,000 copies.42 When the target
year of 1873 had nearly passed, Barbour advanced the time of the
second advent to the autumn of 1874.43 But when that year, too,
came and went, Barbour and his followers experienced great
concern:
When 1874 came and there was no outward sign of Jesus
in the literal clouds and in a fleshly form, there was a general
reexamination of all the arguments upon which the ‘Midnight Cry’
was made. And when no fault or flaw could be found, it led to the
critical examination of the Scriptures which seem to bear on the
manner of Christ’s coming, and it was soon discovered that the
expectation of Jesus in the flesh at the second coming was the
mistake . . . .44
An “invisible presence”
One of the readers of the Midnight Cry, B. W. Keith (later one of
the contributors to Zion’s Watch Tower),
. . . had been reading carefully Matt. xxiv chapter, using the
‘Emphatic Diaglott’ , a new and very exact word for word
41 Nelson H. Barbour (ed.), Herald of the Morning (Rochester, N.Y.), September 1879,
p.36. Actually, Barbour’s new date for the second advent was adopted by an
increasing number of Second Adventists, especially within the Advent Christian
Church, with which Barbour evidently associated for a number of years. One
reason for this readiness to accept the 1873 date was that it was not new to them.
As Barbour points out in his Evidences . . . (pp. 33, 34), Miller himself had
mentioned 1873 after the 1843 failure. Prior to 1843, several expositors in England
had ended the 1,335 years in 1873, for instance John Fry in 1835 and George
Duffield in 1842. (Froom, Vol. III, pp. 496, 497; Vol. IV, p. 337) As early as 1853
the “age to come” Adventist Joseph Marsh in Rochester, N.Y., concluded, 1ike
other expositors before him, that the “time of the end” was a period of 75 years
that began in 1798 and would expire in 1873. (D. T. Arthur, op. cit., p. 360) In
1870 the well-known Advent Christian preacher Jonas Wendell included Barbour’s
chronology in his pamphlet The Present Truth; or, Meat in Due Season (Edenboro,
PA, 1870). The increasing interest in the date caused the Advent Christian Church
to arrange a special conference, February 6 to 11, 1872, in Worcester, Mass., for
the examination of the time of the Lord’s return and especially the 1873 date.
Many preachers, including Barbour, participated in the discussions. As reported in
the Advent Christian Times of March 12, 1872, ‘The point on which there seemed
to be any general unanimity was the ending of the thirteen hundred and thirty-five
years in 1873.” (p. 263)
42 Nelson H. Barbour (ed.), The Midnight Cry, and Herald of the Morning (Boston,
Mass.) Vol. I:4, March, 1874,p. 50.
43 N. H. Barbour, “The 1873 Time,” The Advent Christian Times, Nov. 11, 1873, p.
106.
44 Zion’s Watch Tower, October and November 1881, p. 3 (= Reprints, p. 289).
45
translation of the New Testament [translated and published by

Benjamin Wilson in 1864]; when he came to the 37th and 39th
verses he was much surprised to find that it read as follows, viz.:
‘For as the days of Noah thus will be the presence of the son of
man’.45
Keith thus found the Greek word parousia, usually translated
“coming,” here translated as “presence.” A widely held idea among
expositors at this time was that Christ’s second coming would take
place in two stages, the first of which would be invisible! 46 Could it
be that Jesus had come in the fall of 1874, though invisible, and been
invisibly present since then?
To Barbour this explanation not only seemed attractive, but as
he and his associates could find no faults with their calculations,
they saw in it the solution to their problem. The date was right,
although their expectations had been wrong.
Once again, it was seen as a case of having expected “the wrong
thing at the right time”:
It was evident, then, that though the manner in which they had
expected Jesus was in error, yet the time, as indicated by the
‘Midnight Cry,’ was correct, and that the Bridegroom came in the
Autumn of 1874 . . . .45
Most readers of the Midnight Cry, and Herald of the Morning
magazine, however, could not accept this explanation, and the
15,000 readers rapidly “dwindled to about 200.” Barbour himself
was convinced that the Millennial morning had already begun to
dawn, and therefore he thought that the Midnight Cry no longer was
a suitable name for his paper. He remarked: “Will some one inform
me how a ‘Midnight Cry’ can be made in the morning?”47 The paper,
which had ceased publication in October 1874, was therefore
45 Zion’s Watch Tower ,February 1881,p. 3, and October–November 1881, p. 3
(=Reprints, pp. 188 and 289).
46 This idea of Christ’s return was originally presented in about 1828 by a banker
and expositor of the prophecies in London, Henry Drummond. It soon became very
popular among the expositors of the prophecies during the rest of the century,
especially among the Darbyists, who did much to popularize the idea. It was much
discussed in the leading millenarian periodicals, in England in the Quarterly
Journal of Prophecy (1849–1873) and The Rainbow (1864–1887), and in the United
States in the Prophetic Times (1863–1881). The chief editor of the last mentioned
paper (which was widely read also in Adventist circles, including that of C. T.
Russell and his associates) was the well-known Lutheran minister Joseph A.
Seiss.—An examination of the origin and dispersion of the “invisible presence” idea
is found in The Christian Quest magazine (Christian Renewal Ministries, San Jose,
CA), Vol. 1:2, 1988, pp. 37–59, and Vol. 2:1, 1989, pp. 47–58.
47 Ibid., April 1880, p. 7 (= Reprints, p. 88).
46
restarted in June 1875 as the Herald of the Morning, thereby

dispensing with the first part of the earlier title.
In one of the very first issues (September, 1875), Barbour
published his calculation of the Gentile times, making them
terminate in 1914 C.E.48 (See following page.)
Charles Taze Russell
In 1870, as an 18-year-old businessman in Allegheny, Pennsylvania,
Charles Taze Russell, together with his father Joseph and some
friends formed a class for Bible study.49 The group was formed as
an outgrowth of Russell’s contacts with some of the former
Millerites mentioned above, especially Jonas Wendell, George
Storrs, and George Stetson.
Wendell, a preacher from the Advent Christian Church in
Edenboro, Pennsylvania, had visited Allegheny in 1869, and by
chance Russell went to one of his meetings and was strongly
impressed by Wendell’s criticism of the hellfire doctrine. Russell
had been brought up a Calvinist, but had recently broken with this
religious background because of his doubts in the predestination
48 Actually, Barbour hinted at the calculation already in the June, 1875 issue of
Herald of the Morning, by stating that the Gentile times began with the end of reign
of Zedekiah in 606 B.C., although he did not directly mention the terminal date (p.
15). In the July issue, he stated that the Gentile times would “continue yet forty
years.” Although this seems to point to 1915, it is clear from the subsequent
issues that Barbour had the year 1914 in mind. The August issue contains an
article on “Chronology” (pp. 38–42), but the Gentile times are not discussed. The
1914 date is directly mentioned for the first time in the September, 1875 issue,
where the following statement is found on page 52: “I believe that though the
gospel dispensation will end in 1878, the Jews will not be restored to Palestine,
until 1881; and that the ‘times of the Gentiles,’ viz. their seven prophetic times, of
2520, or twice 1260 years, which began where God gave all, into the hands of
Nebuchadnezzar, 606 B.C.; do not end until A.D. 1914; or 40 years from this.” A
lengthy discussion of the calculation was then published in the issue of October
1875, pp. 74–76.
49 Charles’ parents, Joseph L. and Ann Eliza (Birney) Russell, were both of Scottish-
Irish descent. They had left Ireland during the great Irish famine of 1845–1849,
when one and a half million people starved to death and another million emigrated
abroad. Joseph and Eliza settled in Allegheny in 1846, where Charles was born in
1852 as number two of three children. As Eliza died in about 1860, Joseph had to
take care of the upbringing of the children. As a youngster, Charles spent most of
his leisure time in his father’s clothing store, and at an early age he became
Joseph’s business partner. Their successful company, “J. L. Russell & Son, Gents’
Furnishing Goods,” finally developed into a chain of five stores in Allegheny and
Pittsburgh.—For additional biographical notes on Russell, see M. James Penton,
Apocalypse Delayed. The Story of Jehovah’s Witnesses (Toronto, Buffalo, London:
University of Toronto Press, 1985, 1997), pp. 13–15.
47
Herald of the Morning of September 1875

in which N. H. Barbour first published the year 1914 as the end of the
2,520 years.
48
of the 2,520 years and hellfire doctrines. He was in a serious

religious crisis at this time and even questioned if the Bible really
was the word of God. His meeting with Wendell and his
subsequent reading of Storrs’ magazine, the Bible Examiner, restored
his faith in the Bible. Articles published in this magazine seem to
have been regularly discussed in Russell’s study group.
Although Russell knew that some Adventists, including Jonas
Wendell, expected Christ in 1873, he himself rejected the whole
concept of time settings and fixing of dates. Then, in 1876, he
began to alter his position:
It was about January, 1876, that my attention was specially
drawn to the subject of prophetic time, as it relates to these
doctrines and hopes. It came about in this way: I received a paper
called The Herald of the Morning, sent by its editor, Mr. N. H.
Barbour?50
Russell states he was surprised to find that Barbour’s group had
come to the same conclusion as his own group about the manner of
Christ’s return—that it would be “thieflike, and not in flesh, but as
a spirit-being, invisible to men.
Russell at once wrote to Barbour about the chronology, and
later in 1876 he arranged to meet him in Philadelphia where Russell
had business engagements that summer. Russell wanted Barbour to
show him, “if he could, that the prophecies indicated 1874 as the
date at which the Lord’s presence and ‘the harvest’ began.” “He
came,” says Russell, “and the evidence satisfied me.”51
It is apparent that during these meetings Russell accepted not
only the 1874 date but all of Barbour’s time calculations, including
his calculation of the Gentile times.52 While still in Philadelphia,
Russell wrote an article entitled “Gentile Times: When do They
End?” which was published in George Storrs’ periodical the Bible
Examiner in the October 1876 issue. Referring to the “seven times”
of Leviticus 26:28, 33 and Daniel 4 on page 27 of the Examiner, he
determines the length of the Gentile times to be 2,520 years which
50 Zion’s Watch Tower, July 15, 1906, pp. 230, 231 (= Reprints, p. 3822).
51 Ibid. In a two-page “Supplement to Zion’s Watch Tower,” sent out “To the readers of
‘Herald of the Morning” with the first issue of Zion’s Watch Tower and Herald of
Christ’s Presence of July 1,1879, Russell gives an account of his meeting with
Barbour and his associate John Paton in 1876 and their subsequent collaboration
for the following three years in spreading the “Harvest message,” and explains why
he had to break with Barbour in 1879 and start his own paper.
52 This is also indicated by Russell himself who states: “ . . . when we first met, he
had much to learn from me on the fulness of restitution based upon the sufficiency
of the ransom given for all, as I had much to learn from him concerning time.” —
Zion’s Watch Tower, July 15, 1906, p. 231 (= Reprints, p. 3822).
49
began in 606 B .C.E. and would end in 1914 C.E.—precisely the

same dates Barbour had arrived at and had begun publishing a year
earlier, in 1875.
Looking forward to 1914
What, exactly, would the end of the “Gentile times” mean for
mankind? Although monumental events relating to Christ’s return
were proclaimed to have taken place in 1874, these were all said to
be invisible, occurring in the spirit realm unseen by human eyes.
Would 1914 and the termination of the Gentile times be the same,
or would it bring visible, tangible change for the earth and for
human society on it?
In the book The Time is at Hand, published in 1889 (later referred
to as Volume II of Studies in the Scriptures), Russell stated that there
was “Bible evidence proving” that the 1914 date “will be the
farthest limit of the rule of imperfect men.” What would be the
consequences of this? Russell enumerated his expectations for 1914
in seven points:
Firstly, That at that date the Kingdom of God ... will have
obtained full, universal control, and that it will then be ‘set up,’ or
firmly established, in the earth.
Secondly, It will prove that he whose right it is thus to take
dominion will then be present as earth’s new ruler ...
Thirdly, It will prove that some time before the end of A. D.
1914 the last member of the divinely recognized Church of Christ,
the ‘royal priesthood,’ ‘the body of Christ,’ will be glorified with
the Head ...
Fourthly, It will prove that from that time forward Jerusalem
shall no longer be trodden down of the Gentiles, but shall arise
from the dust of divine disfavor, to honor; because the ‘Times of
the Gentiles’ will be fulfilled or completed.
Fifthly, It will prove that by that date, or sooner, Israel’s
blindness will begin to be turned away; because their ‘blindness in
part’ was to continue only ‘until the fulness of the Gentiles be
come in’ (Rom. 11:25) ...
Sixthly, It will prove that the great ‘time of trouble such as
never was since there was a nation,’ will reach its culmination in a
worldwide reign of anarchy . . . and the ‘new heavens and new
earth’ with their peaceful blessings will begin to be recognized by
trouble-tossed humanity.
Seventhly, It will prove that before that date God’s Kingdom,
organized in power, will be in the earth and then smite and crush
the Gentile image (Dan. 2:34)—and fully consume the power of
50
these kings.53
These were indeed very daring predictions. Did Russell really
believe that all these remarkable things would come true within the
next twenty five years? Yes, he did; in fact, he believed his
chronology to be God’s chronology, not just his own. In 1894 he
wrote of the 1914 date:
We see no reason for changing the figures—nor could we
change them if we would. They are, we believe, God’s dates, not ours.
But bear in mind that the end of 1914 is not the date for the
beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble.54
Thus it was thought that the “time of trouble” was to
commence some years before 1914, “not later than 1910,” reaching
its climax in 1914.55
In 1904, however, just ten years before 1914, Russell altered his
view on this matter. In an article in the July 1, 1904 issue of Zion’s
Watch Tower, entitled “Universal anarchy—just before or after
October, 1914 A.D.,” he argued that the time of trouble, with its
worldwide anarchy, would begin after October, 1914:
We now expect that the anarchistic culmination of the great
time of trouble which will precede the Millennial blessings will be
after October, 1914 A.D.—very speedily thereafter, in our
opinion— ‘in an hour,’ ‘suddenly,’ because ‘our forty years’
harvest, ending October, 1914 A.D., should not be expected to
include the awful period of anarchy which the Scriptures point out
to be the fate of Christendom.56
This change caused some readers to think that there might be
other errors in the chronological system, too—one reader even
suggesting that Bishop Ussher’s chronology might be more correct
when it dated the destruction of Jerusalem as having happened in
587 B.C.E. rather than in 606 B.C.E. This would end the 2,520
years in about 1934 instead of 1914. But Russell strongly
reaffirmed his belief in the 1914 date, referring to other claimed
“time parallels” pointing to it:
53 C. T. Russell, The Time is at Hand (= Vol. II of the Millennial Dawn series; later
called Studies in the Scriptures), Pittsburgh: Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society,
1889, pp. 77, 78. Some of the predictions were slightly changed in later editions.
54 Zion’s Watch Tower, July 15, 1894 (= Reprints, p. 1677).
55 Ibid., September 15, 1901 (= Reprints, p. 2876).
56 Ibid., July 1, 1904, pp. 197,198 (= Reprints, p. 3389).
51
We know of no reason for changing a figure: to do so would

spoil the harmonies and parallels so conspicuous between the
Jewish and Gospel ages.57
Answering another reader, he said:
The harmony of the prophetic periods is one of the strongest
proofs of the correctness of our Bible chronology. They fit
together like the cogwheels of a perfect machine. To change the
chronology even one year would destroy all this harmony,—so accurately are
the various proofs drawn together in the parallels between the
Jewish and Gospel ages.58
These arguments were further backed up by articles written by
the Edgar brothers of Scotland.59
Growing doubts
So in 1904 Russell was still as convinced of his dates as he was in
1889, when he wrote that the understanding of these time features
was the “sealing of the foreheads” mentioned at Revelation 7:3.60
As the 1914 date drew nearer, however, Russell became more
and more cautious in his statements. Answering an inquiring Bible
student in 1907, he said that “we have never claimed our
calculations to be infallibly correct; we have never claimed that they
were knowledge, nor based upon indisputable evidence, facts,
knowledge; our claim has always been that they are based on
faith.”61
The dates no longer seemed to qualify as “God’s dates,” as he
had stated thirteen years earlier; now they might be fallible. Russell
even considered the possibility that 1914 (and 1915) could pass by
with none of the expected events having occurred:
But let us suppose a case far from our expectations: suppose
that A.D. 1915 should pass with the world’s affairs all serene and
with evidence that the ‘very elect’ had not all been ‘changed’ and
without the restoration of natural Israel to favor under the New
Covenant. (Rom. 11:12, 15) What then? Would not that prove our
chronology wrong? Yes, surely! And would not that prove a keen
disappointment? Indeed it would! . . . What a blow that would be!
One of the strings of our ‘harp’ would be quite broken! However,
57 Ibid., October 1, 1904, pp. 296, 297 (= Reprints, pp. 3436, 3437).
58 Ibid., August 15, 1904, pp. 250, 251 (= Reprints, p. 3415). Emphasis added.
59 Ibid., November 15, 1904, pp. 342–344; June 15, 1905, pp. 179–186 (= Reprints,
pp. 3459, 3460, 3574–3579).
60 C. T. Russell, The Time is at Hand, p. 169.
61 Zion’s Watch Tower, October 1, 1907, pp. 294, 295 (= Reprints, p. 4067).
52
dear friends, our harp would still have all the other strings in tune
and that is what no other aggregation of God’s people on earth
could boast.62
Another point of uncertainty was whether a year 0 (between 1
B.C.E. and 1 C.E.) was to be included in the calculation or not.
This matter had been brought up by Russell as early as 1904, but
gained in importance as the year 1914 approached.
The 1914 date had been arrived at simply by subtracting 606
from 2,520, but gradually it was realized that no year 0 is allowed
for in our present calendar of era reckoning. Consequently, from
October 1, 606 B.C.E. to the beginning of January, 1 C.E. was only
605 years and 3 months, and from the beginning of January, 1 C.E.
to October 1914 was only 1913 years and 9 months, making a total
of 2,519 years, not 2,520. This would mean that the 2,520 years
would end in October 1915, rather than October 1914.63 But when
the war broke out in Europe in August 1914, it apparently seemed
ill-timed to correct this error. It was allowed to stand.
By 1913, with 1914 on the doorstep, the cautiousness regarding
that year had increased. In the article “Let Your Moderation Be
Known,” which appeared in the June 1, 1913 issue of The Watch
Tower, Russell warned his readers against spending “valuable time
and energy in guessing what will take place this year, next year,
etc.” His confidence in his earlier published scheme of events was
no longer evident: “This is the good tidings of God’s grace in
Christ—whether the completion of the church shall be
accomplished before 1914 or not.”64 He expressed himself still
more vaguely in the October 15 issue of the same year:
We are waiting for the time to come when the government of
the world will be turned over to Messiah. We cannot say that it may
not be either October 1914, or October 1915. It is possible that we
62 Ibid.
63 The Watch Tower, December 1, 1912 (= Reprints, pp. 5141, 5142). As the First
World War broke out in 1914 and that year was retained as the end of the Gentile
times, the starting point of those times needed to be moved back one year from
606 to 607 B.C.E. in order to preserve a total of 2,520 years. Although some of the
Society’s adherents had pointed this fact out very early (see, for example, the
footnote on page 32 of John and Morton Edgar’s Great Pyramid Passages, 2nd ed.,
1924) this necessary adjustment was not made by the Watch Tower Society until
1943, when it was presented in the book, The Truth Shall Make You Free, on page
239. See also the book, The Kingdom is at Hand, 1944, p. 184. For additional
details, see next chapter, page 79.
64 The Watch Tower, June 1, 1913, pp. 166, 16 (= Reprints, p. 5249).
53
might be out of the correct reckoning on the subject a number of years. We

cannot say with certainty. We do not know. It is a matter of faith,
and not of knowledge.65
Earlier, 1914 had been one of “God’s dates,” and “to change the
chronology even one year would destroy all this harmony.” But
now they “might be out of the correct reckoning on the subject a
number of years,” and nothing on the matter could be said “with
certainty” This was truly a volte-face! If it was indeed “a matter of
faith,” one can only wonder in what or in whom that faith was to be
based.
Russell’s own tottering faith in his chronology was further
brought to light in The Watch Tower of January 1, 1914, in which he
stated: “As already pointed out, we are by no means confident that
this year, 1914, will witness as radical and swift changes of
dispensation as we have expected, “66 The article “The Days Are At
Hand” in the same issue is especially revealing:
If later it should be demonstrated that the church is not
glorified by October, 1914, we shall try to feel content with
whatever the Lord’s will may be. . . . If 1915 should go by without
the passage of the church, without the time of trouble, etc., it
would seem to some to be a great calamity. It would not be so
with ourselves. . . . If in the Lord’s providence the time should come
twenty-five years later, then that would be our will. . . . If October,
1915, should pass, and we should find ourselves still here and
matters going on very much as they are at present, and the world
apparently making progress in the way of settling disputes, and
there were no time of trouble in sight, and the nominal church
were not yet federated, etc., we would say that evidently we have
been out somewhere in our reckoning. In that event we would
look over the prophecies further, to see if we could find an error.
And then we would think, Have we been expecting the wrong thing in the
right time? The Lord’s will might permit this.67
Again, in the May 1, 1914 issue—forgetting his earlier
statements about “God’s dates” and of “Bible evidence proving” that
the predicted developments would occur in 1914—Russell told his
readers that “in these columns and in the six volumes of STUDIES
IN THE SCRIPTURES we have set forth everything appertaining
to the times and seasons in a tentative form; that is to say, not with
positiveness, not with the claim that we knew, but merely with the
suggestion that ‘thus and so’ seems to be the teaching of the
Bible.”68
65 Ibid., October 15, 1913, p. 307 (= Reprints, p. 5328). Emphasis added.
66 Ibid., January 1, 1914, pp. 3,4 (= Reprints, p. 5373).
67 Ibid., pp. 4,5 (= Reprints, p. 5374). Emphasis added.
68 Ibid., May 1, 1914, pp. 134, 135 (= Reprints, p. 5450). Emphasis added.
54
Two months later Russell seemed to be on the point of rejecting

his chronology altogether. Answering a colporteur, who wanted to
know if the Studies in the Scriptures were to be circulated after
October, 1914, “since you [Russell] have some doubts respecting
the full accomplishment of all expected by or before October,
1914,” Russell replied:
It is our thought that these books will be on sale and read for
years in the future, provided the Gospel age and its work
continue. . . . We have not attempted to say that these views are
infallible, but have stated the processes of reasoning and figuring,
leaving to each reader the duty and privilege of reading, thinking
and figuring for himself.
That will be an interesting matter a hundred years from now; and if he can
figure and reason better, he will still be interested in what we have
presented.69
Thus, by July 1914, Russell now seemed ready to accept the
thought that the 1914 date probably was a failure, and that his
writings on the matter were going to be merely of historical interest
to Bible students a hundred years later!
Reactions to the outbreak of the war
With the outbreak of the war in Europe in August 1914, Russell’s

wavering confidence in the chronology began to recover. Although
the war itself did not exactly fit into the predicted pattern of
events—that the “time of trouble” would be a class struggle
between capital and labor, leading up to a period of worldwide
anarchy —he saw in the war the prelude to that situation:
Socialism is, we believe, the main factor in the war now raging
and which will be earth’s greatest and most terrible war—and
probably the last.70
Later in 1914, he wrote:
We think that the present distress amongst the nations is merely
the beginning of this time of trouble. . . . The anarchy that will
follow this war will be the real time of trouble. Our thought is that
the war will so weaken the nations that following it there will be an
attempt to bring in Socialistic ideas, and that this will be met by the
governments — [etc., leading up to worldwide class struggle and
anarchy].71
69 Ibid., July 1, 1914, pp. 206, 207 (= Reprints, p. 5496). Emphasis added.
70 Ibid., August 15, 1914, pp. 243,244 (= Reprints, p. 5516).
71 Ibid., November 1, 1914, pp. 327, 328 (= Reprints, p. 5567).
55
Like other millenarian authors, Russell believed that the

expiration of the Gentile times would mean a restoration of the
Jewish nation in Palestine. Toward the end of 1914, however,
Palestine and Jerusalem were still occupied by Gentiles. It seemed
obvious that the restoration would not begin to occur in 1914 as
had been predicted. In the November 1 issue of The Watch Tower,
therefore, Russell tried to reinterpret the end of the Gentile times
to mean the end of the persecution of the Jews:
The treading down of the Jews has stopped. All over the world
the Jews are now free—even in Russia. On September 5, the Czar
of Russia issued a proclamation to all the Jews of the Russian
Empire; and this was before the times of the Gentiles had expired.
It stated that the Jews might have access to the highest rank in the
Russian army, and that the Jewish religion was to have the same
freedom as any other religion in Russia. Where are the Jews being
trodden down now? Where are they being subjected to scorn? At
present they are receiving no persecution whatever. We believe
that the treading down of Jerusalem has ceased, because the time
for the Gentiles to tread down Israel has ended.72
However, the relief for the Jews in Russia and elsewhere
referred to by Russell turned out to be only temporary. He could
not, of course, foresee the coming fierce persecutions of the Jews
in Germany, Poland, and other countries during the Second World
War.
From the outbreak of the First World War and up to his death
on October, 1916, Russell’s restored confidence in his chronology
remained unshaken, as demonstrated by the following extracts
from various issues of The Watch Tower during the period:
January 1, 1915: “ . . . the war is the one predicted in the
Scriptures as associated with the great day of Almighty God—‘the
day of vengeance of our God.’”73
September 15, 1915: “Tracing the Scriptural chronology down to
our day, we find that we are now living in the very dawn of the
great seventh day of man’s great week. This is abundantly
corroborated by the events now taking place about us on every
hand”74
72 Ibid., pp. 329, 330 (= Reprints, p. 5568).
73 Ibid., January 1, 1915, pp. 3, 4 (= Reprints, p. 5601).
74 Ibid., September 15, 1915, pp. 281, 282 (= Reprints, p. 5769).
56
February 15, 1916: “In STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES, Vol.

IV, we have clearly pointed out the things now transpiring, and the
worse conditions yet to come.”75
April 15, 1916: “We believe that the dates have proven to be
quite right. We believe that Gentile Times have ended, and that
God is now allowing the Gentile Governments to destroy
themselves, in order to prepare the way for Messiah’s kingdom.”76
September 1, 1916: “It still seems clear to us that the prophetic
period known to us as the Times of the Gentiles ended
chronologically in October, 1914. The fact that the great day of
wrath upon the nation began there marks a good fulfilment of our
expectations.”77
In November 1918, however, the First World War suddenly
ended—without being followed by a worldwide Socialist
revolution and anarchy, as had been predicted. The last member of
the “divinely recognized Church of Christ” had not been glorified,
the city of Jerusalem was still being controlled by the Gentiles, the
kingdom of God had not crushed “the Gentile image,” and the
“new heavens and the new earth” could not be seen anywhere by
trouble-tossed humanity. Not a single one of the seven predictions
enumerated in the book The Time is at Hand had come true.78
Pastor Russell’s “Bible Students” were confused, to say the least.
Yet—though not among the predictions— something had
happened: The World War. Could it be that the time was right,
after all, even though the predictions had failed? The explanation
resorted to by the Adventists after 1844 and by Barbour and his
associates after 1874—that they had expected “the wrong thing at
the right time”—now seemed even more appropriate.79 But how
could the time be right, when all predictions based on it had failed?
For years many of Russell’s followers experienced deep perplexity
because of the non-arrival of the predicted events. After the lapse
of some years, J. F. Rutherford, Russell’s successor as president of
75 Ibid., February 15, 1916, pp. 51, 52 (= Reprints, p. 5852).
76 Ibid., April 15, 1916 (= Reprints, p. 5888).
77 Ibid., September 1, 1916, pp. 263, 264 (= Reprints, p. 5950).
78 See above, pages 50, 51. For a long time after 1914 it was held that the “time of
trouble” (Matt. 24:21, 22) really began in that year, but this view was finally
abandoned by the Watch Tower Society in 1969. (See The Watchtower, January 15,
1970, pp. 49–56.)
79 A. H. Macmillan, Faith on the March (New York: Prentice Hall, Inc., 1957), p.48.
57
the Watch Tower Society, began to explain, step by step, what

“really” had been fulfilled from 1914 onward.
In the address “The Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand” at the
September 5–13, 1922, Cedar Point Convention, Rutherford told
his audience that the Kingdom of God really had been established in
1914, not on earth but in the invisible heavens!80 And three years later,
in 1925, he applied Revelation 12 to this event, stating that God’s
Kingdom was born in heaven in 1914 according to this prophecy.81
Previously the Watch Tower’s predictions had all been of an
obvious, clearly visible, takeover of earth’s rulership by Christ.
Now this was presented as something invisible, evident only to a
select group.
Also at the Cedar Point Convention in 1922, Rutherford for the
first time presented the view that “in 1918, or thereabouts, the
Lord came to his (spiritual) temple.”82 Earlier, Russell and his
associates had held the view that the heavenly resurrection took
place in 1878. But in 1927 Rutherford transferred that event to
1918.83 Likewise in the early 1930’s, Rutherford changed the date
for the beginning of Christ’s invisible presence from 1874 to 1914.84
Thus Rutherford gradually replaced the unfulfilled predictions
with a series of invisible and spiritual events associated with the years
1914 and 1918. Ninety years after 1914 Rutherford’s
“explanations” are still held by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
80 New Heavens and a New Earth (Brooklyn, N.Y.: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, 1953), p. 225. Until 1922, that is, for over forty years, the Bible Students
had believed and taught that the kingdom of God had begun to be established in
heaven in 1878. This event was now transferred to 1914. ― See The Time is at
Hand (= Vol. II of Millennial Dawn), 1889, p. 101.
81 See the article ‘Birth of a Nation” in The Watch Tower of March 1, 1925.
82 The Watch Tower, October 1, 1922, p. 298; November 1, 1922, p. 334.
83 From Paradise Lost to Paradise Regained (Brooklyn, N.Y.: Watchtower Bible and
Tract Society, 1958), p. 192.
84 As of 1929 the Watch Tower Society still taught that “the second presence of the
Lord Jesus Christ began in 1874 AD.” (Prophecy, Brooklyn, N.Y.: International
Bible Students Association, 1929, p.65.) The exact date for the transference of the
second coming from 1874 to 1914 is difficult to pinpoint. For some time confusing
statements may be found in the publications. Perhaps the first indication of a
change is the statement in The Golden Age of April 30, 1930, page 503, that
“Jesus has been present since the year 1914.” However, The Watch Tower of
October 15, 1930, somewhat vaguely states on page 308 that “the second advent
of the Lord Jesus Christ dates from about 1875.” Then, in 1931, the booklet, The
Kingdom, the Hope of the World, again indicates that the second coming occurred
in 1914. And in 1932 the booklet What is Truth clearly states on page 48: “The
prophecy of the Bible, fully supported by the physical facts in fulfilment thereof,
shows that the second coming of Christ dates from the fall of the year 1914.”
58
Summary
The interpretation of the “Gentile times” as having been of 2,520
years, beginning in 607 B.C.E. (earlier, 606 B.C.E.) and ending in
1914 C.E., was not some divine revelation made to Pastor Charles
Taze Russell in the autumn of 1876. On the contrary, this idea has
a long history of development, with its roots far back in the past.
It had its origin in the “year-day principle,” first posited by
Rabbi Akibah ben Joseph in the first century C.E. From the ninth
century onward this principle was applied to the time periods of
Daniel by several Jewish rabbis.
Among Christians, Joachim of Floris in the twelfth century
probably was the first to pick up the idea, applying it to the 1,260
days of Revelation and the three and one-half times of Daniel.
After Joachim’s death, his followers soon identified the 1,260 year
period with the Gentile times of Luke 21:24, and this interpretation
was then common among groups, including the Reformers,
branded as heretics by the church of Rome during the following
centuries.
As time passed, and expectations failed when earlier
explanations proved to be wrong, the starting-point of the 1,260
(or, 1290) years was progressively moved forward, in order to make
them end in a then near future.
The first to arrive at a period of 2,520 years was apparently John
Aquila Brown in 1823. Although his calculation was founded upon
the “seven times” of Daniel 4, he did not equate those periods with
the “Gentile times” of Luke 21:24. But this was very soon done by
other expositors. Fixing the starting-point at 604 B.C.E., Brown
reached the year 1917 as the seven times’ termination date. By
using different starting-points, other biblical commentators in the
following decades arrived at a number of different terminal dates.
Some writers, who experimented with biblical “Jubilee cycles,”
arrived at a period of 2,450 (or, 2,452) years (49x49+49), which
they held to be the period of the Gentile times.
The accompanying table presents a selection of applications of the
2,520 (and 2,450) years made by different authors during the last
century. The calculations were in fact so numerous, that it would
probably be difficult to find a single year between the 1830’s and
1930’s that does not figure in some calculation as the terminal date
of the Gentile times! That a number of expositors pointed to 1914
or other years near to that date, such as 1915, 1916, 1917, 1918,
1919, 1922 and 1923, is, therefore, not a cause for astonishment.
59
TABLE 2: APPLICATIONS OF THE 2,520 (OR 2,450) YEAR

Application
Expositor Date Publication BCE–CE Comments
John Aquila Brown 1823 The Even-Tide . . . 604–1917 = “Seven times” of Daniel 4
William Cuninghame 1827 Dialogues on Prophecy, Vol.1 728–1792 Report of the prophetic conferences
Henry Drummond 1827 ” ” ” 722–1798 at Albury Park
S. Faber 1828 The Sacred Calendar of Prophecy 657–1864
Alfred Addis 1829 Heaven Opened 680–1840
William Digby 1831 A Treatise on the 1260 Days 723–1793
W. A, Holmes 1833 The Time of the End 685–1835

Matthew Habershon 1834 A Dissertation . . . 677–1843
John Fry 1835 Unfulfilled Prophecies . . . 677–1843
William W. Pym 1835 A Word of Warning . . . 673–1847
William Miller 1842 The First Report . . . 677–1843
Th. R. Birks 1843 First Elements of Sacred Prophecy 606–1843 Gentile times = 2,450 years
Edward B. Elliott 1844 Horae Apocalypticae, Vol. 111 727–1793
” ” ” 1844 ” ” ” 606–1914 A second alternative
Matthew Habershon 1844 An Historical Exposition 676–1844
William Cuninghame 1847 The Fulfilling . . . 606–1847 Gentile times = 2,452 years
James Halley Frere 1848 The Great Continental Revolution 603–1847 Gentile times = 2,450 years
Robert Seeley 1849 An Atlas of Prophecy 606–1914 Counted from “606 or 607”
” ” ” 1849 ” ” ” 728–1792 A third alternative
Edward Bickersteth 1850 A Scripture Help 727–1793 Another of his calculations
” ” ” 1850 ” ” ” 602–1918 was 677-1843
60
Anonymous 1856 The Watch Tower 727–1793 A pamphlet

Richard C. Shimeall 1859 Our Bible Chronology 652–1868
J. S. Phillips 1865 The Rainbow, March 1, 652–1867 A London periodical edited
”J. M. N.” 1865 ” ” April 1, 658/47–1862/73 by William Leask
Frederick W. Farrar 1865 ” ” November 1 654–1866
Anonymous 1870 The Prophetic Times, December, 715–1805 A periodical edited by Joseph A.
” 1870 ” ” ” ” 698–822 Seiss et al. These are some
” 1870 ” ” ” ” 643–1877 examples; the writer gives twelve
” 1870 ” ” ” ” 606–1914 different alternatives!
” 1870 ” ” ” ” 598–1922
Joseph Baylee 1871 The Times of the Gentiles 623–1896
”P. H. G.” The Quarterley Journal of A London periodical edited by Horatius
” ” ” 1871 Prophecy, April, 652/49–1868/71 Bonar
Edward White 1874 Our Hope, June, 626–1894 A London periodical edited by Wm. Maude
N. H. Barbour 1875 Herald of the Morning, Sept & Oct., 606–1914 Periodical published by Nelson H. Barbour
C. T. Russell 1876 The Bible Examiner, October, 606–1914 Edited by George Storrs
E. H. Tuckett 1877 The Rainbow, August, 651/50–1869/70
M. P. Baxter 1880 Forty Coming Wonders, 5th ed. 695–1825
” ” ” 1880 ” ” ” ” 620–1900 A second alternative
Grattan Guinness 1886 Light for the Last Days 606–1915 These are only some of his many, diverse
” ” ” 1886 ” ” ” ” 604–1917 analyses
” ” ” 1886 ” ” ” ” 598–1923
” ” ” 1886 ” ” ” ” 587–1934
W. E. Blackstone 1916 The Weekly Evangel, May 13 606–1915 This article sums up his viewpoints as
” ” ” 1916 ” ” ” ” 595–1926 published many years earlier
” ” ” 1916 ” ” ” ” 587–1934
61
The 1914 date would most probably have drowned in the sea of
other failed dates and been forgotten by now had it not happened
to be the year of the outbreak of the First World War.
When, back in 1844, E. B. Elliott suggested 1914 as a possible
terminal date for the Gentile times, he reckoned the 2,520 years
from Nebuchadnezzar’s accession-year, which he dated to 606 B.C.E.
N. H. Barbour, however, reckoned the 2,520 years from the
desolation of Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th regnal year. But
as he dated this event to 606 B.C.E., he, too, in 1875, arrived at
1914 as the terminal date. Since their chronologies not only
conflicted with each other, but also conflicted with the historically
established chronology for Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, their arriving
at the same terminal year was simply a coincidence, demonstrating
how arbitrary and gratuitous their calculations really were.
Barbour’s calculation was accepted by C. T. Russell at their
meeting in 1876. Barbour was then fifty-two years old while Russell
was twenty-four— still very young. Although their ways parted
again in the spring of 1879, Russell stuck to Barbour’s time
calculations, and since that time the 1914 date has been the pivotal
point in prophetic explanations among Russell’s followers.
Supplement to the third and later editions, chapter 1:
The information presented in this chapter has been available to
the Jehovah’s Witnesses since 1983, when the first edition of this
book was published. In addition, the same information was
summarized by Raymond Franz in chapter 7 of his widely known
work, Crisis of Conscience, published in the same year. Thus—after 10
years—in 1993 the Watch Tower Society finally felt compelled to
admit that neither the 2,520-year calculation nor the 1914 date
originated with Charles Taze Russell as it had held until then.
Further, the Society now also admits that the predictions Russell
and his associates attached to 1914 failed.
These admissions are found on pages 134–137 of Jehovah’s
Witnesses—Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom, a book on the history of the
movement published by the Watch Tower Society in 1993. Prior to
1993 the impression given had been that Russell was the first to
publish the 2,520-year calculation pointing to 1914, doing this for
the first time in the October, 1876 issue of George Storrs’
magazine the Bible Examiner. Also, that decades in advance Russell
and his followers foretold the outbreak of World War I in 1914 and
62
other events associated with the war. Thus the earlier organizational
history book Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose quoted some
very general statements made in the book The Plan of the Ages
(published in 1886) about the “time of trouble” (originally believed
to extend from 1874 to 1914) and claimed:
Although this was still decades before the first world war, it is
surprising how accurately the events that finally took place were actually
foreseen. (Emphasis added.)85
Similarly, The Watchtower of August 1, 1971, made the following
pretentious statements on page 468:
From the Bible chronology, Jehovah’s witnesses as far back as
1877 pointed to the year 1914 as one of great significance. . . .
The momentous year of 1914 came, and with it World War I,
the most widespread upheaval in history up to that time. It
brought unprecedented slaughter, famine, pestilence and
overthrow of governments. The world did not expect such horrible events
as took place. But Jehovah’s witnesses did expect such things, and others
acknowledged that they did... .
How could Jehovah’s witnesses have known so far in advance what world
leaders themselves did not know? Only by God’s holy spirit making such
prophetic truths known to them. True, some today claim that those
events were not hard to predict, since mankind has long known
various troubles. But if those events were not hard to predict, then
why were not all the politicians, religious leaders and economic experts doing
so? Why were they telling the people the opposite? (Emphasis added.)
Unfortunately for the Watch Tower Society, none of these
claims are in accordance with the facts of history. Whether
deliberate or the result of ignorance, each represents a serious
distortion of reality.
Firstly, although there were a number of predictions in the
Watch Tower publications as to what would take place in 1914,
none of them came close to a prediction of the outbreak of a world war in that
year.
Secondly, political and religious leaders, contrary to the
statements in The Watchtower quoted above, long before 1914 expected
that a great war sooner or later would break out in Europe. As early
as 1871 Otto von Bismarck, the first Lord High Chancellor of the
German Empire, declared that the “Great War” would come one
day. For decades before 1914, the daily papers and weeklies were
constantly occupied with the theme. To cite just one example
among many, the January 1892 issue of the highly respected
English weekly Black and White explained in an editorial
introduction to a fictional serial on the coming war:
85 Jehovah’s Witnesses in the Divine Purpose (Brooklyn, New York: Watchtower
Bible & Tract Society, 1959), p. 31.
63
The air is full of rumours of War. The European nations stand

fully armed and prepared for instant mobilization. Authorities are
agreed that a GREAT WAR must break out in the immediate future, and
that this War will be fought under novel and surprising conditions.
All facts seem to indicate that the coming conflict will be the
bloodiest in history, and must involve the momentous
consequences to the whole world. At any time the incident may
occur which will precipitate the disaster.86
I. F. Clarke, in his book Voices Prophesying War 1763–1984,
explains to what an extent the First World War “was being
prepared in fact and in fiction”:
From 1871 onwards the major European powers prepared for
the great war that Bismarck had said would come one day. And for
close on half a century, while the general staffs and the ministries
argued about weapons, estimates, and tactics, the tale of the war-to-
come was a dominant device in the field of purposive fiction.... The
period from the eighteen-eighties to the long-expected outbreak of
the next war in 1914 saw the emergence of the greatest number of
these tales of coming conflicts ever to appear in European fiction.87
The people of that time, therefore, could not avoid being
confronted with the constant predictions of a coming great war in
Europe. The question was not if but when the Great War would
break out. Here there was room for speculations, and many of the
imaginative tales and novels suggested different dates. Specific
dates were sometimes even pointed out in the very titles of the
books, for example, Europa in Flammen. Der deutsche Zukunftskrieg
1909 (”Europe in Flames. The Coming German War of 1909”), by
Michael Wagebald, published in 1908, and The Invasion of 1910, by
W. LeQueux, published in 1906.
Politicians and statesmen, too, sometimes tried to pinpoint the
specific year for the outbreak of the expected great war. One of the
more lucky was M. Francis Delaisi, a member of the French
Chamber of Deputies. In his article “La Guerre qui Vient” (”The
Coming War”), published in the parish periodical La Guerre Sociale
in 1911, he discusses at great length the diplomatic situation,
concluding that “a terrible war between England and Germany is
preparing.” As shown by the following extracts from his article,
some of his political forecasts turned out to be remarkably
accurate:
A conflict is preparing itself compared with which the horrible
slaughter of the Russo-Japanese war [in 1904–05] will be child’s
play. In 1914 the [naval] forces of England and Germany will be
almost equal. A Prussian army corps will advance with forced
marches to occupy Antwerp. We, the French, will have to do the
fighting on the Belgian plains.
86 Quoted by I. F. Clarke in Voices Prophesying War 1763–1984 (London: Oxford
University Press, 1966), pp. 66, 67.
87 Ibid., p. 59.
64
All newspapers will print in headlines as large as your hand

these prophetic words: THE BELGIUM NEUTRALITY HAS
BEEN VIOLATED. THE PRUSSIAN ARMY IS MARCHING
UPON LILLE.88
In the religious area, it was especially the “millennarians” that
were then presenting predictions of the approaching end of the
world. This movement included millions of Christians from
different quarters, Baptists, Pentecostals, and so on. Pastor Russell
and his followers, the “Bible Students,” were just a small branch of
this broad movement. Common to them all was their pessimistic
view of the future. In his book Armageddon Now! Dwight Wilson
describes their reaction to the outbreak of the Great War in 1914:
The war itself came as no shock to these opponents of
postmillennial optimism; they had not only looked toward the
culmination of the age in Armageddon, but anticipated ‘wars and
rumors of wars’ as signs of the approaching end.89
Wilson then goes on to quote one of them, R. A. Torrey, dean
of the Bible Institute of Los Angeles, who, in 1913, one year before
the outbreak of the war, wrote in his book, The Return of the Lord
Jesus: “We talk of disarmament, but we all know it is not coming.
All our present peace plans will end in the most awful wars and
conflicts this old world ever saw!”90
As Theodore Graebner tells in his book War in the Light of
Prophecy, the war of 1914 had scarcely begun before a great host of
writers from different religious quarters arose, claiming that the war
had been foretold:
Soon the announcement was made by several investigators: IT
HAS BEEN FORETOLD. Immediately thousands of Bible
Christians became interested. Immediately, too, others set to work
on Gog and Magog, Armageddon, the Seventy Weeks, 666, 1,260,
etc., and soon religious periodicals, in this country and abroad,
contained the message, announced with greater or less assurance,
IT HAS BEEN FORETOLD. Pamphlets and tracts appeared
promulgating the same message, and soon a number of books
were on the market, running to 350 pages each, which not only
contained most circumstantial ‘proof’ for this assertion, but
announced likewise the exact time when the war would come to a
close, who would be the victor, and the significance of the war for
the Christian Church, now (it was said) about to enter into her
millennial period.91
88 Quoted by Theodore Graebner in his book, War in the Light of Prophecy. “Was it
Foretold?” A Reply to Modern Chiliasm (St. Louis, Mo.: Concordia Publishing House,
1941), pp. 14, 15.
89 Dwight Wilson, Armageddon Now! (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), pp.
36, 37.
90 Ibid.. p. 37.
91 Graebner, op. cit., p. 8, 9.
65
Graebner, who felt incited to examine a great number of these

contentions, after a very thorough investigation concludes that:
. . . the entire mass of millennial literature that flourished during
the First World War—and a tremendous mass it was—was proved
definitely, completely, absolutely, false by the events. In not a single
point did the First World War develop as was to be expected after
reading the chiliastic [millennialist] interpreters. Not a single [one]
of them predicted the outcome of the war. Not a single [one] of
them foretold the entrance of the United States. Not a single [one]
of them foretold World War II.92
Pastor Russell’s speculations about the coming great war in
Europe did not differ appreciably from those of the contemporary
novel-writers and millenarian expositors. In the Zion’s Watch Tower
of February, 1885, he wrote: “Storm clouds are gathering thick
over the old world. It looks as though a great European war is one
of the possibilities of the near future.”93
Commenting on the prevailing world situation two years later he
concluded, in the issue of February, 1887: “This all looks as though
next Summer [ 1888] would see a war on foot which might engage
every nation of Europe.”94 In the issue of January 15, 1892, he had
postponed the war to “about 1905,” at the same time stressing that
this generally expected Great War had nothing to do with 1914 and the
expectations attached to that date. In 1914 he expected—not a general
European war—but the climax of the “battle of Armageddon”
(which he thought had begun in 1874), when all the nations on
earth would be crushed and be replaced by the kingdom of God.
He wrote:
The daily papers and the weeklies and the monthlies, religious
and secular, are continually discussing the prospects of war in
Europe. They note the grievances and ambitions of the various
nations and predict that war is inevitable at no distant day, that it
may begin at any moment between some of the great powers, and
that the prospects are that it will eventually involve them all. . . .
But, notwithstanding these predictions and the good reasons
which many see for making them, we do not share them. That is,
we do not think that the prospects of a general European war are
so marked as is commonly supposed. . . . Even should a war or
revolution break out in Europe sooner than 1905, we do not
consider it any portion of the severe trouble predicted. . . . [The]
ever-darkening war cloud will burst in all its destructive fury. This
culmination we do not expect, however, before about 1905, as the
events predicted will require about that time, notwithstanding the
rapid progress in these directions now possible.95
92 Ibid., pp. 9, 10.
93 Reprints, p. 720.
94 Reprints, p. 899.
95 Reprints, pp. 1354–1356.
66
The generally expected Great War finally came in 1914. But

probably none, and in any case not Charles Taze Russell and his
followers, had predicted that it would come that year. The very
different events that he and his associated “Bible Students” had
attached to that date did not occur. Like the predictions of the
many other contemporary millennarian writers, their predictions,
too, were proved “definitely, completely, absolutely, false by the
events.”
To claim afterwards, as the Watch Tower Society repeatedly did
up to 1993, that they and they alone “accurately,” “by God’s holy
spirit,” had predicted the outbreak of the war in 1914 and other
events, and that “all the politicians, religious leaders, and economic
experts” had been “telling the people the opposite,” is
demonstrably an outright lie.
As explained earlier, some of those pretentious claims were
finally, in 1993, withdrawn in the new book Jehovah’s Witnesses—
Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom. The book was introduced at the district
assemblies of Jehovah’s Witnesses that year as a “candid look” at
the history of the movement. The admissions, however, usually are
contextually surrounded by a minimum of background information
which, moreover, is so apologetically slanted and warped that it
often conceals more than it reveals.
True, the Society finally admits that Russell took over his
calculation of the Gentile times from Nelson H. Barbour, who had
published it one year before Russell “in the August, September,
and October 1875 issues of the Herald of the Morning.”96 In the
preceding paragraph the book even seeks to enlist the 19th-century
expositors of the 2,520-year calculation as supporting the 1914
date. This impression is further enhanced by the bold-typed
statement to the left of the paragraph: “They could see that 1914
was clearly marked by Bible prophecy.” The presentation of the
history, however, is narrowly limited to a few carefully selected
expositors, the calculations of whom are partially obscured,
adjusted and arranged so as to create the impression that the 2,520-
year calculation uniquely pointed forward to 1914. None of the many other
terminal dates arrived at by expositors before Russell are mentioned. Thus,
although John A. Brown is stated to have arrived at the 2,520 years
“as early as 1823,” his particular application of the period is
completely veiled and distorted in the subsequent sentences:
96 Jehovah’s Witnesses—Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom (Brooklyn, New York: Watch-
tower Bible & Tract Society, 1993), p. 134.
67
134 JEHOVAH’S WITNESSES -PROCLAIMERS OF GODS KINGDOM
subtitle "Herald of Christ’s Presence," which appeared on the cover of

Zion’s Watch Tower.
Recognition of Christ’s presence as being invisible became an
important foundation on which an understanding of many Bible
prophecies would be built. Those early Bible Students realized that the
presence of the Lord should be of primary concern to all true
Christians. (Mark 13:33-37) They were keenly interested in the
Master’s return and were alert to the fact that they had a responsibility
to publicize it, but they did not yet clearly discern all the details. Yet,
what God’s spirit did enable them to understand at a very early time
was truly remarkable. One of these truths involved a highly significant
date marked by Bible prophecy.
End of the Gentile Times
The matter of Bible chronology had long been of great interest to
Bible students. Commentators had set out a variety of views on Jesus’
prophecy about "the times of the Gentiles" and the prophet Daniel’s
record of Nebuchadnezzar’s dream regarding the tree stump that was
banded for "seven times."—Luke 21:24, KJ, Dan. 4:10-17.
They could see As early as 1823, John A. Brown, whose work was published in Lon-
that 1914 was don, England, calculated the seven times" of Daniel chapter 4 to be 2,520
clearly marked by years in length. But he did not clearly discern the date with which the
Bible prophecy prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did, however,
connect these "seven times" with the Gentile Times of Luke 21:24. In
1844, E. B. Elliott, a British clergyman, drew attention to 1914 as a
possible date for the end of the "seven times" of Daniel, but he also
set out an alternate view that pointed to the time of the French
Revolution. Robett Seeley, of London, in 1849, handled the matter in
a similar manner. At least by 1870, a publication edited by Joseph
Seiss and associates and printed in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, was
setting out calculations that pointed to 1914 as a significant date,
even though the reasoning it contained was based on chronology that
C. T. Russell later rejected.
Then, in the August, September, and October 1875 issues of
Herald of the Morning, N. H. Barbour helped to harmonize details
that had been pointed out by others. Using chronology compiled by
Christopher Bowen, a clergyman in England, and published by E. B.
Elliott, Barbour identified the start of the Gentile Times with King
Zedekiah’s removal from kingship as foretold at Ezekiel 21:25, 26,
and he pointed to 1914 as marking the end of the Gentile Times.
Early in 1876, C. T. Russell received a copy of Herald of the
Morning. He promptly wrote to Barbour and then spent time with him
in Philadelphia during the summer, discussing, among other things,
prophetic time periods. Shortly thereafter, in an article entitled
"Gentile Times: When Do
Page 134 of Jehovah’s Witnesses—Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom (1993), the

Watch Tower Society’s new book on the history of the movement.
68
But he did not clearly discern the date with which the
prophetic time period began or when it would end. He did,
however, connect these ‘seven times’ with the Gentile Times of Luke
21:24.97
Quite to the contrary, as shown in the chapter above, Brown
expressly stated as his firm conviction that the 2,520-year period
began in 604 B.C.E. and would end in 1917. Further, despite the
Society’s italicized statement, Brown did not connect the 2,520 years
with the Gentile times of Luke 21:24, because, as pointed out in
the chapter above, he held the Gentile times referred to in this text
to be 1,260 (lunar) years, not “seven times” of 2,520 years. (See
footnote 20 above.) Both statements about Brown’s calculation,
then, are demonstrably false.
In addition to John A. Brown, the Society in the same paragraph
refers to Edward B. Elliott and Robert Seeley, both of whom
mentioned 1914 as one of the possible dates for the end of the
“seven times.” Both of them, however, actually preferred 1793 (later
changed to 1791 by Elliott) as the terminal date.98
Finally, an unnamed publication edited by Joseph Seiss and
others is stated to have set out calculations that pointed to 1914 as
a significant date, “even though the reasoning it contained was
based on chronology that C. T. Russell later rejected.”99
The fact is, however, that this holds true of all four expositors
mentioned by the Society. All of them used a chronology that dated the
desolation of Jerusalem to 588 or 587 B.C.E. (not 606 B.C.E. as in
Russell’s writings). Brown arrived at 1917 as the terminal date only
because he reckoned the 2,520 years from the first year of
Nebuchadnezzar (604 B.C.E.) instead of his 18th year, as did
Barbour and Russell. And the other three arrived at 1914 by
counting from Nebuchadnezzar’s accession- year, which they dated
97 Ibid., p. 134.
98 The Watch Tower Society gives no specific references. E. B. Elliott first published
his calculations in Horae Apocalypticae, 1st ed. (London: Seeley, Burnside, and
Seeley, 1844), vol. III, pp. 1429–1431. Robert Seeley published his calculations in
An Atlas of Prophecy: Being the Prophecies of Daniel & St. John (London: Seeley’s,
1849), p. 9. See also footnote 30 of chapter I.
99 The unnamed publication is the The Prophetic Times magazine. The calculation was
presented in the article “Prophetic Times. An Inquiry into the Dates and Periods of
Sacred Prophecy,” written by an anonymous contributor and published in the
issue of December, 1870, pp. 177–184. The author, on pages 178 and 179,
presents 12 different starting-points for the times of the Gentiles, extending from 728
to 598 B.C.E., thus arriving at 12 different terminal dates extending from 1792 to
1922 C.E.! The year 1914 is the next to the last of these terminal dates. The
calculation pointing to 1914 is counted from the accession-year of
Nebuchadnezzar, which the author, like Elliott and Seeley, dates to 606 B.C.E.
Thus he, too, followed a chronology that dates the destruction of Jerusalem to 588
or 587 B.C.E., not 606 B.C.E. as in Russell’s writings or 607 B.C.E. as in later
Watch Tower publications.
69
to 606 B.C.E. (instead of 605 B.C.E., the date established by

modern historians).100
Although all of them based their calculations on chronologies
that were rejected by Russell and his followers, the Society claims
that these expositors “could see that 1914 was clearly marked by
Bible prophecy.” How they “could see” this “clearly” by using
chronologies that the Society still holds to be false is certainly
puzzling. Of course, for a reader to discover such inconsistent
reasonings, he or she has to check the works of these expositors.
The problem is that the Society’s authors commonly avoid giving
specific references. This practice makes it virtually impossible for
the great majority of readers to discover the subtle methods used to
support indefensible interpretations and cover over embarrassing
evidence.
As just mentioned, the Society, contrary to earlier claims,
concedes in the new book that the predictions attached to 1914
failed. As was shown in the chapter above, the very specific and
distinct predictions about 1914 were summarized in seven points
on pages 76–78 of Vol. II of Millennial Dawn, originally published in
1889. These predictions were there put forward in no uncertain
terms. The discussion is teeming with words and phrases such as
“facts,” “proof,” “Bible evidence,” and “established truth.” That
1914 would see “the disintegration of the rule of imperfect men,”
for instance, is stated to be “a fact firmly established by the
Scriptures.101
What does the Society’s new history book do with the
pretentious claims and the very positive language that originally
encapsulated these predictions? They are totally smoothed over or
concealed. Referring to the above-mentioned discussion of the
Gentiles times in Vol. II of Millennial Dawn—but without quoting
any of the actual statements made—the Society asks: “But what
100 As shown in the chapter above, Barbour and Russell, too, started the Gentile
times in 606 B.C.E., although this was held to be the date for the desolation of
Jerusalem in the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. The 606 B.C.E. date is
nowhere mentioned in the Society’s new book, probably because the Society
today uses 607 B.C.E. as the starting-point. Reminding the readers of the earlier
date, therefore, might only seem confusing at least to those who have never
heard of it. How the Society in 1944 (in the book The Kingdom is at Hand, p. 175)
managed to change the starting-point from 606 to 607) B.C.E. and still retain
1914 as the terminal date has a strange history of its own, a history that has
been recounted in the booklet The Watchtower Society and Absolute Chronology
(Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada, 1981), authored by “Karl Burganger” (a pen name I
used at that time). See also next chapter, pp. 77–84.
101 The Time is at Hand (=Vol .II of Millennial Dawn, later called Studies in the
Scriptures) Pittsburgh: Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society, 1889, pp. 76–102.
70
would the end of the Gentile Times mean?” The surprising answer
given is that the Bible Students “were not completely sure what
would happen”!
Although some of the predictions are briefly mentioned, the
Society carefully avoids terming them “predictions” or
“prophecies.” Russell and his associates never “predicted” or
“foretold” anything, never claimed to present “proof” or
“established truth.” They just “thought,” “suggested,” “expected,”
and “earnestly hoped” that this or that “might” happen, but they
“were not completely sure.”102 Thus the predictions are wrapped
up in language that completely masks the true nature of the
aggressive doomsday message proclaimed to the world by the
International Bible Students for over a quarter of a century before
1914. Disguising the presumptuous predictions in such vague and
unassuming words and phrases, of course, makes it easier to
“humbly” concede that these failed.
102 Jehovah’s Witnesses—Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom (1993), page 135.
71
2
BIBLICAL AND SECULAR

CHRONOLOGY
Ilength
N DEFENDING the date of 607 B .CE. as the time of the
desolation of Jerusalem and the starting point for calculating the
of the Gentile times, representatives of the Watch Tower
Society claim that they are relying on the Bible. Those who date the
desolation to 587 or 586 B.C.E. are said to rely on secular sources
rather than the Bible. The anonymous author of the “Appendix to
chapter 14” of the book “Let Your Kingdom Come,” for instance,
states:
We are willing to be guided primarily by God’s Word rather
than by a chronology that is based principally on secular evidence
or that disagrees with the Scriptures.1
Such statements obviously intend to create the impression that
those who reject the 607 B.C.E. date for the desolation of
Jerusalem have no real faith in the Bible. But do such statements
give a fair description of the matter? Or are they just sanctimonious
disparagement, aimed at defaming the Christian character of those
who disagree, not with the Scriptures, but with the Watch Tower
Society’s datings? Or may it even be that the defenders of the
Society’s chronology have themselves not really understood the
true nature of Biblical chronology?
The nature of the Biblical chronology
Today, people read or use the terms B.C. and A.D. (corresponding
to B.C.E. and C.E.) and generally give no thought to the origin of
these designations. Actually, the “Christian era,” in which events
1 ”Let Your Kingdom Come” (Brooklyn, New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, 1981), p. 189.
72
Biblical and Secular Chronology 73
are dated in relation to the year of the birth of Christ, is a rather

late construction. As is well established, the system was not
introduced until the sixth century C.E. by the Roman monk and
scholar Dionysius Exiguus. Another 500 years would pass,
however, before this new era had been generally accepted as a
dating system in the Catholic world.
Since the Bible was written long before the time of Dionysius
Exiguus, it does not, of course, give any dates according to our
Christian era. Thus, although the Watch Tower Society dates the
baptism of Jesus to 29 C.E., the 20th year of Artaxerxes I to 455
B.C.E., the fall of Babylon to 539 B.C.E., and the desolation of
Jerusalem to 607 B.C.E., none of these dates are found in the
Bible. The Bible gives relative datings only. What does that imply?
Consider this relevant example: In 2 Kings 25:2 the desolation
of Jerusalem is dated to the “eleventh year of King Zedekiah,” the
last king of Judah. Verse 8 additionally tells us that this occurred in
the “nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.”
But when was that? How far from our own time was it? How
many years before the Christian era did it happen? The fact is that
the Bible gives no information whatsoever that, of itself, links up these datings
with our Christian era.
Similarly, the books of Kings and Chronicles tell about the kings
who ruled in Israel and Judah from Saul, the first king, on to
Zedekiah, the last one. We are told who succeeded whom, and for
how many years each of them ruled. By summing up the lengths of
reign from Saul to Zedekiah we can measure the approximate
space of time (there are many uncertain points) between these two
kings. In this way we find that the period of the Hebrew
monarchies covered roughly 500 years. But still we have found no
answer to the question: At what point on the stream of time did this period
start and at what point did it end?
If the Bible had gone on to give a continuous and unbroken
series of regnal years from Zedekiah all the way down to the
beginning of the Christian era, the question would have been
answered. But Zedekiah was the last of the Jewish line of kings and
his reign ended centuries before Christ’s coming. Nor does the
Bible give any other information that directly identifies for us the
length of the period from Zedekiah’s “eleventh year” (when
Jerusalem was desolated) to the beginning of the Christian era.
Thus we have a period of roughly 500 years, the period of the
Hebrew monarchies, but we are not told how far from our time
this period was and how it can be fixed to our Christian era.
If the Bible had preserved dated and detailed descriptions of

astronomical events, such as solar and lunar eclipses, or the positions
of the planets in relation to different stars and constellations, this
would have made our problem easier. Modern astronomers, with
their knowledge of the regular movements of the moon and the
planets, are able to calculate the positions these heavenly bodies
held on the starry sky thousands of years ago. But the fact is that
the Bible provides no information of this kind.
The Bible of itself, then, does not show how its chronological
datings may be connected with our own era. A chronology that is
in this sense “hanging in the air” is simply the type of chronology
called a relative chronology. Only if the Biblical information supplied
us with the exact distance from the time of Zedekiah up to our
own era—either by the aid of a complete and coherent line of
lengths of reign, or by detailed and dated astronomical
observations—we would have had an absolute chronology, that is, a
chronology that gives us the exact distance from the last year of
Zedekiah to our own time.2 It seems evident that the Bible writers
themselves were not concerned about supplying this, their focus
simply being on other matters. What source, then, can we look to
to make the connection with our era reckoning?
Is there a “Bible chronology” without secular sources?
Despite the relative nature of the Biblical dates, it is nonetheless not
impossible to date events mentioned in the Bible. If we were able
to synchronize the chronology of the Bible with the chronology of
another country, whose chronology in turn can be fixed to our
Christian era, then it would be possible to convert the Bible’s
relative chronology into an absolute chronology. This means,
however, that we would have to rely on extra-Biblical, that is, on
secular historical sources, in order to date events in the Bible.
2 Dr. Michael C. Astour explains: “Absolute chronology means dating reigns, wars,
treaties, destructions, rebuildings, and other events known from written and
archaeological records, in terms of modem Western time reckoning, i.e., in years
B.C.” (Hittite History and Absolute Chronology of the Bronze Age, Partille, Sweden:
Paul Åströms förlag, 1989, p. 1.) Such a chronology is usually best established by
the aid of recorded ancient astronomical observations. As the renowned expert on
ancient astronomy, Professor Otto Neugebauer, puts it, “an ‘absolute chronology’
[is] a chronology which is based on astronomically fixed dates in contrast to a
‘relative chronology’ which tells us only the length of certain intervals, e.g., the
total of regnal years in a dynasty.’ — A History of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy,
Book VI (Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer-Verlag, 1975), p. 1071.
And we have no other alternative. If we want to know when, in

relation to our own time, an event mentioned in the Bible took
place—be it the date for the fall of Babylon, the date for the
desolation of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, the date for the
rebuilding of the temple in the reign of Darius I, or any other date
whatever—then we are obliged to turn to the secular historical sources. This
is the sober fact every Bible believer has to accept, whether he or
she likes it or not. The simple truth is that—as relates to
connecting with our Christian era reckoning—without secular sources
there is no Bible chronology, no datings of Biblical events in terms of years
“B.C.E.” or “C.E.”
This also means, of course, that to speak of using the
“chronology of the Bible” as a unilateral, independent time-
measurer by which the correctness of a certain date can be
established, is simply to ignore reality. When, for instance, some
Witnesses point to the fact that modern historians date the fall of
Babylon to 539 B.C.E. and then claim that “the chronology of the
Bible is in agreement with this date,” they show they have not really
understood what the relative nature of the Biblical chronology
actually implies .Where does the Bible assign a date for the fall of
Babylon? A Witness might refer to Jeremiah’s prophecy of the
“seventy years” leading up to Babylon’s fall. But on what date did
those seventy years begin, so as to count forward to their end?
There is none supplied. Since the Bible does not give any date at
all, not even a specific relative date, for the fall of Babylon, the
statement that the Bible “agrees” with the secular dating of this
event to 539 B.C.E. is completely meaningless.3 And it is equally
3 According to secular sources Babylon was captured by Persian king Cyrus’ troops
in the 17th year of Nabonidus, which was thus to become the “accession-year” of
Cyrus. (For the Babylonian accession year system, see the Appendix for Chapter
2.) Although the fall of Babylon is referred to several times in the Bible, the event is
not dated to any specific regnal year, neither that of Nabonidus (who is not even
mentioned) nor of Cyrus. Isaiah (chapters 13, 14, 21, 45, 47, 48) and Jeremiah
(chapters 25, 27, 50, 51) both predicted the fall of Babylon, but neither of them
gave any date for the event. Daniel, in chapter 5, verses 26–28, predicted that the
fall of Babylon was imminent. Then, in verses 30 and 31, he states that “in that
very night” Belshazzar (the son of Nabonidus) was killed and was succeeded by
“Darius the Mede.” But who was “Darius the Mede”? The Watch Tower Society
admits that the historical identification of this figure “is uncertain” The suggestion
(of Professor D. J. Wiseman) that “Darius the Mede” is but another name for Cyrus
himself is rejected. (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1, Brooklyn, New York:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1988, pp. 581–583.) Further, although Daniel
6:28 mentions “the reign of Darius” and “the reign of Cyrus the Persian,” and
although Daniel 9:1 mentions the “first year” of “Darius the Mede,” the Bible
neither gives the 1ength of the reign of “Darius the Mede” nor does it indicate if his
reign should be inserted between the fall of Babylon and the first year of Cyrus or
not. Thus, although the Bible (in 2 Chronicles 36:22, 23 and Ezra 1:1–4) states
that the Jewish exiles were released “in the first year of Cyrus,” it does not show
how long after the fall of Babylon this occurred. The Bible, then, does not give even
a relative date for the fall of Babylon.
meaningless and misleading to state that the secular date for the
desolation of Jerusalem, 587 or 586 B.C.E., disagrees with the
chronology of the Bible, since the absolute date for that event is
not given in the Bible either.
What of the 70 years of Jeremiah 25:11, 12 and 29:10, on which
Witnesses rely so heavily in their chronology? Witnesses quite
naturally hold to the Watch Tower Society’s claim that these 70
years refer to the period of Jerusalem’s desolation, reckoned from
the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar to the return of the Jewish exiles
in the 1st year of Cyrus (that is, his first full or regnal year, following
his accession year, which began in 539 B.C.E.). As a result of this
view, the time interval between the dates historians have
established for these two events―587/86 and 538/37 B.C.E.—
appears too short, by some 20 years. The Watch Tower Society,
therefore, chooses to reject one of the two dates. They could reject
the date for Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year (587/86 B.C.E.) or reject
the date for Cyrus’ first regnal year (538/37 B.C.E.). They reject the
first date, 587/86 B.C.E. On what basis do they reject that date and
not the other?
There is no Biblical reason for this choice. As pointed out earlier,
the Bible itself neither agrees nor disagrees with either of these two
dates, dates stated in terms of the Christian era reckoning. The
Bible, therefore, simply does not provide the means for deciding
which of the two dates is the better one, in terms of being firmly
established. On what grounds, then, should the choice be made—
provided that the Society’s interpretation of the 70 years is correct?
The most logical, sound and scholarly method would be to
accept the date that is most clearly established by the extra-Biblical
historical sources. This is because these sources do supply the data
needed to link up with our Christian era reckoning. And, as will be
demonstrated in the next two chapters, these sources show very
definitely that, of the two dates just considered, the chronology of
Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is much better established by astronomical
and other documents than is the chronology of Cyrus’ reign. If a
choice were really necessary, and a Bible-believing Christian were
faced with choosing, the natural choice, then, should be to retain
the 587/86 B .C.E. date and reject the 538/37 B.C.E. date.
Yet the Watch Tower Society prefers the opposite choice. Since
the reason for this is not because the Bible itself favors one of
these dates over the other, and it is certainly not because the
historical evidence does so, what is the real reason for their choice?
Loyalty to the Bible—or to a prophetic speculation?

If, according to their claims, the 70-year period of Jeremiah’s
prophecy really should be reckoned from the 18th year of
Nebuchadnezzar to the 1st year of Cyrus , the Watch Tower
Society should logically have started with 587/86 B.C.E. as
historically the more reliable of the two dates. Counting 70 years
forward from that date would point to 518/17 B.C.E. as the first
year of Cyrus instead of 538/37. This would be’ as Biblical and
actually more scholarly than to retain 538/37 B.C.E. and reject
587/86 (the date having the stronger documentary and
astronomical support).
Why, then, does the Watch Tower Society reject 587/86 B.C.E.
instead of rejecting 538/37?
The answer is obvious. The 587/86 B.C.E. date is in direct
conflict with the Watch Tower Society’s chronology for the “times
of the Gentiles.” In that chronology, their 607 B.C.E. date for the
desolation of Jerusalem is the indispensable starting-point. Without
the date of 607 B.C.E. the Society could not arrive at 1914 C.E. as
the ending point. And as this date is the very cornerstone of the
prophetic claims and message of the Watch Tower organization,
nothing is allowed to upset it, neither the Bible nor historical facts. At
heart, therefore, it is neither a question of loyalty to the Bible nor
loyalty to historical facts. The choice of date has quite another
motive: Loyalty to a chronological speculation that has become a vital
condition for the divine claims of the Watch Tower organization.
In the next two chapters it will be demonstrated that the whole
Neo-Babylonian chronology is firmly established by at least seventeen
different lines of evidence. Thus the 587/86 date for the 18th year of
Nebuchadnezzar (and the desolation of Jerusalem) and the 538/ 37
date for the first year of Cyrus are both correct. That none of these
dates are in conflict with the 70 years of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 25:11,
12 and 29:10) will be demonstrated in a subsequent chapter.
The collapse of the original starting-point
To repeat: Without secular sources there is no absolute chronology for dating
events in the Scriptures. The Watch Tower Society has itself had to
yield to this inevitable, though embarrassing, fact. The very first
thing the Society has been forced to do, therefore, in order to have
any Bible chronology at all, is to turn to the secular sources and select a
date on which its chronology can be based. The date they have
chosen is the date historians have established for the fall of
Babylon, 539 B.C.E. This secular date, therefore, is the very

foundation of what the Society presents as its “Bible chronology”
Why did the Society choose this date as the basis for its
chronology? And how did the historians arrive at this date?
When Charles Taze Russell first adopted Nelson H. Barbour’s
“Bible chronology,” 536 B.C.E.—not 539 B .CE.—was the secular
basis on which that chronology had been established. This date was
believed to be, not that of Babylon’s fall, but the first year of Cyrus. By
adding the “seventy years” to 536 they got 606 B.C.E. as the date
for the desolation of Jerusalem, and by subtracting 606 from 2,520
(the supposed number of years in the Gentile times) they arrived at
1914.
Originally Barbour claimed that the 536 B.C.E. date was derived
from the ancient kinglist known as “Ptolemy’s Canon.4 In time,
however, it was discovered that this was not the case. This kinglist
not only points to 538 B.C.E. as the first full year of Cyrus, but also
to 587 B.C.E. as the date for the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar, the year of
Jerusalem’s desolation. When these facts dawned upon Russell he
rejected the kinglist and started to attack its supposed originator,
Claudius Ptolemy. He still believed, however, that 536 B.C.E. was a
generally accepted date for the first year of Cyrus, stating:
All students of chronology may be said to be agreed that the
first year of Cyrus was the year 536 before the beginning of
our Anno Domini era.5
4 On page 194 of his book Three Worlds, or Plan of Redemption (Rochester, N.Y.,
1877), for instance, Barbour asserted: “The fact that the first year of Cyrus was
B.C. 536, is based upon Ptolemy’s canon, supported by the eclipses by which the
dates of the Grecian and Persian era have been regulated. And the accuracy of
Ptolemy’s canon is now accepted by all the scientific and literary world.”
5 Zion’s Watch Tower, May 15, 1896, pp. 104, 105, 113 (= Reprints, pp. 1975, 1980.
Emphasis added). — It is true that many earlier Christian chronologers, including
archbishop James Ussher and Sir Isaac Newton, dated the first year of Cyrus to
536 instead of 538 B.C.E. The reason for this was their application of the “seventy
years” of Jeremiah 25:11,12 and Daniel 9:2 to the period from the first year of
Nebuchadnezzar to the capture of Babylon by Cyrus. This seemed to conflict with
“Ptolemy’s Canon,” which gives only 66 years to this period (604–538 B.C.E.). To
arrive at 70 years, Nebuchadnezzar’s first year was often moved back from 604 to
606 B.C.E., while the first year of Cyrus was moved forward to 536 B.C.E. The two
years from 538 to 536 B.C.E. were allotted to “Darius the Mede.” The discovery of
the thousands of cuneiform tablets from the Neo-Babylonian era in the 1870’s
completely overthrew these theories, as was pointed out already as far back as
1876 by Mr. George Smith. (See S. M. Evers, “George Smith and the Egibi Tablets,”
1raq, Vol. LV 1993, p. 113.)
As time went by, some Bible Students discovered that this

statement was not true, either. In a private letter to Russell dated
June 7, 1914, one of his closest associates, Paul S. L. Johnson,
pointed out to him that nearly all historians held 538 B.C.E. to be
the first year of Cyrus. “I have consulted a dozen encyclopedias,”
he wrote, “and all except three give 538 B.C. as the date.”6 Russell,
however, ignored this information, and so did Joseph F.
Rutherford, his successor as president of the Watch Tower Society.
Not until 1944, in the book “The Kingdom Is at Hand,” did the
Watch Tower Society finally abandon the 536 B.C.E. date. By
steps, Cyrus’ first year was moved backwards, first to 537 B.CE.
and then, five years later, to 538 B.C.E., the date pointed to by
“Ptolemy’s Canon.”7
To retain 1914 as the termination date of the Gentile times,
other “adjustments” had to be made. To begin with, even though
the first year of Cyrus started in the spring of 538 B.C.E., the
Watchtower argued that his edict permitting the Jews to return home
from the exile (Ezra 1:1–4) was issued towards the end of his first
regnal year, that is, early in 537 B.C.E. In that case the Jews
departing from Babylon could not have reached Jerusalem until the
autumn of that year. By adding 70 years to 537 the desolation of
Jerusalem was then fixed to 607 B.C.E. instead of 606. Next, the
fact that no “zero year” is included at the beginning of our
Christian era was finally acknowledged.8 So from the autumn of
607 B.C.E. to the beginning of our era was only 606 years and
three months; and if this period is subtracted from the 2,520 years,
1914 is still arrived at as the termination date. Hence, three separate
“errors” were made to cancel each other out, and the upshot was
the same! Each adjustment was made with the retention of 1914 as
its goal.
Yet, to have the secular basis of the Watch Tower Society’s
“Bible chronology” moved around in this arbitrary way was hardly
confidence-inspiring. For the future, therefore, Cyrus’ first regnal
year (538 B.C.E.) was not stressed as the “firmly established”
starting-point. Instead, the stress was transferred to the date
historians had established for the fall of Babylon, 539 B.C.E. This
6 This letter was published as an Appendix to Paul S. L. Johnson’s reprint of the
second volume of Studies in the Scriptures (Philadelphia, PA., U.S.A., 1937), pp.
367–382. See especially p. 369.
7 ”The Kingdom Is at Hand” (Brooklyn, New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, 1944), p. 175; The Watchtower, Nov. 1, 1949, p. 326.
8 This problem had been noted as early as in 1904, but the error had never been
corrected. See The Watch Tower of December 1, 1912, p.377 (=Reprints, pp.5141,
5142). See also above, page 53.
date was soon to be termed an “absolute date” in the Watch

Tower publications. But why was this particular date viewed as an
“absolute date”?
539 B.C.E.—the “Absolute date for the Hebrew
Scriptures”?
At first, beginning in 1952, the Watch Tower Society explained that
the date 539 B.C.E. for the fall of Babylon had been “firmly
established” by the cuneiform tablet known as the Nabonidus
Chronicle.9 Evidently for this reason it was felt that this date could
be used as the new basis for the Society’s B.C.E. chronology. In the
next two decades, therefore, the year 539 B.C.E. was not only
described as an “absolute date,” but as “the outstanding Absolute date
for the B.C. period of the Hebrew Scriptures.”10 What is the
reality in this regard? Does the historical evidence justify this
impressive language and what does it show as to the Watch Tower
writers’ understanding of secular chronology?
The Nabonidus Chronicle: This cuneiform document dates
the fall of Babylon to the “16th day” of “the month of Tashritu,”
evidently in the 17th year of Nabonidus. Unfortunately, the text is
damaged, and the words for “17th year” are illegible. But even if
these words had been preserved, the chronicle would not have told
us anything more than that Babylon was captured on the 16th day
of Tishri (Babylonian Tashritu) in Nabonidus’ 17th year. This
information in itself cannot be translated to 539 B.C.E. It requires
additional secular evidence to place Nabonidus’ 17th year within our
era reckoning and allow for our assigning it a date within that
reckoning.
In spite of this, Watch Tower publications continued to give the
impression that the Nabonidus Chronicle of itself fixed the absolute
date for the fall of Babylon.11 Not until 1971, in an article entitled
“Testimony of the Nabonidus Chronicle,” was it finally conceded
that this tablet did not fix the year for the fall of Babylon. Quoting
9 See The Watchtower of May 1, 1952, p. 271. “This date,” said The Watchtower of
February 1, 1955, on page 94, “is made Absolute by reason of the archaeological
discovery and deciphering of the famous Nabunaid Chronicle, which itself gives a
date for the fall of Babylon and which figure specialists have determined equals
October 13, 539 B.C., according to the Julian calendar of the Romans.”
10 The Watchtower, February 1, 1955, p. 94. (Emphasis added.) The book “All
Scripture Is Inspired by God and Beneficial” (Brooklyn, N.Y.: Watchtower Bible and
Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1963) similarly designated 539 B.C.E. as the
“Absolute Date for the Hebrew Scriptures.” (p. 282)
11 The Watchtower of August 15, 1968, p. 490, for instance, stated: “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.” (Emphasis added.)
Compare also The Watchtower of May 1, 1968,p. 268.
the date given in the chronicle (the 16th day of Tashritu), the writer
of the article frankly states: “But does the Nabonidus Chronicle of
itself provide the basis for establishing the year for this event?
No.”12
Although the principal witness in support of the “absolute date
for the Hebrew Scriptures” was thus retracted, the Society was not
prepared to make yet another change in the secular basis of its
“Bible chronology.” Other witnesses, therefore, had to be searched
out and summoned to the stand. In the very same Watchtower article
quoted above, a reference was made to two new sources which in
the future would “sustain” the absolute date 539 B.C.E.:
Also other sources, including Ptolemy’s Canon, point to the
year 539 B.C.E. as the date for Babylon’s fall. For example, ancient
historians such as Diodorus, Africanus and Eusebius show that Cyrus’
first year as king of Persia corresponded to Olympiad 55, year 1
(560/59 B.C.E.), while Cyrus’ last year is placed at Olympiad 62, year
2 (531/30 B.C.E.). . . . Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a rule of nine
years over Babylon. This would harmonize with the accepted date
for the start of his rule over Babylon in 539 B.C.E.13
Thus the new validating sources consisted of (1) Ptolemy’s Canon,
and (2) dates from the Greek Olympiad Era quoted by ancient historians.
Can any of these sources establish 539 B.C.E. as an “absolute date”
to which the Biblical chronology may be firmly fixed?
Ptolemy’s Canon: As was shown earlier, Russell at first
buttressed his chronology by reference to Ptolemy’s Canon. But
when he discovered that the 536 B.C.E. date for Cyrus’ first year
was not supported by it, he rejected the Canon. And although the
Watch Tower finally pushed back Cyrus’ 1st year to 538 B.C.E. in
agreement with Ptolemy’s Canon, the Society’s chronology is still in
conflict with the Canon at other points.
The sum total of the lengths of reign given by the Canon for the
Neo-Babylonian kings prior to Cyrus, for example, point to 587
12 The Watchtower, May 15, 1971,p. 316 (emphasis added). When it was discovered
that the Nabonidus Chronicle did not establish 539 B.C.E. as an “absolute date,”
this term was dropped in the Watch Tower publications. In Aid to Bible
Understanding, 539 is called “a pivotal point” (p. 333), a term also used in the
1988 revised edition. (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 458) At other times it is
just stated that “historians calculate” or “hold” that Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E.—
See “Let Your Kingdom Come” (Brooklyn, N.Y.: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society,
1981), pp. 136, 186.
13 The Watchtower, May 15, 1971, p. 316. (Emphasis added.) This statement was also
included in the Watch Tower Society’s Bible dictionary, Aid to Bible Understanding
(1971), p. 328. It is still retained in the revised 1988 edition (Insight on the
Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 454).
B.C.E., not 607 B.C.E., as the date for the desolation of Jerusalem
in Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th regnal year. Further, the Watch Tower
Society also rejects the figures given by Ptolemy’s Canon for the
reigns of Xerxes and Artaxerxes I.14 To use the Canon in support
of the 539 B.C.E. date while at the same time rejecting its chronology
for periods falling prior to and after this date would be totally
inconsistent.
Evidently realizing this, the Watch Tower Society in the very
next year once again rejected Ptolemy’s Canon, declaring that “the
very purpose of the Canon makes absolute dating by means of it
impossible.”15 If this were true, the Society could not, of course,
use the Canon in support of the 539 B.C.E. date.
With Ptolemy’s Canon thus removed, the secular basis of the
Society’s “Bible chronology” now wholly depended on the
trustworthiness of the second witness, the Greek Olympiad Reckoning.
How about this era reckoning? In what way does it fix Babylon’s
fall to 539 B.C.E., and to what an extent can Olympic dates quoted
by ancient historians be relied upon?
The Olympiad Era: The first year assigned to this era is 776
B.C.E. This year, therefore, is designated as “O1. I,1 ,” that is, the
first year of the first Olympiad. Now this does not mean that the
first Olympic games took place in 776 B.C.E. Ancient sources
indicate that these games began to be held much earlier. Nor does
it mean that already back in 776 B.C.E. the Greeks had started an
era founded upon the Olympic games. As a matter of fact no reference
to the Olympiad era may be found in all ancient literature until the third
century B.C.E.! As Professor Elias J. Bickerman points out, “the
14 According to Ptolemy’s Canon, Xerxes ruled for 21 years (485–464 B.C.E.) and
Artaxerxes I for 41 years (464–423 B.C.E.). In order to have the 20th year of
Artaxerxes I fixed to 455 instead of 445 B.C.E., the Society sets the beginning of
his reign 10 years earlier, thus making it 51 years instead of 41. As this would
displace all dates prior to Artaxerxes I by 10 years, including the date for the fall of
Babylon, the Society has subtracted 10 years from Xerxes’ sole reign, making it 11
years instead of 21! The only reason for these changes is that they are necessitated
by the Society’s particular application of the “seventy weeks” of Daniel 9:24–27.
This application was originally suggested by the Jesuit theologian Dionysius
Petavius in De Doctrina Tempo rum, a work published in 1627. Many others picked
up the idea, including the Anglican archbishop James Ussher in the same century.
In 1832 the German theologian E. W. Hengstenberg included a lengthy defense of
it in his well-known work Christologie des Alten Testaments. Since then, however,
the idea has been completely demolished by archaeological findings. This has been
demonstrated in a separate study published on the web:
http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/artaxerxes.htm
For the readers convenience, this study has been added at the end of the present
book.
15 Awake!, May 8, 1972, p. 26.
numbering of Olympiads was introduced by Timaeus or by

Eratosthenes”16 And Dr. Alan E. Samuel specifies: “The Olympiad
reckoning system, originated by Philistus, was subsequently used in
an historical context by Timaeus, and from then on we find
historical chronologies based on Olympiads.”17 Timaeus Sicilus
wrote a history of Sicily, his native country, in 264 B.C.E., and
Eratosthenes, a librarian at the famous library in Alexandria in
Egypt, published his Chronographiae some decades later.
The Olympiad reckoning, then, like the Christian era, was
introduced more than 500 years after the year that was chosen as the
starting-point for that era! How did the Greek historians manage to
fix the date for the first Olympiad as well as other dates (for
example, the first year of Cyrus) hundreds of years later? What kind
of sources were at their disposal?
They studied lists of victors in the quadrennial games kept at
Olympia. But unfortunately such lists had not been kept
continuously all the way from the beginning. As Dr. Samuel points
out, the first list was “drawn up by Hippias at the end of the fifth
century B.C.,” that is, around 400 B.C.E.18 “By Hellenistic times
the list of victors was complete and reasonably consistent and the
framework for chronology was established and accepted.”19 But
was the list reliable? Samuel continues: “Whether all this was right,
or whether events were assigned to years correctly, is another
matter.” Pointing out that “the shrewd Plutarch [c. 46–c. 120 C.E.]
had his doubts,” he goes on to caution that “we too should be very
dubious about chronographic evidence from Olympiads much
before the middle or beginning of the fifth century [i.e., before 450
or 500 B.C.E.]”20
The Watch Tower Society’s confidence in the Olympiad
reckoning is even more illusory, however. This is because, while
they accept the Olympiad dates given by ancient historians for the
reign of Cyrus, they reject the Olympiad dates given by these
historians for the reign of Artaxerxes I, despite the fact his reign
fell much closer to our time. Thus, when Julius Africanus, in his
Chronography (published c. 221/22 C.E.), dates the 20th year of
16 Elias J. Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World, revised edition (London:
Thames and Hudson, 1980), p. 75.
17 Alan E. Samuel, Greek and Roman Chronology (München: C. H. Beck’sche
Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1972), p. 189.
18 A. E. Samuel, op. cit., p. 189.
19 1bid., p. 190.
20 Ibid., p. 190. Bickerman (op. cit., p. 75) agrees: “The trustworthiness of the earlier
part of the list of Olympic victors, which begins in 776 BC, is doubtful.”
Artaxerxes to the “4th year of the 83rd Olympiad,” corresponding

to 445 B.C.E., this date is rejected by the Watch Tower Society in
preference of 455 B.C.E., as was noted earlier (footnote 14).21 As in
the case of Ptolemy’s Canon, then, the Society again uses a witness
that at other times is completely rejected, and this for the sole
reason that in those areas the evidence is unfavorable to its
teachings.
Aside from the Watch Tower Society’s inconsistency, the
Olympiad datings preserved by Diodorus, Africanus and Eusebius
indicating 539 B.C.E. to be the date for the fall of Babylon, cannot
alone be used to establish that date as an absolute date on which
the chronology of the Hebrew Scriptures can be based. This is due
to the simple fact, already presented, that the Olympiad reckoning
system was not actually instituted until the third century B.C.E.—
or three centuries after the fall of Babylon.
Astronomy and the year 539 B.C.E.
The preceding discussion of the Society’s fruitless attempts to
establish a secular basis for its particular “Bible chronology”
epitomizes the content of a booklet published in 1981, The Watch
Tower Society and Absolute Chronology.22 Perhaps it was this exposure
that—directly or indirectly-incited the Society’s writers to make
another attempt to establish the 539 B.C.E. date. At any rate, a new
discussion of the date was published in 1988 in the Society’s
revised Bible dictionary, Insight on the Scriptures, in which the authors
now try to fix the date astronomically.
As explained earlier (in footnote 2), an absolute chronology is
usually best established with the assistance of astronomically-fixed
dates. In the 1870s and 1880s, excavations in Babylonia unearthed
a great number of cuneiform texts containing descriptions of
astronomical events dating from the Babylonian, Persian and
Greek eras. These texts provide numerous absolute dates from
these periods.
The most important astronomical text from the Neo-Babylonian
era is a so-called astronomical “diary,” a record of about thirty
astronomical observations dated to the 37th year of
Nebuchadnezzar. This tablet, which is kept in the Berlin Museum
(where it is designated VAT 4956), establishes 568/67 B.C.E. as
21 The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. A. Roberts and J. Donaldson, Vol. VI (Grand Rapids,
Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., reprint of 1978), p. 135.
22 Karl Burganger, The Watch Tower Society and Absolute Chronology (Lethbridge,
Canada: Christian Koinonia International, 1981), pp. 7–20. See above, p.70, note
100.
the absolute date for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar. This date
obviously implies that his 18th year, during which he desolated
Jerusalem, corresponds to 587/86 B.C.E. That is 20 years later than
the 607 B.C.E. date assigned to that event by the Watch Tower
Society. A detailed discussion of this and other astronomical texts
is given in chapter four.
The Watch Tower Society’s concern, then, is somehow to
bypass the use of any such unfavorable ancient text and find a way
to establish the date of 539 B.C.E. independently of it, thereby
avoiding conflict with the corollary evidence the text supplies that
undermines a 607 B.C.E. date for Jerusalem’s fall. To what
astronomical evidence do they resort?
Strm. Kambys. 400: The astronomical text, designated Strm.
Kambys. 400, is the text now used by the Watch Tower Society to
establish the 539 B.C.E. date. It is a tablet dated to the seventh year
of Cambyses, the son of Cyrus.23 Referring to two lunar eclipses
mentioned in the text—eclipses which modern scholars have
“identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on
July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E.,”—the Society
concludes:
Thus, this tablet establishes the seventh year of Cambyses II as
beginning in the spring of 523 B.C.E. This is an astronomically
confirmed date?24
To what does this lead? If 523/22 B .C.E. was the seventh year
of Cambyses, his first year must have been 529/28 B.C.E. and the
preceding year, 530/29 B.C.E., must have been the last year of his
predecessor, Cyrus. To arrive at the date for the fall of Babylon,
however, we also need to know the length of Cyrus’ reign. For this,
the Society is forced to accept the information found in another
type of cuneiform texts, the contract tablets, that is, dated business
and administrative documents. Of these they state:
The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th
month, 23rd day of his 9th year.... As the ninth year of Cyrus II as
king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that
reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E.25
23 This text, which is designated Strm. Kambys. 400, is not exactly a “diary” in the
strict sense, although it is closely related to this group of texts.
24 Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1 (Brooklyn, New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society of New York, Inc., 1988), p. 453.
25 Ibid., p. 453.
To establish the date 539 B.C.E., then, the Society unreservedly

accepts several ancient secular sources: (1) a Babylonian
astronomical tablet, and (2) Babylonian contract tablets dated to
the reign of Cyrus. Yet, on the following pages of the same article
(pages 454–456) other documents of the very same type-astronomical
texts and contract tablets-are rejected because of their support for the date
587 B.C.E. for the destruction of Jerusalem!
If the Society’s criticism of these astronomical diaries (mainly
their being later copies of an original) were valid, that criticism
would apply with equal force to their favored Strm. Kambys. 400.
Like VAT 4956, Strm. Kambys. 400 is a copy of an earlier original.
In fact, it may hardly even be termed a copy. The eminent expert
on astronomical texts, F. X. Kugler, pointed out as early as 1903
that this tablet is only partly a copy. The copyist was evidently
working from a very defective text, and therefore tried to fill in the
lacunae or gaps in the text by his own calculations. Thus only a
portion of Strm. Kambys. 400 at best contains observations. The rest
are additions by a rather unskilled copyist from a much later
period. Kugler commented that “not one of the astronomical texts I
know of offers so many contradictions and unsolved riddles as Strm. Kambys.
400.”26
By contrast, VAT 4956 is one of the best preserved diaries.
Although it is also a later copy, experts agree that it is a faithful
reproduction of the original.
There is some evidence that the lunar eclipses shown on Strm.
Kambys. 400, referred to in the book Insight on the Scriptures were
calculated rather than observed. 27 The point here made, though, is
not the validity or lack of validity of those particular observations,
but that, while applying certain criteria as a basis for rejecting the
26 Franz Xaver Kugler, “Eine rätselvolle astronomische Keilinschrift (Strm. Kambys.
400),” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, Vol. 17 (Strassburg: Verlag von Karl J. Trübner,
1903), p. 203. For a transcription and translation of the text, see F. X. Kugler,
Sternkunde und Stemdienstin Babel, Buch I (Münsterin Westfalen:
Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1907), pp. 61–75.
27 Dr. John M. Steele summarizes the present scholarly view of Strm. Kambys. 400
in the following words: “It is also unwise to base any conclusions concerning the
Babylonian records on this tablet alone, since it does not fall into any of the
common categories of text. In particular, it is not certain whether this text
contains observations or calculations of the phenomena it records.... There is also
debate concerning whether the two lunar eclipses were observed or calculated.”—
John M. Steele, Observations and Predictions of Eclipse Times by Early
Astronomers (= Archimedes, Vol. 4. Dordrecht/Boston/ London: Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 2000), p. 98.
evidence of VAT 4956, the Watch Tower Society does not let the
same criteria affect its acceptance of Strm. Kambys. 400 because it views
this document as giving apparent support to its claims. This
repeated inconsistency results from the same “hidden agenda” of
seeking to protect a historically unsupported date.
Actually, to fix the date for the fall of Babylon, it is much safer
to start with the reign of Nebuchadnezzar and count forward,
instead of beginning with the reign of Cambyses and counting
backward. The date 539 B.C.E. for the fall of Babylon was, in fact,
first determined this way, as pointed out by Dr. R. Campbell
Thompson in The Cambridge Ancient History:
The date 539 for the Fall of Babylon has been reckoned from
the latest dates on the contracts of each king in this period,
counting from the end of Nabopolassar’s reign in 605 B.C., viz.,
Nebuchadrezzar, 43: Amel-Marduk, 2: Nergal-shar-usur, 4:
Labashi-Marduk (accession only): Nabonidus, 17 = 66.28
The Watch Tower Society, however, accepts only the end product
of this reckoning (539 B.C.E.), but rejects the reckoning itself and
its starting point, because these contradict the date 607 B.C.E. The
Society rejects the astronomical texts in general and VAT 4956 in
particular; on the other hand, it is forced to accept the most
problematic one—Strm. Kambys. 400. Surely, it would be difficult to
find a more striking example of inconsistent, misleading
scholarship.
As has been demonstrated above, 539 B.C.E. is not a logical
starting-point for establishing the date for the desolation of
Jerusalem. The most reliable dates in this period (in the 6th century
B.C.E.) that may be established as absolute fall much earlier, within
the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, a reign that is directly fixed to our
era by VAT 4956 and other astronomical texts.
Further, the Bible provides a direct synchronism between the reign
of Nebuchadnezzar and the desolation of Jerusalem. As pointed
out earlier, 2 Kings 25:8 explicitly states that this desolation
occurred in the “nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar.”29 By
28 R. Campbell Thompson, “The New Babylonian Empire,” The Cambridge Ancient
History, ed. J.B. Bury, S. A. Cook, F. E. Adcock, Vol. III (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1925), p. 224, ftn. 1.
29 The “19th” year here evidently corresponds to the “18th” year according to the
Babylonian system of reckoning the regnal years of kings. In Assyria and
Babylonia, the year in which a king came to power was reckoned as his
“accession-year,” while his first year always started on Nisan 1, the first day of the
next year. As will be discussed later, Judah at this time did not apply the
“accession-year system,” but counted the accession-year as the first year. See the
Appendix for Chapter 2.
contrast, no such direct synchronism is given in the Bible for the

fall of Babylon.30
But this is not all. The lengths of reigns of the Neo-Babylonian
kings (as quoted from the contract tablets by Dr. R. Thompson
above) from the first king, Nabopolassar, to the last one,
Nabonidus, may be firmly established in a number of different
ways. In fact, the chronology of this period may be established by
at least seventeen different lines of evidence! This evidence will be
presented in the next two chapters.
30 See earlier footnote 3.

3
THE LENGTH OF REIGNS OF

THE NEO-BABYLONIAN KINGS
P EOPLE MAY believe the most peculiar ideas, not because

there is any evidence to show that they are true, but because
there is little or no evidence to show that they are false. For many
centuries people believed that the earth was flat, simply because
this view could not easily be tested and disproven. Many ideas that
have been tied to prophecies in the Bible also definitely belong to
this category. These clearly include some appended to Jesus’
statement about the “times of the Gentiles” at Luke 21:24.
For example, the Bible nowhere explicitly states:
1) that Jesus, in speaking of these “Gentile times,” had in mind
the “seven times” of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness mentioned
in the book of Daniel, chapter 4;
2) that these “seven times” were seven years;
3) that these “years” were not ordinary Babylonian calendar
years, but “prophetic years” of 360 days each, and therefore
should be summed up as 2,520 days;
4) that these 2,520 days not only applied to the period of
Nebuchadnezzar’s madness, but also would have a greater
fulfillment;
5) that in this greater fulfillment days should be counted as
years, so that we get a period of 2,520 years; and
6) that this 2,520-year period started when Nebuchadnezzar, in
his 18th regnal year, desolated the city of Jerusalem.
None of these six assumptions can be verified by clear Biblical
statements. They are, in fact, nothing but a chain of haphazard guesses.
Yet, since the Bible does not discuss or even mention any of these
ideas, it nowhere explicitly says they are false either.
However, when it is further claimed (7) that Nebuchadnezzar’s
desolation of Jerusalem took place in 607 B.C.E., we have reached
a point in the train of thought that can be tested and disproven.
89
This is because the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period does

not fall within the area of unverifiable assumptions.
As will be demonstrated in this and the subsequent chapter, the
length of the Neo-Babylonian period has been firmly established
today by at least seventeen different lines of evidence, fourteen of
which will be discussed in some detail in these two chapters.
In the previous chapter it was shown that the validity of the
Watch Tower Society’s prophetic interpretation of the 1914 date is
intimately connected with the length of the Neo-Babylonian
period.1 That period ended when Babylon was captured by the
armies of the Persian king Cyrus in 539 B.C.E., an acknowledged,
reliable date.
In the first year of his reign over Babylon, Cyrus issued an edict
which permitted the Jews to return to Jerusalem. (2 Chronicles
36:22, 23; Ezra 1:1–4) According to the Watch Tower Society this
ended the seventy-year period mentioned at Jeremiah 25:11, 12;
29:10; Daniel 9:2, and 2 Chronicles 36:21.
If, as the Society maintains, the Jewish remnant returned to
Jerusalem in 537 B.C.E., the period of Babylonian domination
would have begun seventy years earlier, or in 607 B.C.E.2 And
1 The term “Neo-Babylonian” usually refers to the period that began with the reign of
Nabopolassar (dated to 625–605 B.C.E.) and ended with Nabonidus (555–539
B.C.E.). It should be noticed, however, that many scholars use the term “Neo-
Babylonian” of a more extended period. The Assyrian Dictionary (eds. I. J. Gelb et
al., Chicago: Oriental Institute, 1956—), for example, starts the period in 1150
B.C.E. and ends it somewhere in the fourth century B.C.E. In the present work the
term is confined to the Babylonian dynasty that began with Nabopolassar and
ended with Nabonidus.
2 The first year of Cyrus extended from the spring (Nisan 1) of 538 to the spring of 537
B.C.E. If Ezra followed the Jewish method of counting the accession-year as the
first year, he may have reckoned 539/38 as the first year of Cyrus. However that
may be, the evidence is that Cyrus issued his edict not long after the fal1 of
Babylon. The so-called Cyrus Cylinder shows that Cyrus, soon after the conquest
of Babylon, issued a decree that allowed the different peoples that had been
deported to Babylonia to return to their respective home countries. (James B.
Pritchard [ed.], Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament [ANET],
Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1950,p. 316.) Most likely the
edict permitting the Jews to return to Jerusalem was a part of this general release
of exiled peoples. As shown by the book of Ezra, the Jews who responded to the
edict immediately began to organize themselves for the homeward journey (Ezra
1:5–2:70), and in “the seventh month” (Tishri, corresponding to parts of September
and October) they had settled in their home cities. (Ezra 3:1) The context seems to
imply that this was still in the “first year of Cyrus” (Ezra 1:1–3:1). Most authorities,
therefore, conclude that this was in the autumn of 538 B.C.E. and not in 537 as
the Watch Tower Society insists. (See for example Dr. T. C. Mitchell’s discussion in
The Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd ed., Vol. III:2, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1991, pp. 430–432; also the thorough discussion of the
historicity of Cyrus’ edict by Elias Bickerman in Studies in Jewish and Christian
History, Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1976, pp. 72–108.) The Watch Tower Society, however,
cannot accept the 538 B.C.E. date for the return, as that would move the
beginning of their seventy-year period back to 608 B.C.E. This, of course, would
destroy their Gentile times calculation.
The Length of Reigns of the Neo-Babylonian Kings 91
since the Watch Tower Society holds this seventy-year period to be

a period of complete desolation of Judah and Jerusalem, we are told
that it was in the year 607 B.C.E. that Nebuchadnezzar destroyed
Jerusalem, in his eighteenth regnal year. (2 Kings 25:8; Jeremiah
52:12, 29) This event, it is assumed, started the 2,520 years, called
the Gentile times, beginning in the year 607 B.C.E.
This starting-point, however, is incompatible with a number of
historical facts.*
A. ANCIENT HISTORIANS
Up to the latter part of the nineteenth century the only way to
determine the length of the Neo-Babylonian period was by
consulting ancient Greek and Roman historians. Those historians
lived hundreds of years after the Neo-Babylonian period, and
unfortunately their statements are often contradictory.3
Those held to be the most reliable are 1) Berossus and 2) the
compiler(s) of the kinglist commonly known as Ptolemy’s Canon,
sometimes also, and more correctly, referred to as the Royal Canon.
It seems appropriate to begin our discussion with a brief
presentation of these two historical sources since, although neither
of them by themselves provides conclusive evidence for the length of
the Neo-Babylonian period, their ancient testimony certainly merits
consideration.
3 These ancient historians include Megasthenes (3rd century B.C.E.), Berossus (c. 250
B.C.E.), Alexander Polyhistor (1st century B.C.E.), Eusebius Pamphilus (c. 260–340
C.E.), and Georgius Syncellus (last part of the 8th century C.E.). For a convenient
overview of the figures given by these ancient historians, see Raymond Philip
Dougherty, Nabonidus and Belshazzar (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1929),
pp. 8–10; cf. also Ronald H. Sack, Images of Nebuchadnezzar (Selinsgrove:
Susquehanna University Press; London and Toronto: Associated University Press,
1991), pp. 31–44.
* What follows in this and the subsequent chapter, in many cases involves information
of a technical nature, accompanied by detailed documentation. While this
contributes to the firm foundation of the dates established, it is also made
necessary by attempts on the part of some sources to counteract the historical
evidence, offering information that has an appearance of validity, even of
scholarliness, but which, on examination, proves invalid and often superficial.
Some readers may find the technica1 data difficult to follow. Those who do not feel
they need all the details may turn directly to the summaries at the end of each of
these two chapters. These summaries give a general idea of the discussion, the
evidence presented, and the conclusions drawn from it.
A-1: Berossus
Berossus was a Babylonian priest who lived in the third century
B.C.E.
In about 281 B.C.E. he wrote a history of Babylonia in Greek
known as Babyloniaca or Chaldaica which he dedicated to the
Seleucid king Antiochus I (281–260 B.C.E.), whose vast empire
included Babylonia. Later Berossus abandoned Babylon and settled
on the Ptolemaic island of Cos.4
His writings, unfortunately, have been lost, and all that is known
about them comes from the twenty-two quotations or paraphrases
of his work by other ancient writers and from eleven statements
about Berossus made by classical, Jewish, and Christian writers.5
The longest quotations deal with the reigns of the Neo-
Babylonian kings and are found in Flavius Josephus’ Against Apion
and in his Antiquities of the Jews, both written in the latter part of the
first century C.E.; in Eusebius’ Chronicle and in his Preparation for the
Gospel, both from the early fourth century C.E., and in other late
works.6 It is known that Eusebius quoted Berossus indirectly via
the Greco-Roman scholar Cornelius Alexander Polyhistor (first
century B.C.E.).
Although some scholars have assumed that Josephus, too, knew
Berossus only via Polyhistor, the evidence for this is lacking. Other
scholars have concluded that Josephus had a copy of Berossus’
work at hand, and recently Dr. Gregory E. Sterling has strongly
argued that Josephus quoted directly from Berossus’ work.7
Scholars agree that the most reliable of the preserved quotations
4 Erich Ebeling and Bruno Meissner (eds.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie, Vol. II
(Berlin and Leipzig: Walter de Gruyter & Co., 1938), pp. 2, 3.
5 A translation with an extensive discussion of these fragments was published by
Pau1 Schnabel in Berossos und die Babylonisch-Hellenistische Literatur (Leipzig
and Berlin: B. G. Teubner, 1923). The first complete English translation of the
surviving fragments of Berossus’ work has been published by Stanley Mayer
Burstein in The Babyloniaca of Berossus. Sources from the Ancient Near East, Vol.
1, fascicle 5 (Malibu, Calif.: Undena Publications, 1978).
6 See Flavius Josephus, Against Apion, Book L19–21; Antiquities of the Jews, Book
X:XI, 1. The Chronicle of Eusebius is preserved only in an Armenian version,
except for the excerpts preserved in the Chronographia of the Byzantine chronicler
Georgius Syncellus (late eighth and early ninth centuries C.E.).
7 Gregory E. Sterling, Historiography and Self-Definition (Leiden, New York, Köln: E.
J. Brill, 1992), pp. 106, 260, 261.
from Berossus’ work are those of Flavius Josephus.8

Where did Berossus get his information on the Neo-Babylonian
kings?
According to his own words he “translated many books which
had been preserved with great care at Babylon and which dealt with
a period of more than 150,000 years.”9 These “books” included
accounts of legendary kings “before the Flood” with very
exaggerated lengths of reign.
His history of the dynasties after the Flood down to the reign of
the Babylonian king Nabonassar (747–734 B.C.E.) is also far from
reliable and evidently contained much legendary material and
exaggerated lengths of reign.
Berossus himself indicates that it was impossible to give a
trustworthy history of Babylonia before Nabonassar, as that king
“collected and destroyed the records of the kings before him in
order that the list of Chaldaean kings might begin with him.”10
Despite these problems, however, for later periods, and especially
for the critical Neo-Babylonian period, it has been established that
Berossus used the generally very reliable Babylonian chronicles, or
sources similar to these documents, and that he carefully reported
8 Burstein, for example, says: “The earliest are those made by Josephus in the first
century A.D. from the sections concerning the second and particularly the third
book of the Babyloniaca, the latter indeed providing our best evidence for Berossus’
treatment of the Neo-Babylonian period.” (Op. cit., pp. 10, 11; emphasis added.)
Josephus’ lengthy quotation on the Neo-Babylonian era in Against Apion is best
preserved in Eusebius’ Preparation for the Gospel, Book IX, chapter XL. (See the
discussion by H. St. J. Thackeray in Josephus, Vol. I [Loeb Classical Library, Vol.
38:I], London: William Heinemann, and New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1926, pp.
xviii, xix.) The deficient textual transmission of Eusebius’ Chronicle, therefore, is of
no consequence for our study. The Watch Tower Society, in its Bible dictionary
Insight on the Scriptures (Vol. I, p. 453), devotes only one paragraph to Berossus.
Almost the whole paragraph consists of a quotation from A. T. Olmstead’s Assyrian
Historiography in which he deplores the tortuous survival history of Berossus’
fragments via Eusebius’ Chronicle (cf. note 6 above). Although this is true, it is, as
noted, essentially irrelevant for our discussion.
9 Burstein, op. cit.,p. 13. The Armenian version of Eusebius’ Chronicle gives
“2,150,000 years” instead of “150,000,” the figure preserved by Syncellus. None of
them is believed to be the original figure given by Berossus. (Burstein, p. 13, note
3.)
10 Burstein, op. cit., p. 22.
their contents in Greek.11 The figures he gives for the reigns of the
Neo-Babylonian kings substantially agree with the figures given by
those ancient cuneiform documents.
A-2: The Royal Canon
Ptolemy’s Canon or, more correctly, the Royal Canon is a list of kings
and their lengths of reign beginning with the reign of Nabonassar
in Babylon (747–734 B.C.E.), through the Babylonian, Persian,
Greek, Roman, and Byzantine rulers.
The kinglist had been included in the Handy Tables prepared by
the famous astronomer and geographer Claudius Ptolemy (70–165
C.E.), who ended the list with the contemporary Roman ruler
Antoninus Pius (C.E. 138–161).12 That is why it has become
known as Ptolemy’s Canon. (See the facing page.) There is, however,
evidence that kinglists of this type must have been in use long
before the time of Claudius Ptolemy.
The reason why the kinglist could not have originated with
Claudius Ptolemy is that a table of this kind was a prerequisite for
the research and calculations performed by the Babylonian and
Greek astronomers. Without it they would have had no means for
dating the astronomical events their calculations showed as
occurring in the distant past.
Ancient fragments of such kinglists written on papyrus have
been found.13 The renowned expert on Babylonian astronomy, F.
11 Burstein points out that, although Berossus made a number of surprising errors
and exercised little criticism on his sources, “the fragments make it clear that he
did choose good sources, most likely from a library at Babylon, and that he reliably
reported their contents in Greek” (Burstein, op. cit., p. 8. Emphasis added.) Robert
Drews, in his article “The Babylonian Chronicles and Berossus,” published in Iraq,
Vol. XXXVII, part 1 (Spring 1975), arrives at the same conclusion: “That the
chronicles were among these records cannot be doubted.” (p. 54) This has been
demonstrated by a careful comparison of Berossus’ statements with the
Babylonian chronicles. Paul Schnabel, too, concludes: “That he everywhere has
used cuneiform records, above all the chronicles, is manifest at every step.” —
Schnabel, op. cit. (see note 5 above), p. 184.
12 The three oldest manuscripts of Ptolemy’s Handy Tables containing the kinglist
date from the eighth to tenth centuries. See Leo Depuydt, —More Valuable than all
Gold’: Ptolemy’s Royal Canon and Babylonian Chronology,” in Journal of Cuneiform
Studies, Vol. 47 (1995), pp. 101–106. The list of kings was continued by
astronomers after Ptolemy well into the Byzantine period.
13 G. J. Toomer, Ptolemy’s Almagest (London: Gerald Duckworth & Co., 1984), p. 10,
ftn. 12. The fragments, however, are later than Ptolemy.
The Royal Canon (“Ptolemy’s Canon”)

The kinglist begins with the reign of Nabonassar in Babylon (747–
734 BCE) and ends with the Roman emperor Antoninus Pius
(138-161 CE). From F. K. Ginzel, Handbuch der matematischen und
technischen Chronologie, Vol. I :Leipzig 1906), p. 139.
X. Kugler, concluded that the so-called Ptolemy’s Canon “had

evidently been worked out by one or more experts on the
Babylonian astronomy and chronology, and through the use in the
Alexandrian school successfully had passed scrupulous indirect
tests.”14 Dr. Eduard Meyer wrote in a similar vein about the canon
in 1899, pointing out that, “as it belonged to the traditional material
of knowledge of the astronomers, it was inherited from scholar to
scholar; not even Hipparchus [2nd century B.C.E.] could have gone
without the Babylonian list.”15
This is the reason why Professor Otto Neugebauer termed the
expression “Ptolemy’s Canon” a misnomer:
It is a misnomer to call such chronological tables ‘Ptolemaic
canon.’ Ptolemy’s ‘Almagest’ never contained such a canon (in spite
of assertions to the contrary often made in modern literature), but
we know that a βασιλεων χρουογραφια [chronicle of kings] had
been included in his ‘Handy Tables’ . . . . On the other hand, there
is no reason whatsoever to think that royal canons for astronomical
purposes did not exist long before Ptolemy.16
The canon, or kinglist, was therefore in use centuries before
Claudius Ptolemy. It was inherited and brought up-to-date from
one generation of scholars to the next.
It should be observed that the canon not only presents a
running list of kings and their reigns; in a separate column there is a
running summary of the individual reigns all the way from the first
king, Nabonassar, to the end of the list. This system provides a
double check of the individual figures, ensuring that they have been
correctly copied from one scholar to the next. (See “The Royal
Canon” on the preceding page.)
From what source did the compiler(s) of the Royal Canon get
the kinglist? It was evidently compiled from sources similar to
those used by Berossus. Friedrich Schmidtke explains:
14 Franz Xaver Kugler, Sternkunde and Sterndienst in Babel, II. Buch, II. Teil, Heft 2
(Munster in Westfalen: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1924), p. 390.
Translated from the German.
15 Eduard Meyer, Forschungen zur alten Geschichte, Zweiter Band (Halle a. S.: Max
Niemeyer, 1899), pp. 453–454. Translated from the German. Emphasis added.
16 Otto Neugebauer, “`Years’ in Royal Canons,” A Locust’s Leg. Studies in honour of S.
H. Taqizadeh, ed. W. B. Henning and E. Yarshater (London: Percy Lund,
Humphries & Co., 1962), pp. 209, 210. Compare also J. A. Brinkman in A Political
History of Post-Kassite Babylonia, 1158–722 B.C. (Rome: Pontificium Institutum
Biblicum, 1968),p. 22.
With respect to the dependence of the sources, the Canon of

Ptol[emy] has certainly to a great extent taken its stuff from the
Bab[ylonian] Chron[icles]. This is clear from the characteristic
aβαοτλεντα ετη [years of interregnum] 688–681, which is also found
in the Chronicle (III, 28), while the King List A at this place
introduces Sennacherib instead, as well as for the two aβαοτλεντα
ετη 704–703. The Canon of Ptol. like the Chronicle reproduces
here the Babylonian tradition, which did not recognize
Sennacherib as the legitimate king, as he had sacked and destroyed
Babylon.17
There is also some evidence that the Royal Canon reflects not
only Babylonian chronicles, but also ancient Babylonian kinglists
compiled by Babylonian scribes. Thus scholars have concluded that
it was based upon Babylonian chronicles and kinglists, probably
through intermediary sources, but evidently independent of Berossus.18
This is a very important conclusion, as the figures given in the
canon for the Neo-Babylonian kings are in substantial agreement
with Berossus’ earlier figures.
Thus we have two independent witnesses reflecting the length
of the Neo-Babylonian era set out in the ancient chronicles, and
even if those chronicles are only partially preserved on cuneiform
tablets, their figures for the lengths of reign of the Neo-Babylonian
kings have to all appearances been correctly transmitted to us via
Berossus and the Royal Canon.19
17 Friedrich Schmidtke, Der Aufbau der Babylonischen Chronologie (Munster, Westf.:
Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1952), p.41. Translated from the German.
18 Burstein, for example, points out that the canon “represents a Babylonian
tradition about the first millennium B.C. that is independent of Berossus as can be
seen from the order and forms of the names of the kings.” (Op. cit., p.38) On the
same page Burstein gives a translation of the canon which, unfortunately,
contains a couple of errors. The regnal years shown for Nebuchadnezzar, “ 23”, is a
misprint for “43”; and the name “Illoaroudamos” in the canon corresponds to
“Awel-Marduk”, not “Labasi-Marduk”. For a reliable publication of the canon, see,
for example, E. J. Bickerman, Chronology of the Ancient World, revised edition
(London: Thames and Hudson, 1980), pp. 109–111.
19 Of the two sources, the Royal Canon is clearly the better witness. As Professor J. A.
Brinkman points out, the canon “is of known and praiseworthy accuracy.” (Op. cit.
[note 16 above], p. 35) Modern discoveries of Babylonian chronicles, kinglists,
astronomical texts, etc., written in cuneiform may be shown to be in complete
agreement with the canon all the way from the eighth century to the first century
B.C.E. The evidence of this is briefly discussed in C. O. Jonsson, “The Foundations
of the Assyro-Babylonian Chronology,” Chronology & Catastrophism Review, Vol. IX
(Harpenden, England: Society for Interdisciplinary Studies, 1987), pp. 14–23.
TABLE 1: THE REIGNS OF THE NEO-BABYLONIAN KINGS

ACCORDING TO BEROSSUS AND THE ROYAL CANON
NAME BEROSSUS ROYAL CANON B.C.E.
Nabopolassar 21 years 21 years 625–605

Nebuchadnezzar 43 years 43 years 604–562
Awel-Marduk* 2 years 2 years 561–560
Neriglissar 4 years 4 years 559–556
Labashi-Marduk 9 months — 556
Nabonidus 17 years 17 years 555–539
*Called Evil-Merodach at 2 Kings 25:27 and Jeremiah 52:31.
The Royal Canon omits Labashi-Marduk, as it always reckons

whole years only. Labashi-Marduk’s short reign of only a few
months fell in Neriglissar’s last year (which was also the accession-
year of Nabonidus).20 The Royal Canon, therefore, could leave him
out.
If these lists are correct, the first year of Nebuchadnezzar would
be 604/ 603 B.C.E. and his eighteenth year, when he desolated
Jerusalem, would be 587/86 B.C.E., not 607 B.C.E. as in Watch
Tower chronology.
But even if these lists give a true representation of the lengths of
reign given in the original Neo-Babylonian chronicles, how do we
know that the chronological information originally contained in
these chronicles is reliable? How can the lengths of reign of the
kings be turned into an “absolute chronology”?21
20 As shown by contemporary cuneiform documents, Neriglissar died in the first
month of his fourth regnal year (in late April or early May). His son and successor,
Labashi-Marduk, was killed in a rebellion after a reign of about two months. The
figure given by Berossus via Josephus, “9” months, is commonly regarded as a
transmission error for an original “2” months, the Greek signs (=letters) for “9” (θ)
and “2” (β) being quite similar. (R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, Babylonian
Chronology 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, Providence: Brown University Press, 1956, p. 13.)
The Uruk King List (discussed below) indicates a rule of three months for Labashi-
Marduk, which undoubtedly refers to the city of Uruk, where he was recognized as
king for parts of three months (Nisanu, Ayyaru, and Simanu) according to the
contract tablets.—Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon,
556–539 B.C. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989), pp. 86–90.
21 As pointed out in the previous chapter, an absolute chronology is best established
by the aid of astronomically fixed dates. Claudius Ptolemy, in his famous work
Almagest, records a large number of ancient astronomical observations, many of
which are detailed descriptions of lunar eclipses. One of these is dated to the fifth
year of Nabopolassar and has been identified with one that took place in 621
B.C.E. If this was the fifth year of Nabopolassar, his 21 years of reign would be
fixed to 625–605 B.C.E. The first year
B. THE CUNEIFORM DOCUMENTS*

Today, historians do not need either Berossus or the Royal Canon
in order to fix the length of the Neo-Babylonian period. Its length
may be firmly established in many other ways, thanks to the
numerous cuneiform documents discovered from this period.
It is a remarkable fact that more cuneiform documents have
been excavated from the Neo-Babylonian period than from any
other pre-Christian era. Literally tens of thousands of texts have been
found, primarily consisting of business, administrative, and legal
documents, but there are also historical documents such as
chronicles and royal inscriptions.
Most important are the discovery of astronomical cuneiform texts
recording dated observations of the moon and the planets from the
period. Most of this material is written in the Akkadian language
and has been unearthed in Mesopotamia since the middle of the
nineteenth century.
The first group of documents of interest to us fall within the
category shown on the following page, with others on subsequent
pages.
of his son and successor, Nebuchadnezzar, would then have begun in 604 B .C.E.
and his 18th year (when he desolated Jerusalem) in 587. Some scholars, however,
have questioned the reliability of the astronomical observations recorded by
Ptolemy. In his sensational book, The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy (Baltimore and
London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), Dr. Robert R. Newton claimed
that Ptolemy fudged, not only a large body of the observations he says he made
himself, but also a number of the observations he records from earlier periods.
(The evidence is, though, that all observations from earlier periods recorded by
Ptolemy were taken over from the Greek mathematician Hipparchus [second
century B.C.E.], who in turn got them directly from Babylonian astronomers. See
G. J. Toomer’s article, “Hipparchus and Babylonian Astronomy,” in A Scientific
Humanist. Studies in Memory of Abraham Sachs, eds. E. Leichty, M. del.. Ellis, & P.
Gerardi, Philadelphia, 1988, pp. 353–362.) On the assumption that Ptolemy was
the originator of “Ptolemy’s Canon,” Newton also felt that Ptolemy’s supposed
forgery may have extended to inventing the lengths of reign in this kinglist. But as
the kinglist was not a creation of Ptolemy, Newton was mistaken in this. In earlier
editions of the present work Newton’s claims and the ensuing debate they have
caused in scholarly journals were discussed at some length. This digression from
the main subject has been left out in this edition not only for reasons of space, but
also because the observations recorded by Ptolemy really are of little importance
for our discussion. It should be noted, however, that “very few historians of
astronomy have accepted Newton’s conclusions in their entirety.”— Dr. James
Evans in the Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol. 24 Parts 1/2,1993, pp. 145,
146. (Dr. Newton died in 1991.) An article on R. R. Newton and the Royal Canon is
published on the web: http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/newtpol.htm
For the readers convenience, this article has been added to the material at the end
of the present book.
* “Cuneiform” refers to the “wedge-shaped” script used on these ancient clay

tablets. The signs were impressed on the damp clay with a pointed stick or reed
(stylus).
B-1: Chronicles, kinglists, and royal inscriptions

a) Neo-Babylonian Chronicles
A chronicle is a form of historical narrative covering a sequence of
events.
Several cuneiform chronicles covering parts of Neo-Babylonian
history have been discovered, all of which are kept in the British
Museum, London. Most of them are probably copies of (or
extracts from) original documents written contemporary with the
events.22
The most recent translation of them has been published by A.
K. Grayson in Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles.23 Grayson
subdivides the Babylonian chronicles into two parts, the first of
which is called the Neo-Babylonian Chronicle Series (Chronicles 1–
7). Chronicle 1 (= B.M. 92502) begins with the reign of Nabonassar
(747–734 B.C.E.) and ends with the accession-year of Shamash-
shuma-ukin (668 B.C.E.). Chronicles 2–7 begin with the accession-
year of Nabopolassar (626 B.C.E.) and continue into the beginning
of the reign of Cyrus (538 B.C.E.).
What do these “chronicles” consist of? With respect to the
contents of the chronicles, Grayson explains:
The narrative is divided into paragraphs with each paragraph
normally devoted to one regnal year. The text is concerned only
with matters related to Babylonia and, in particular, her king, and
the events, which are almost exclusively political and military in
character, are narrated in an objective and laconically dry
manner.24
22 Professor D. J. Wiseman says: “The Neo-Babylonian Chronicle texts are written in a
small script of a type which does not of itself allow any precise dating but which
can mean that they were written from any time almost contemporary with the
events themselves to the end of the Achaemenid rule [331 B.C.E.].” (Chronicles of
Chaldean Kings [London: The Trustees of the British Museum, 1961], p. 4)
Professor J. A. Brinkman is a little more specific, stating that the extant copies of
the Neo-Babylonian chronicles are “slightly antedating the Historiai of Herodotus,”
which was written c. 430 B.C.E. (J. A. Brinkman, “The Babylonian Chronicle
Revisited,” in Lingering Over Words. Studies in Ancient Near Eastern Literature in
Honor of William L. Moran, ed. T. Abusch, J. Huehnergard, and P. Steinkeller
[Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1990], pp. 73, 85.) Dr. E. N. Voigtlander says that the
copies of the Neo-Babylonian chronicles seem to come from the reign of Darius I
(Voigtlander, A Survey of Neo-Babylonian History [unpublished doctoral thesis,
University of Michigan, 1963], p. 204, note 45.) Chronicle 1A has a colophon* in
which it is explicitly stated that the text was copied (from an earlier original) in the
22nd year of Darius I (500/499 B.C.E.).
23 A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Locust Valley, New York: J.J.
Augustin Publisher, 1975). The work will hereafter be referred to as ABC.
24 A. K. Grayson in Reallexikon der Assyriologie and vorderasiatischen Archäologie
(henceforth abbreviated RLA), ed. D. O. Edzard, Vol. VI (Berlin and New York:
Walter de Gruyter, 1980), p. 86.
* The term colophon derives from a tablet inscription appended by a scribe to the end of an
ancient Near East (e.g., Early/Middle/Late Babylonian, Assyrian, Canaanite) text such as
a chapter, book, manuscript, or record. In the ancient Near East, scribes typically
The Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946

This chronicle covers the period from Nabopolassar’s 21st year (605/04
B.C.E.) to Nebuchadnezzar’s 10th year (595/94 B.C.E.). Photo used
courtesy of D. J. Wiseman (shown in his Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, Plate
VI).
recorded information on clay tablets. The colophon usually contained facts relative to
the text such as associated person(s) (e.g., the scribe, owner, or commissioner of the
tablet), literary contents (e.g., a title, "catch" phrase, number of lines), and occasion or
purpose of writing. Colophons and "catch phrases" (repeated phrases) helped the reader
organize and identify various tablets, and keep related tablets together.
Most of these chronicles are incomplete. The extant (actually

existing) parts of Chronicles 2-7 cover the following regnal years:
TABLE 2: EXTANT PARTS OF THE NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONICLES 2–7
CHRONICLE NO. RULER REGNAL YEARS
COVERED
No.2 = B.M. 25127 Nabopolassar acc.-year – 3
3 = B.M. 21901 Nabopolassar 10 – 17
4 = B.M. 22047 Nabopolassar 18 – 20
5 = B.M. 21946 Nabopolassar 21
” ” ” Nebuchadnezzar acc.-year – 10
6 = B.M. 25124 Neriglissar 3
7 = B.M. 35382 Nabonidus 1 – 11
” ” ” Nabonidus 17
In all, the Neo-Babylonian period (625–539 B.C.E.) includes a
total of eighty-seven regnal years. As is seen in the preceding table,
less than half of these years are covered by the preserved parts of
the chronicles. Yet some important information may be gathered
from them.
Chronicle 5 (B.M. 21946) shows that Nabopolassar ruled Babylon
for twenty-one years, and that he was succeeded by his son
Nebuchadnezzar. That part of the text says:
For twenty-one years Nabopolassar ruled Babylon. On the
eighth day of the month Ab he died. In the month of Elul
Nebuchadnezzar (II) returned to Babylon and on the first day
of the month he ascended the royal throne in Babylon.25
The last chronicle (B .M. 35382), the famous Nabonidus Chronicle,
covers the reign of Nabonidus, who was the father of Belshazzar.
This chronicle unfortunately is damaged. The portion covering
Nabonidus’ twelfth year to his sixteenth year of rule is lacking, and
the portion where the words for “seventeenth year” no doubt
originally could be read, is damaged.26
Notably, however, for the sixth year it is stated that Cyrus, king
of Anshan, defeated the Median king Astyages and captured
Ecbatana, the capital of Media.27 If Nabonidus ruled for seventeen
25 Grayson, ABC (1975), pp. 99, 100.
26 Ibid. p. 109.
27 Ibid., pp. 106, 107. “The sixth year,” too, is missing, but as the record for each year
is separated from the next year by a horizontal line, and as the account of
Astyages’ defeat immediately preceeds the record for the seventh year, it is quite
evident that it refers to the sixth year. – Anshan was a city and also an archaic
name of the province in which it was situated, Parsa (Persis), which lay at the
Persian Gulf southeast of Babylonia. At the time of Cyrus’ rise to power, Anshan
(Parsa) was a Median tributary kingdom.
years and if he was dethroned by Cyrus in 539 B.C.E., his first year
must have been 555/54 B .C.E. and his sixth year, when Cyrus
conquered Media, must have been 550/49 B.C.E.
The Watch Tower Society, in fact, agrees with these datings. The
reason is that the secular basis of its chronology, 539 B.C.E. as the
date for the fall of Babylon, is directly connected with the reign of
Cyrus. The Greek historian Herodotus, in the fifth century B.C.E.,
says that Cyrus’ total rule was twenty-nine years.28 As Cyrus died in
530 B.C.E., in the ninth year of his rule over Babylonia, his first
year as king of Anshan must have begun in c. 559 B.C.E., or about
three years before Nabonidus acceded to the throne of Babylon.
Suppose now that twenty years have to be added to the Neo-
Babylonian era, which is required if the destruction of Jerusalem is
28 Herodotus’ Historiai I:210–216. Other ancient historians such as Ktesias, Dinon,
Diodorus, Africanus, and Eusebius roughly agree with this length of reign for
Cyrus. — See Insight on the Scriptures (1988), Vol. 1, p. 454.
set at 607 rather than 587 B.C.E., and that we add these twenty
years to the reign of Nabonidus, making it thirty-seven years
instead of seventeen. Then his first year must have been 575/74
B.C.E. instead of 555/54. Nabonidus’ sixth year, when Astyages
was defeated by Cyrus, would then be moved back from 550/49 to
570/69 B.C.E.
Those dates, however, are impossible, as Cyrus did not come to
power until c. 559 B.C.E., as was shown above. He clearly could
not have defeated Astyages ten years before he came to power!
This is why the Society correctly dates this battle in 550 B.C.E.,
thereby indicating Nabonidus’ reign of seventeen years to be
correct, as is held by all authorities and classical authors.29
Though the chronicles available do not furnish a complete
chronology for the Neo-Babylonian period, the information which
they do preserve supports the dates for the lengths of the reigns of
the Neo-Babylonian kings given by Berossus and the Royal Canon.
As the earlier-presented evidence strongly indicates that both of
these sources derived their information from the Babylonian
chronicles independent of each other, and as their figures for the
Neo-Babylonian reigns agree, it is logical to conclude that the
chronological information originally given in the Neo-Babylonian
chronicles has been preserved unaltered by Berossus and the Royal
Canon.
Even if this is agreed upon, however, can the information given
by these Babylonian chronicles be trusted?
It is often pointed out that the Assyrian scribes distorted history
in order to glorify their kings and gods. “It is a well known fact that
in Assyrian royal inscriptions a serious military set-back is never
openly admitted.”30 Sometimes scribes garbled the narration by
29 1nsight on the Scriptures (1988), Vol. 1, pp. 454, 566; Vol. 2, p. 612. That Astyages
was defeated in 550 B.C.E. may also be argued on other grounds. If, as stated by
Herodotus (Historiai I:130), Astyages ruled Media for thirty-five years, his reign
would have begun in 585 B.C.E. (550+35=585). He was the successor of his father
Cyaxares, who had died shortly after a battle with Alyattes of Lydia, which
according to Herodotus (Historiai I:73, 74) was interrupted by a solar eclipse.
Actually, a total solar eclipse visible in that area took place on May 28, 585
B.C.E., which is commonly identified with the one mentioned by Herodotus.—I. M.
Diakonoff, The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 2 (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1985), pp. 112, 126; cf. M. Miller, “The earlier Persian dates in
Herodotus,” Klio, Vol. 37 (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1959), p. 48.
30 A. K. Grayson, “Assyria and Babylonia,” Orientalia, Vol.49, Fasc. 2,1980, p. 171.
See also Antti Laato in Vetus Testamentum, Vol. XLV:2, April 1995, pp. 198–226.
changing the date of a defeat and weaving it into an account of a

later battle.31 Do the Neo-Babylonian chronicles treat history in
this way, too?
Dr. A. K. Grayson, a well-known authority on the Assyrian
and Babylonian chronicles, concludes:
Unlike the Assyrian scribes the Babylonians neither fail to
mention Babylonian defeats nor do they attempt to change them
into victories. The chronicles contain a reasonably reliable and
representative record of important events in the period with which
they are concerned.32
We have reason for assurance, then, that the figures for the
reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings given by these chronicles and
preserved to our time—thanks to Berossus and the Royal Canon—
represent the actual reigns of these kings. This conclusion will be
confirmed, over and over again, in the further discussion.
b) Babylonian king lists
A cuneiform king list differs from a chronicle in that it is usually a

list of royal names with the addition of regnal years, similar to the
later Royal Canon.
Although a number of king lists both from Assyria and Babylonia
have been unearthed, only one of them covers the Neo-Babylonian
era: the Uruk King List, shown on the following page.
Unfortunately, as can be seen, it is badly preserved, and some
portions of it are missing. Nonetheless, as will be demonstrated, it
has definite historical value.
The preserved portions cover the periods from Kandalanu to
Darius I (647–486 B.C.E.) and, on the reverse side, from Darius III
to Seleucus II (335-226 B.C.E.). It was evidently composed from
older sources sometime after the reign of Seleucus II.
31 Grayson, ibid.(1980),p. 171.
32 Ibid., p. 175. This does not mean that the chronicles are infallible records. As Dr. J.
A. Brinkman points out, “lack of nationalistic prejudice does not insure factual
reliability; and the Babylonian chronicles have their share of proven errors.” Still,
he agrees that the chronicles contain an essentially reliable record of events and
dates for the period between the eighth and sixth centuries B.C.E.: “For the period
from 745 to 668, these documents list rulers and exact dates of reign in Babylonia,
Assyria, and Elam. Coverage thereafter is spotty, in part because of lacunae in the
record; but these texts still furnish most of the precise chronological background
for present knowledge of the downfall of the Late Assyrian Empire, the rise of the
Neo-Babylonian Empire, the reign of Nabonidus, and the transition to Persian
rule.”—Brinkman in Lingering Over Words (see note 22 above), pp. 74 and 100,
note 148. For additional comments on the reliability of the Neo-Babylonian
chronicles, see Chapter 7: “Attempts to overcome the evidence.”
The Uruk King List (W 20030, 105)

As reproduced by J. van Dijk in UVB 18 (Berlin 1962), tablet 28a. The
transcription to the right is that of A. K. Grayson in RLA VI (1980),
page 97.
The Uruk King List was discovered during the excavations at

Uruk (modern Warka in southern Iraq) in 1959–60 together with
about 1,000 other cuneiform texts (mostly economic texts) from
different periods.33
The preserved portion of the obverse (front or principal side),
which includes the Neo-Babylonian period, gives the following
chronological information (damaged or missing portions are
indicated by quotation marks or parentheses):34
33 The first transcription and translation of the text, which included an extensive
discussion by Dr. J. van Dijk, was published in 1962.—J. van Dijk, UVB (=
Vorläufiger Bericht über die von dem Deutschen Archäologischen Institut unter der
Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft
unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka), Vol. 18, Berlin, 1962, pp. 53–60.
An English version of van Dijk’s translation (of the kinglist) is published by J. B.
Pritchard, The Ancient Near East (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University
Press, 1969), p. 566. Another, more recent transcription by A. K. Grayson was
published in 1980.—A. K. Grayson, RLA (see note 24 and the picture above), Vol.
VI (1980), pp. 97, 98.
34 Based upon Grayson’s transcription in RLA VI (1980), p. 97.
THE URUK KING LIST

(obverse)
21 years K(anda)lanu
1 year Sin-shum-lishir and
Sin-shar-ishkun
21 years Nabopolassar
43 (ye)ars Nebuchadnezzar
2 (ye)ars Awel-Marduk
‘3’ (years) 8 months Neriglissar
(. . .) 3 months Labashi-Marduk
‘17[?]’ (years) Nabonidus
As is seen, the royal names and the preserved figures for the
Neo-Babylonian period agree with those of Berossus and the Royal
Canon: Nabopolassar is given 21 years, Nebuchadnezzar 43 years,
and Awel-Marduk (Evil-merodach) 2 years. The only deviation is
the length of Labashi-Marduk’s reign, which is given as 3 months
against Berossus’ 9 months. The smaller figure is without doubt
correct, as is proved by the economic documents unearthed.35
In contrast to the Royal Canon, which always gives whole years
only, the Uruk King List is more specific in also giving months for
the reigns of Neriglissar and Labashi-Marduk. The damaged figures
for Neriglissar and Nabonidus may be restored (reconstructed) as
“3 years, 8 months,” and “17 years,” respectively. The economic
texts also indicate Neriglissar’s reign to have been three years and
eight months (August 560–April 556 B.C.E.).36
Thus, once again, we find the figures of Berossus and the Royal
Canon confirmed by this ancient document, the Uruk King List.
Admittedly, this king list was composed (from older documents)
more than 300 years after the end of the Neo-Babylonian era. On
this basis it might be argued that scribal errors may have crept into
it.
35 See note 20 above. At any rate, Labashi-Marduk’s reign was swallowed up by
Neriglissar’s fourth year, which was also Nabonidus’ accession-year, and the total
length of the era is not affected.
36 J. van Dijk, UVB 18 (see note 33 above), page 57. As Neriglissar died in his fourth
regnal year, his reign would normally have been counted chronologically as four
years, according to the Babylonian accession-year system. The Uruk King List
deviates from this method at this point by giving more specific information. As van
Dijk points out, “the list is more precise than the [Royal] Canon and confirms
throughout the results of the research.”—Archiv fair Orientforschung, ed. E.
Weidner, Vol. 20 (Graz, 1963), p. 217. For further information on the month of
Neriglissar’s accession and the Uruk King List, see the Appendix for Chapter 3.
So it is important to ask: Are there then no historical records

preserved from the Neo-Babylonian era itself which establish its
chronology? Yes, there are, as is immediately evident.
c) Royal inscriptions
Royal inscriptions of different kinds (building inscriptions, votive
inscriptions, annals, etc.) from the Assyrian and Babylonian eras
themselves have been found in great numbers.
In 1912 a German translation of the then-known Neo-
Babylonian inscriptions was published by Stephen Langdon, but
since then many new ones from the period in question have been
unearthed.37 A new translation of all the Neo-Babylonian royal
inscriptions is therefore being prepared.38
This is an enormous task. Paul-Richard Berger estimates that
about 1,300 royal inscriptions, one third of which are undamaged,
have been found from the Neo-Babylonian period, most of them
from the reigns of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar.39
For the chronology that we are concerned with, three of the
inscriptions are especially valuable. All of them are original
documents from the reign of Nabonidus.40 How do they aid in
establishing the critical date for Jerusalem’s destruction?
We have seen that in advocating a 607 B.C.E. date, the Watch
Tower Society questions the reliability of the duration of the Neo-
Babylonian period as presented by both Berossus and the Royal
Canon (often called Ptolemy’s Canon), finding the total 20 years
too short. The first of the royal inscriptions to be discussed, called
37 Stephen Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften (=Vorderasiatische
Bibliothek, Vol. IV) (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche Buchhandlung, 1912).
38 The first of the three planned volumes was published in 1973 as Paul-Richard
Berger, Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften (=Alter Orient und Altes Testament,
Vol. 4/1) (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973).
39 About 75 percent of these documents were found in Babylon during the detailed
excavations of R. Koldewey in 1899–1917. (Berger, ibid., pp. 1–3) As explained by
Dr. Ronald Sack, “a virtual mountain” of royal inscriptions have survived from the
reign of Nebuchadnezzar alone. (Images of Nebuchadnezzar [Selinsgrove:
Susquehanna University Press; London and Toronto: Associated University Press,
1991],p. 26.) Six of the inscriptions are from the reign of Awel-Marduk, eight from
the reign of Neriglissar, and about thirty from the reign of Nabonidus. (Berger, op.
cit., pp. 325388.)
40 In 1989 Paul-Alain Beaulieu, in his doctoral thesis The Reign of Nabonidus,
included a new catalogue with detailed descriptions of the royal inscriptions from
the reign of Nabonidus. —Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of
Babylon 556–539 B.C. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989), pp.
1–42.
Nabonidus No. 18, confirms the length of reign for that king as
found in those ancient sources.
The second cuneiform tablet, Nabonidus No. 8, clearly
establishes the total length of the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings
up to Nabonidus, and enables us to know both the beginning year
of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and the crucial year in which he
desolated Jerusalem.
The third, Nabonidus No. 24, provides the length of the reign
of each Neo-Babylonian king from the first ruler, Nabopolassar,
onward and down to the ninth year of the last ruler, Nabonidus
(Belshazzar was evidently a coregent with his father Nabonidus at
the time of Babylon’s fall).41
Following are the details for each of these cuneiform tablets:
(1) Nabon. No.18 is a cylinder inscription from an unnamed year
of Nabonidus. Fulfilling the desire of Sin, the moon-god,
Nabonidus dedicated a daughter of his (named En-nigaldi-Nanna)
to this god as priestess at the Sin temple of Ur.
The important fact here is that an eclipse of the moon, dated in the
text to Ulûlu 13 and observed in the morning watch, led to this
dedication. Ulûlu, the sixth month in the Babylonian calendar,
corresponded to parts of August and September (or, sometimes,
parts of September and October) in our calendar. The inscription
explicitly states that the moon “set while eclipsed,” that is, the
eclipse began before and ended after sunrise.42 Its end, therefore,
was invisible at Babylon.
41 Unfortunately, scholars have arranged or numbered the inscriptions differently,
which may cause some confusion. In the systems of Tadmor, Berger, and Beaulieu
the three inscriptions are listed as follows:
Tadmor 1965: Berger 1973: Beaulieu 1989:
(1) Nabon. No. 18 Nbd Zyl. II, 7 No. 2
(2) Nabon. No. 8 Nbd Stl. Frgm. XI No. 1
(3) Nabon. No. 24 (missing) (Adad-guppi stele)
Beaulieu’s arrangement is chronological: No. 1 was written in Nabonidus’ first

year, No. 2 in his second year, and No. 13 after year 13, possibly in year 14 or 15.
(Beaulieu, op. cit., p.42.) In Tadmor’ s list Nabonidus’ inscriptions are numbered in
the order of their publication, starting with the fifteen texts published by Langdon
in 1912. (Hayim Tadmor, “The Inscriptions of Nabunaid: Historical Arrangement,”
in Studies in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-Fifth Birthday [=
Assyriological Studies, No. 16], ed. H. Güterbock & T. Jacobsen, Chicago, The
Chicago University Press, 1965, pp. 351–363.) The systems of Tadmor, Berger, and
Beaulieu, in turn, differ from that of H. Lewy in Archiv Orientální, Vol. XVII, Prague,
1949, pp. 34, 35, note 32. In the discussion here presented Tadmor’s numbers will
be used.
42 This part of the text says, according to Beaulieu’s translation: “On account of the
wish for an entu priestess, in the month Ulûlu, the month (whose Sumerian name
means) ‘work of the goddesses,’ on the thirteenth day the moon was eclipsed and
set while eclipsed. Sin requested an entu priestess. Thus (were) his sign and his
Of what significance is all this?

When sufficient details about a lunar eclipse are available and it
is known that the eclipse occurred within a certain limited time
period in the past, astronomical movements are so precise that the
date of a specific eclipse in a particular area can be determined
accurately. Since the details here meet the requirement, when
during Nabonidus’ reign did the eclipse described on the ancient
tablet take place?
In 1949 Hildegard Lewy examined the eclipse and found that
only once during Nabonidus’ reign did such an eclipse take place at
this time of the year, that is, on September 26, 554 B.C.E. (Julian
calendar).43 The eclipse began about 3:00 am. and lasted for about
three hours. If Nabonidus ruled for seventeen years and his first
year was 555/54 B.C.E., as is generally held, the eclipse and the
dedication of Nabonidus’ daughter took place in his second regnal
year (554/53 B.C.E.).
A remarkable confirmation of this dating was brought to light
twenty years later, when W. G. Lambert published his translation
of four fragments of an inscription from Nabonidus’s reign which
he named the Royal Chronicle. The inscription establishes that the
dedication of Nabonidus’ daughter took place shortly before his
third year, and obviously in his second, precisely as Lewy had
concluded.44
The lunar eclipse of Ulûlu 13, then, definitely fixes the second
year of Nabonidus to 554/53 B.C.E. and his first year to 555/54,
decision.” (Beaulieu, op. cit., p. 127) The conclusion that this lunar eclipse
indicated that Sin requested a priestess was evidently based on the astrological
tablet series Enurna Anu Enlil, the “Holy Writ” of the Assyrian and Babylonian
astrologers, who regularly based their interpretations of astronomical events on
this old omina collection. A lunar eclipse seen in the morning-watch of Ulûlu 13 is
expressly interpreted in these tablets as an indication that Sin desires a
priestess.—See H. Lewy, “The Babylonian Background of the Kay Kaus Legend,”
Archiv Orientální Vol. XVII (ed. by B. Hrozny, Prague, 1949), pp. 50, 51.
43 H. Lewy, op. cit., pp. 50, 51.
44 W. G. Lambert, “A New Source for the Reign of Nabonidus, “Archiv für
Orientforschung, Vol. 22 (ed. by Ernst Weidner, Graz, 1968/69), pp. 1–8. Lewy’s
conclusion has been confirmed by other scholars. (See for example Beaulieu,
op.cit., pp. 127–128.) The eclipse of September 26, 554 BCE, was examined in
1999 by Professor F. Richard Stephenson at Durham, England, who is a leading
expert on ancient eclipses. He says:
”My computed details are as follows (times to the nearest tenth of an hour):
(i) Beginning at3.0 h[our] local time, lunar altitude 34deg[rees] in the SW.
(ii) End at 6.1 h[our] local time, lunar altitude -3 deg[rees] in the W.
The eclipse would thus end about 15 minutes after moonset. A deep
penumbral eclipse may possibly be visible for a very few minutes and
them is always the possibility of anomalous refraction at the horizon.
However, I would judge that the Moon indeed set eclipsed on this
occasion.”—Letter Stephenson-Jonsson, dated March 5, 1999.
thus giving a very strong confirmation to the figures for

Nabonidus’ reign set forth by Berossus and the Royal Canon.45
(2) Nabon. No. 8, or the Hillah stele, was discovered at the end of
the 19th century in the neighborhood of Hillah, about four miles
southeast of the ruins of Babylon.46
The inscription “consists of a report on the accession year and
the beginning of the first regnal year of Nabonidus” and may be
shown, on the basis of internal evidence, to have been written
toward the middle of his first regnal year (in the autumn of 555
B.C.E.)47
The information given on this stele alone helps us to establish the
total length of the period from Nabopolassar to the beginning of the reign of
Nabonidus. How does it do this?
In several of his royal inscriptions (No. 1, 8, 24, and 25 in
Tadmor’s list) Nabonidus says that in a dream in his accession year,
he was commanded by the gods Marduk and Sin to rebuild Éhulhul,
the temple of the moon god Sin in Harran. In connection with this,
the text under discussion (Nabon. No. 8) provides a very
interesting piece of information:
(Concerning) Harran (and) the Éhulhul, which had been lying
in ruins for 54 years because of its devastation by the Medes (who)
destroyed the sanctuaries, with the consent of the gods the time
for reconciliation approached, 54 years, when Sin should return to
his place. When he returned to his place, Sin, the lord of the tiara,
remembered his lofty seat, and (as to) all the gods who left his
chapel with him, it is Marduk, the king of the gods, who ordered
their gathering.48
45 Someone might claim it is possible to find another lunar eclipse setting heliacally
on UMW 13 a number of years earlier that fits the description given by Nabonidus,
perhaps about twenty years earlier, in order to adapt the observation to the
chronology of the Watch Tower Society. However, modern astronomical
calculations show that no such lunar eclipse, visible in Babylonia, took place at
this time of the year within twenty years, or even within fifty years before the reign
of Nabonidus! The closest lunar eclipse of this kind occurred fifty-four years
earlier, on August 24, 608 B.C.E. The lunar eclipse of Nabon. No. 18, therefore,
can only be that of September 26, 554 B.C.E. For additional information on the
identification of ancient lunar eclipses, see the Appendix for Chapter 4: “Some
comments on ancient lunar eclipses “
46 A translation of the text was published by S. Langdon in 1912, op. cit. (note 37
above), pp.53–57, 270–289. For an English translation, see Ancient Near Eastern
Texts (hereafter referred to as ANET), ed. James B. Pritchard (Princeton, N. J.:
Princeton University Press, 1950), pp. 308–311.
47 Col. IX mentions Nabonidus’ visit to southern Babylonia soon after a New Years’
festival. This visit is also documented in archival texts from Larsa dated to the first
two months of Nabonidus’ first year. — Beaulieu, op. cit., pp. 21, 22, 117–127.
48 Translated by Beaulieu, op. cit., p. 107.
The date when the temple Éhulhul in Harran was ruined by the
Medes is known to us from two different reliable sources:
The Babylonian Chronicle 3 (B.M. 21901) and the Harran
inscription Nabon. H 1,B, also known as the Adad-guppi’ stele
(Nabon. No. 24 in Tadmor’s list). The chronicle states that in the
“sixteenth year” of Nabopolassar, in the month Marheshwan (parts
of October and November), “the Umman-manda (the Medes),
[who] had come [to help the king of Akkad, put their armies together
and marched to Harran [against Ashur-uball]it (II) who had
ascended the throne in Assyria. . . . The king of Akkad reached
Harran and [. ..] he captured the city. He carried off the vast booty
of the city and the temple.”49 The Adad-guppi’ stele gives the same
information:
Whereas in the 16th year of Nabopolassar, king of Babylon,
Sin, king of the gods, with his city and his temple was angry and
went up to heaven—the city and the people that (were) in it went
to ruin.50
Thus it is obvious that Nabonidus reckons the “fifty-four years”
from the sixteenth year of Nabopolassar to the beginning of his
own reign when the gods commanded him to rebuild the temple.51
This is in excellent agreement with the figures for the Neo-
Babylonian reigns given by Berossus and the Royal Canon. As
49 Grayson, ABC (1975), p. 95. The exact month for the destruction of the temple is
not given, but as the chronicle further states that the king of Akkad went home in
the month of Adar (the twelfth month, corresponding to February/March), the
destruction must have occurred some time between October, 610 and March, 609
B.C.E., probably towards the end of this period.
50 C. J. Gadd, “The Harran Inscriptions of Nabonidus,” in Anatolian Studies, Vol. VIII,
1958, p. 47. That the temple Éhulhul was laid in ruins at this time is confirmed by
other inscriptions, including the Sippar Cylinder (No.1 in Tadmor’s list) which says:
“(Sin) became angry with that city [Harran] and temple [Éhulhul]. He aroused the
Medes ,who destroyed that temple and turned it into ruins”—Gadd, ibid., pp. 72,
73; Beaulieu, op. cit., p.58.
51 The rebuilding of the temple Ehulhul is referred to in a number of texts which are
not easily harmonized. Owing to some vagueness in the inscriptions, it is not clear
whether the Harran temple was completed early in Nabonidus’ reign or after his
ten year stay at Teima in Arabia. The problem has been extensively discussed by a
number of scholars. Most probably, the project was started in the early years of
Nabonidus’ reign, but could not be completely finished until after his return from
Teima, perhaps in his thirteenth regnal year or later. (Beaulieu, op. cit., pp. 137,
205–210, 239–241.) “The different texts surely refer to different stages of the
work,” says Professor Henry Saggs in his review of the problem. (H. W. F. Saggs,
Peoples of the Past: Babylonians, London: The Trustees of the British Museum,
1995, p. 170) Anyway, all scholars agree that Nabonidus reckons the fifty-four
years from the sixteenth year of Nabopolassar unt1 his own accession-year when
the “wrath” of the gods “did (eventually) calm down,” according to the Hillah stele
(col. vii), and Nabonidus “was commanded” to rebuild the temple. For additiona1
comments on the Hillah stele, see the Appendix.
Nabopolassar reigned for twenty-one years, five years remained from

his sixteenth year to the end of his reign. After that
Nebuchadnezzar ruled for forty-three years, Awel-Marduk for two, and
Neriglissar for four years before Nabonidus came to power (Labashi-
Marduk’s few months may be disregarded).
Summing up these regnal years (5+43+2+4) we get fifty-four
years-exactly as Nabonidus states on his stele.
If, as has been established, Nabonidus’ first year was 555/554
B.C.E., Nabopolassar’s sixteenth year must have been 610/609, his
first year 625/624 and his twenty-first and last year 605/604 B.C.E.
Nebuchadnezzar’s first year, then, was 604/603, and his eighteenth
year, when he desolated Jerusalem, was 587/586 B.C.E.―not 607
B.C.E. These dates agree completely with the dates arrived at from
Berossus’ figures and the Royal Canon.
Consequently, this stele adds its testimony in establishing the
total length of the reigns of all the Neo-Babylonian kings prior to
Nabonidus. The strength of this evidence―produced right during
the Neo-Babylonian era itself―cannot be insisted upon too
strongly.
(3) Nabon. No. 24, also known as the Adad-guppi’ inscription, exists
in two copies. The first was discovered in 1906 by H. Pognon at
Eski Harran in south-eastern Turkey, in the ruins of the ancient
city of Harran (known as Haran in Abraham’s time). The stele, now
in the Archaeological Museum at Ankara, is a grave inscription,
evidently composed by Nabonidus for his mother, Adad-guppi’.
The text not only includes a biographical sketch of Nabonidus’
mother from the time of Assyrian king Ashurbanipal and on to the
ninth year of Nabonidus (when she died), but also gives the length
of reign of each of the Neo-Babylonian kings except, of course, of
Nabonidus himself, who was still living. Unfortunately, in the first
copy the portion of the text setting out the reigns is damaged, and
the only readable figures are the forty-three years of
Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and the four years of Neriglissar’s reign.52
However, in 1956 Dr. D. S. Rice discovered three other stelae at
Harran from the reign of Nabonidus, one of which bore a duplicate
inscription of the one discovered in 1906! Fortunately, the sections of
52 For an extensive discussion of the inscription, see B. Landsberger, “Die Basaltstele
Nabonids von Eski-Harran,” in Halil-Edhem Hâtira Kitabi, Kilt I (Ankara: Turk Tarih
Kurumu Basimevi, 1947), pp. 115–152. An English translation is included in
Pritchard’s ANET, pp. 311, 312. In ANET the translation of stele H 1, A, col. II says
“6th” year of Nabonidus, which is an error for “9th”. The original text clearly has
“9th” year’.
the new stele containing the chronological information were not

damaged. The first of these sections reads as follows:
From the 20th year of Ashurbanipal, king of Assyria, when I
was born, until the 42nd year of Ashurbanipal, the 3rd year of his
son Ashur-etil-ili, the 21st year of Nabopolassar, the 43rd year of
Nebuchadnezzar, the 2nd year of Awel-Merodach, the 4th year of
Neriglissar, during (all) these 95 years in which I visited the temple
of the great godhead Sin, king of all the gods in heaven and in the
nether world, he looked with favor upon my pious good works
and listened to my prayers, accepted my vows.53
It should be observed that the first two kings, Ashurbanipal and
his son Ashur-etil-ili, were Assyrian kings, while the following kings
were Neo-Babylonian kings. This indicates that Adad-guppi’ first
lived under Assyrian rule but then, in connection with
Nabopolassar’s revolt and liberation of Babylonia from the
Assyrian yoke, was brought under Babylonian rule.54 Nabonidus’
mother lived to be a centenarian, and further on in the text a
complete summary of her long life is given:
He [the moon god Sin] added (to my life) many days (and) years
of happiness and kept me alive from the time of Ashurbanipal, king
of Assyria, to the 9th year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon, the son
53 C. J. Gadd, op. cit., pp. 46–56. Gadd translated the inscription in 1958 and titled
the new stele Nabon. H 1, B, as distinguished from Pognon’s stele which he titled
Nabon. H 1, A. The quotation here is from the translation of A. Leo Oppenheim in
James B . Pritchard (ed.), The Ancient Near East. A New Anthology of Texts and
Pictures, Vol. II (Princeton and London: Princeton University Press, 1975), pp. 105,
106, col. I:29–33. As this passage is used as the basis for the calculation of Adad-
guppi’s age in col. II:26–29, the number of kings and their reigns are evidently
meant to be complete. In a second portion the chronological information is repeated
(col. II:40–46), but the reign of Awel-Marduk is left out, evidently because the
purpose of this section is different, viz., to explain which of the Neo-Babylonian
kings Adad-guppi’ had served as an obedient subject. This is clearly indicated in
the beginning of the section, which says: “I have obeyed with all my heart and have
done my duty (as a subject) during ... ,” etc. As suggested by Gadd “she was
banished, or absented herself,” from the court of Awel-Marduk, “no doubt for
reasons, whatever they were, which earned that king an evil repute in the official
tradition.” (Gadd, op. cit., p. 70)
54 Nabonidus and his mother descended from the northern branch of the Aramaeans,
who earlier had been so thoroughly assimilated into the Assyrian society that even
their moon-god Sin “came to be honored among the Assyrians on an equal plane
with their native god Assur.” (M. A. Dandamaev, Slavery in Babylonia, DeKalb,
Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press, 1984, pp. 36–39.) In one of his
inscriptions (Nabon. No. 9 in Tadmor’ s arrangement), Nabonidus explicitly speaks
of the Assyrian kings as “my royal ancestors.” — H. Lewy, op. cit. (cf. note 42
above), pp. 35, 36.
whom I bore, (i.e.) one hundred and four happy years (spent) in
that piety which Sin, the king of all gods, has planted in my heart’.55
This queen died in the ninth year of Nabonidus, and the
mourning for the deceased mother is described in the last column
of the inscription. Interestingly, the same information is also given
in the Nabonidus Chronicle (B.M. 35382):
The ninth year: . . . On the fifth day of the month Nisan the
queen mother died in Dur-karashu which (is on) the bank of the
Euphrates upstream from Sippar.56
All the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings are given in this royal
inscription, from Nabopolassar and on to the ninth year of
Nabonidus, and the lengths of reign are in complete accordance with the
Royal Canon—a very significant fact, because the corroboration
comes from a witness contemporary with all these Neo-Babylonian kings
and intimately connected with all of them!57 More so than the
individual testimony of any one source, it is the harmony of all
these sources which is most telling.
55 Oppenheim in Pritchard, op. cit. (1975), p. 107, col. II:26–29. For additional
comments on the Adad-guppi’ inscription, see the Appendix for Chapter 3.
56 Grayson, ABC, p. 107. Until the last column (III 5ff.), the Adad-guppi’ stele is
written in the first person. But it is evident that the inscription was chiselled out
after her death, undoubtedly by order of Nabonidus. That is why Dr. T. Longman
III would like to classify it as a “fictional autobiography” (a 1iterary method known
also from other Akkadian texts), although he adds: “This, however, does not mean
that the events and even the opinions associated with Adad-guppi’ are
unauthentic.” (Tremper Longman III, Fictional Akkadian Autobiography, Winona
Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1991, pp. 41, 101, 102, 209, 210; cf. Beaulieu, op.
cit., p. 209.) But it is questionable if the Adad-guppi’ inscription, even in this
sense, can be classified as a “fictional autobiography” In his review of Longman’s
work Dr. W. Schramm points out that the text “essentially is a genuine
autobiography. The fact that there is an addition in col. III 5ff. composed by
Nabonidus (so already Gadd, AnSt 8, 55, on III 5), does not give anyone the right to
regard the whole text as fictional. The inscription, of course, was chiselled out after
the death of Adad-guppi’. But it cannot be doubted that an authentic Vorlage on
the story of Adad-guppi’s life was used “—Bibliotheca Orientalis, Vol. LII, No. 1/2
(Leiden, 1995), p.94.
57 The Royal Canon, of course, does not give the reigns of the Assyrian kings
Ashurbanipal and Ashur-etil-ili. For the earliest period (747–539 B.C.E.) the
Canon gives a kinglist for Babylon, not for contemporary Assyria. The reigns of
Assyrian kings are given only in so far as they also ruled directly over Babylon,
which was true, for example, of Sennacherib, who ruled over Babylon twice (in
704/03–703/02 and 688/87–681/80 B.C.E.), and of Esarhaddon, who ruled over
Babylon for thirteen years (680/79–668/ 67 B.C.E.). For the period of
Ashurbanipal’s reign in Assyria, the Canon gives the reigns of the contemporary
vassal kings in Babylon, Shamash-shum-ukin (20 years) and Kandalanu (22
years).—Compare Gadd, op. cit., pp. 70, 71.
The results from our discussion of the Neo-Babylonian

historical records are summarized in the following table.
TABLE 3: THE REIGNS OF THE NEO-BABYLONIAN KINGS
ACCORDING TO THE NEO-BABYLONIAN HISTORICAL RECORDS
ROYAL THE NEO-BAB. THE URUK THE ROYAL B.C.E.

NAME CHRONICLES KING LIST INSCRIPTIONS DATES
Nabopolassar 21 years 21 years 21 years 625–605
Nebuchadnezzar 43 years* 43 (ye)ars 43 years 604–562
Awel-Marduk 2 years* 2 (ye)ars 2 years 561–560
Neriglissar 4 years* ‘3’ (y’s)+8 m’s 4 years 559–556
Labashi-Marduk some months* 3 months — 556
Nabonidus ‘17 years’ ‘17?’ (years) 17 years 555–539
* These figures in the chronicles are preserved only via Berossus and/or the
Royal Canon. See discussion.
As may be seen from the table, the Neo-Babylonian chronology
adopted by secular historians is very strongly supported by the
ancient cuneiform sources, some of which were produced during
the Neo-Babylonian era itself. Three different lines of evidence in
support of this chronology are provided by these sources:
(1) Although important parts of the Neo-Babylonian Chronicles are
missing and some figures in the Uruk kinglist are partially damaged,
the combined witness of these documents strongly supports the Neo-
Babylonian chronologies of Berossus and the Royal Canon, both of
which were actually— independently of each other—derived from
Neo-Babylonian chronicles and kinglists.
(2) The royal inscription Nabon. No. 18 and the Royal Chronicle
fix the second year of Nabonidus astronomically to 554/53 B.C.E.
The whole length of the Neo-Babylonian period prior to
Nabonidus is given by Nabon. No. 8, which gives the elapsed time
from the sixteenth year of Nabopolassar up to the accession-year
of Nabonidus as fifty-four years. The stele thus fixes the sixteenth
year of Nabopolassar to 610/09 and his first year to 625/24 B.C.E.
These two inscriptions, therefore, establish the length of the whole
Neo-Babylonian era.
(3) The Adad-guppi’ inscription gives the reigns of all the Neo-
Babylonian kings (except for Labashi-Marduk’s brief, months-long
reign, which may be disregarded) from Nabopolassar up to the
ninth year of Nabonidus. As the Watch Tower Society indirectly
accepts a seventeen-year rule for Nabonidus, this stele of itself
overthrows their 607 B.C.E. date for the desolation of Jerusalem.
Thus the Babylonian chronicles, the Uruk kinglist, and the royal
inscriptions firmly establish the length of the Neo-Babylonian era.
And yet this is just a beginning. We must still wait to be introduced to
the strongest lines of evidence in support of the chronology
presented in the table above. Their added testimony should
establish beyond any reasonable question the historical facts of the
matter.
B-2: Economic-administrative and legal documents
Literally hundreds of thousands of cuneiform texts have been
excavated in Mesopotamia since the middle of the nineteenth
century.
The overwhelming majority of them concern economic-
administrative and private legal items such as promissory notes,
contracts (for the sale, lease, or gift of land, houses, and other
property, or for the hiring of slaves and livestock), and records of
law suits.
These texts are to a great extent dated just as are commercial
letters, contracts, receipts and other vouchers today. The dating is
done by giving the year of the reigning king, the month, and the day of the
month. A text concerning ceremonial salt from the archives of the
temple Eanna in Uruk, dated in the first year of Awel-Marduk (the
Evil-merodach of 2 Kings 25:27–30, written Amel-Marduk in
Akkadian but postvocalic m was pronounced w), is given here as
an example:
Ina-sillâ has brought one and one-half talents of
salt, the regular sattukku offering of the month of
Siman for the god Usur-amassu.
Month of Simanu, sixth day, first year of Amel-
Marduk, the king of Babylon.58
Tens of thousands of such dated texts have been unearthed
from the Neo-Babylonian period. According to the well-known
Russian Assyriologist M. A. Dandamaev, over ten thousand of these
texts had been published prior to 1991.59 Many others have been
published since, but the majority of them are still unpublished.
Professor D. J. Wiseman, another leading Assyriologist, estimates
58 Ronald H. Sack, Amel-Marduk 562–560 B.C. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1972), p. 79.
59 Dr. M. A. Dandamaev states: “The period of less than ninety years between the
reign of Nabopolassar and the occupation of Mesopotamia by the Persians is
documented by tens of thousands of texts concerning household and
administrative economy and private law, over ten thousand of which have been
published so far.”— The Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd ed., Vol. III:2 (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1991), p. 252.
that “there are probably some 50,000 texts published and

unpublished for the period 627–539” B.C.E.60
Thus there exist large numbers of dated tablets from every year
during the whole Neo-Babylonian era. Dr. Wiseman’s estimate would
give an average of nearly 600 dated texts from each of the eighty-
seven years from Nabopolassar to Nabonidus, inclusive.
It is true that among these texts there are many that are damaged
or fragmentary, and that dates are often illegible or missing.
Further, the texts are not evenly distributed throughout the period,
as the number gradually increases and culminates in the reign of
Nabonidus.
Nonetheless, every single year throughout the whole period is covered by
numerous, often hundreds of tablets that are datable.
Because of this abundance of dated texts modern scholars are
able to determine not only the length of reign of each king, but also
the time of the year when each change of reign occurred, sometimes almost
to the day!
The last known texts from the reign of Neriglissar, for example,
are dated I/2/4 and I?/6/4 (that is, month I, day 2 and day 6, year
4, corresponding to April 12 and 16, 556 B.C.E., Julian calendar),
and the earliest one from the reign of his son and successor,
Labashi-Marduk, is dated I/23/acc. (May 3, 556).61 The last text
from the reign of Nabonidus is dated VlI/17/17 (October 13,
539), or one day after the fall of Babylon (given as VII/16/17 in
60 Private letter Wiseman-Jonsson, dated August 28, 1987. This is probably a very
conservative estimate. The most extensive collection of Neo-Babylonian texts is
held in the British Museum, which includes some 25,000 texts dated to the period
626–539 B .C.E. Most of these belong to the “Sippar collection,” which contains
tablets excavated by Hormuzd Rassam at the site of ancient Sippar (present Abu
Habbah) in the years 1881 and 1882. This collection has recently been catalogued.
(E. Leichty et al, Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Vols.
VI–VIII, London: British Museum Publications Ltd, 1986–1988. These catalogues
will hereafter be referred to as CET.) Substantial collections are also in Istanbul
and Baghdad. Many other collections of Neo-Babylonian documents are held in
museums and at universities in the U.S.A., Canada, England, France, Germany,
Italy, and other parts of the world. It is true that many of the tablets are damaged
and the dates are often illegible. Yet, there are still tens of thousands of Neo-
Babylonian tablets with legible dates extant today. As a result of the continuous
archaeological excavations that are being carried out in the Mesopotamian area,
“the body of written sources expands significantly every year. For example, in the
space of a single season of excavations in Uruk, about six thousand documents
from the Neo-Babylonian and Achaemenid periods were discovered.”—M. A.
Dandamaev, Slavery in Babylonia (DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University
Press, 1984), pp. 1, 2.
61 R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology: 626 B.C.–A.D. 75
(Providence: Brown University Press, 1956), pp. 12, 13.
the Nabonidus Chronicle). The reason for the overlap of one day
beyond Babylon’s fall is easily explained:
Interestingly enough, the last tablet dated to Nabunaid from
Uruk is dated the day after Babylon fell to Cyrus. News of its
capture had not yet reached the southern city some 125 miles
distant.62
In view of this immense amount of documentary evidence, the
question must be asked: If twenty years have to be added to the
Neo-Babylonian era in order to place the destruction of Jerusalem
in 607 B.C.E., where are the business and administrative texts dated in those
missing years?
Quantities of dated documents exist for each of
Nebuchadnezzar’s forty-three years, for each of Awel-Marduch’s
(Evil-Merodach) two years, for each of Neriglissar’s four years,
and for each of Nabonidus’ seventeen regnal years. In addition,
there are many dated texts from Labashi-Marduk’s reign of only
about two months.
If any of these kings’ reigns had been longer than those just
mentioned, large numbers of dated documents would certainly
exist for each of those extra years. Where are they? Twenty years are
about one fifth of the whole Neo-Babylonian period. Among the
tens of thousands of dated tablets from this period, many thousands
ought to have been found from those missing twenty years.
If one casts one die (of a pair of dice) tens of thousands of times
without ever getting a 7, he must logically conclude: “There is no
number 7 on this die.” The same is true of the Watch Tower’s
twenty missing “ghost years” for which one must look in vain
during the Neo-Babylonian period.
But suppose that a number of missing years really existed, and
that, by some incredible chance, the many thousands of dated
tablets that ought to be there have not been found. Why is it, then,
that the lengths of reign according to the dated tablets which have
been unearthed happen to agree with the figures of Berossus, those of
the Royal Canon, of the Uruk King List, of the contemporary royal
62 Ibid., p. 13. One text from the reign of Nabonidus, published by G. Continua in
Textes Cuneiformes, Tome XII, Contrats Néo-Babyloniens, I (Paris: Librarie
Orientaliste, 1927), Pl. LVIII, No. 121, apparently gives him a reign of eighteen
years. Line 1 gives the date as “VI/6/17,” but when it is repeated in line 19 in the
1ext it is given as “VI/6/ 18” Parker and Dubberstein (p. 13) assumed “either a
scriba1 error or an error by Contenau.” The matter was settled by Dr. Beatrice
André’, who at my request collated the original at the Louvre Museum in Paris in
1990: “The last line has, 1ike the first, the year 17, and the error comes from
Contenau.”—Letter André-Jonsson, March 20, 1990.
inscriptions, as well as the figures of all the other evidence that is

yet to be presented below? Why should it be that, whatever type of
historical source is considered, the supposedly “missing” years
consistently amount to exactly twenty years? Why not a period of,
in one case, seventeen years, in another case thirteen, in yet another
seven years, or perhaps different isolated years distributed
throughout the Neo-Babylonian period?
Each year new quantities of dated tablets are unearthed, and
catalogues, transliterations, and translations of such texts are
frequently published, but the twenty missing years never turn up.
Even improbability has a limit63
The importance of the economic-administrative and legal texts
for the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period can hardly be
overestimated. The evidence provided by these dated texts is
simply overwhelming. The reigns of all the Neo-Babylonian kings
are copiously attested by tens of thousands of such documents, all
of which were written during this era. As shown by the table
below, these reigns are in full agreement with the Royal Canon and
the other documents discussed earlier.
TABLE 4: THE NEO-BABYLONIAN CHRONOLOGY ACCORDING
TO THE ECONOMIC-ADMINISTRATIVE AND LEGAL DOCUMENTS
Nabopolassar 21 years (625 – 605 BCE)
Nebuchadnezzar 43 years (604 – 562 BCE)
Awel-Marduk 2 years (561 – 560 BCE)
Neriglissar 4 years (559 – 556 BCE)
Labashi-Marduk 2–3 months ( 556 BCE)
Nabonidus 17 years (555 – 539 BCE)
B-3: Prosopographical evidence

Prosopography (from the Greek word prósopon, meaning “face,
person”) may be defined as “the study of careers, especially of
individuals linked by family, economic, social, or political
relationships.”64
63 As a matter of course, defenders of the Watch Tower Society’s chronology have
made great efforts to discredit the evidence provided by these enormous quantities
of dated cuneiform tablets. On perusing modern catalogues of documents dated to
the Neo-Babylonian era, they have found a few documents that seemingly give
longer reigns to some Babylonian kings than are shown by the Royal Canon and
other sources. A fresh check of the original tablets, however, has shown that most
of these odd dates simply are modern copying, transcription, or printing errors.
Some other odd dates are demonstrably scribal errors. For a detailed discussion of
these texts, see Appendix for chapter 3: “Some comments on copying, reading, and
scribal errors”
64 Webster’s New World Dictionary, 3rd college edition, eds. V. Neufeldt & D. B.
Guralnik (New York: Webster’s New World Dictionaries, 1988), p. 1080.
As the names of many individuals often recur in the business and

administrative documents—sometimes hundreds of times during
the entire Neo-Babylonian period―scholars usually apply the
prosopographical method in their analysis of these texts. Such an
approach not only contributes to the understanding of the
structure and social life of the Neo-Babylonian society, but it also
provides additional, internal evidence in support of the established
chronology of the period.
Of the tens of thousands of documents from the Neo-
Babylonian era, more than half are the results of temple activities
and have been found in temple archives, particularly in the archives of
the Eanna temple in Uruk (the temple of the goddess Ishtar) and
the Ebabbar temple in Sippar (the temple of Shamash, the sun god).
But many thousands of texts also come from private archives and
libraries.
The richest private archives are those of the Egibi and Nur-Sîn
houses, centered in the Babylon area. Other private archives have
been found, for example, in Uruk (the sons of Bel-ushallim, Nabû-
ushallim, and Bel-supê-muhur), in Borsippa (the Ea-ilûta-bâni
family), in Larsa (Itti-Shamash-balatu and his son Arad-Shamash),
and in Ur (the Sîn-uballit family).
No state archives have been found from the Neo-Babylonian
period, the reason being that at this time such documents are
known to have been written (in Aramaic) on leather and papyrus,
materials that were easily destroyed by the climatic conditions in
Mesopotamia.65
Consider now how a study of certain of the available archives
can yield valuable information of a chronological nature.
a) The Egibi business house
By far the largest private archive of the Neo-Babylonian period is
that of the Egibi business house. Of this enterprise Bruno Meissner
says:
From the firm the Sons of Egibi we possess such an abundance of
documents that we are able to follow nearly all business
transactions and personal experiences of its heads from the time of
Nebuchadnezzar up to the time of Darius I.66
65 For a survey of the Neo-Babylonian archives, see M. A. Dandamaev’s article in
Cuneiform Archives and Libraries, ed. K. R. Veenhof (Leiden: Nederlands
Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 1986), pp. 273–277.
66 Bruno Meissner, Babylonien und Assyrien, Vol. II (Heidelberg, 1925), p. 331. The
quotation is translated from the German.
The business documents from the Egibi house were discovered

by Arabs during the wet season of the year 1875–76 in a mound in
the neighbourhood of Hillah, a town about four miles southeast of
the ruins of Babylon. Some three or four thousand tablets were
discovered enclosed in a number of earthen jars, resembling
common water jars, covered over at the top with a tile, and
cemented with bitumen.
The discoverers brought the tablets to Baghdad and sold them
to a dealer there. In that same year George Smith visited Baghdad
and acquired about 2,500 of these important documents for the
British Museum.
The tablets were examined during the following months by W.
St. Chad Boscawen, and his report appeared in 1878 in the
Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology.67 Boscawen states that
the tablets “relate to the various monetary transactions of a
Babylonian banking and financial agency, trading under the name
of Egibi and Sons” The tablets “relate to every possible
commercial transaction; from the loan of a few shekels of silver, to
the sale or mortgage of whole estates whose value is thousands of
mans of silver?”68
Boscawen soon realized the importance of following the sequence
of the heads of the Egibi firm, and after a more careful analysis he
ascertained the main lines of the succession to be as follows:
From the third year of Nebuchadnezzar a person named Shula
acted as head of the Egibi firm, and continued in that capacity for a
period of twenty years, up to the twenty-third year of
Nebuchadnezzar when he died and was succeeded by his son,
Nabû-ahhe-iddina.69
The son, Nabû-ahhe-iddina, continued as the head of affairs for
a period of thirty-eight years, that is, from the twenty-third year of
Nebuchadnezzar to the twelfth year of Nabonidus when he was
succeeded by his son Itti-Marduk-balatu.70
67 W. St. Chad Boscawen, “Babylonian Dated Tablets, and the Canon of Ptolemy,” in
Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, Vol. VI (London, January 1878),
pp. 1–78. As Boscawen points out (ibid., pp. 5, 6), George Smith himself, during
his stay at Baghdad in 1876, had begun a systematic and careful examination of
the tablets, a study that was interrupted by his untimely death in Aleppo in
August that year. Boscawen’s study was evidently based on Smith’s notebooks.—
Sheila M. Evers, “George Smith and the Egibi Tablets,” Iraq, Vol. LV, 1993, pp.
107–117.
68 1bid., p. 6. A “mana” (mina) weighed about 0.5 kg.
69 Ibid., pp. 9, 10. Shula died between the dates VII/21/23 (month/day/year) and
IV/15/24 of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (between October, 582 and July, 581 B.C.E.).
—G. van Driel, “The Rise of the House of Egibi,” Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-
Egyptisch Genootschap, No. 29 (Leiden, 1987), p. 51.
70 Nabû-ahhê-iddina evidently died in the thirteenth year of Nabonidus, the year after
his son had taken over the affairs. See Arthur Ungnad, “Das Haus Egibi,” Archiv
für Orientforschung, Band XIV (Berlin, 1941), p. 60, and van Driel, op. cit., pp. 66,
67.
Itti-Marduk-balatu in his turn remained head of the firm until

the first year of Darius I (521/20 B.C.E.), which was the twenty-
third year of his headship of the firm.
Boscawen epitomizes these findings as follows:
Now, summing up these periods, we get the result that from
the 3rd year of Nebuchadnezzar II to the 1st year of Darius
Hystaspis was a period of eighty-one years:
Sula at the head of the firm 20 years
Nabu-ahi-idina 38 years
Itti-Marduk-balatu 23 years
81 years
This would give an interval of eighty-three years from the 1st
year of Nebuchadnezzar to the 1st year of Darius Hystaspis.71
The significant fact is that this agrees exactly with Berossus, the
Royal Canon, and the Neo-Babylonian historical records. Counting
backwards eighty-three years from the first year of Darius I
(521/20 B.C.E.) brings us to 604 B.C.E. as the first year of
Nebuchadnezzar, which agrees completely with the other lines of
evidence presented above.
The archive of the Egibi-house alone would suffice to establish
the length of the Neo-Babylonian period. With this extensive set of
dated commercial tablets from the archive of one of the
“Rothschilds” of Babylon “there ought to be but little difficulty in
establishing once and for ever the chronology of this important
period of ancient history,” wrote Boscawen already back in 1878. 72
The evidence of these documents leaves no room for a gap in
Neo-Babylonian history from Nebuchadnezzar onward, certainly
not one of twenty years! The archive, containing tablets dated up to
the forty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar, the second year of Awel-
Marduk, the fourth year of Neriglissar and the seventeenth year of
Nabonidus, gives a complete confirmation of the chronology of
Berossus and the Royal Canon.
Since the last century still other collections of tablets belonging
to the Egibi family have been discovered. 73 A number of studies on
71 Boscawen, op. cit., pp. 10, 24. This conclusion had also been arrived at previously
by George Smith in his study of the tablets.—S. M. Evers, op. cit. (note 67 above),
pp. 112–117.
72 Boscawen, op. cit., p. 11.
73 During excavations at Uruk in 1959–60, for example, an archive belonging to
members of the Egibi family was unearthed, containing 205 tablets dating from the
sixth year of Nabonidus to the thirty-third year of Darius I. Most of the tablets
were dated as from the reign of Darius. See J. van Dijk, UVB 18 (cf. note 33 above),
pp. 39–41. The earliest known text of the Egibi family is dated to 715 B.C.E.
Business documents of the family then appear regularly between 690 and 480
B.C.E.—M. A. Dandamaev, op. cit. (1984; see note 60 above), p.61.
the Egibi family have been produced, all of which confirm the
general conclusions drawn by Boscawen.74 Thanks to the
enormous amount of texts from this family, scholars have been
able to trace the history, not only of the heads of the firm, but also
of many other members of the Egibi house, and even family trees
have been worked out that extend through the whole Neo-
Babylonian period and into the Persian era!75
The pattern of intertwined family relations that has been
established in this way for several generations would be grossly
distorted if another twenty years were inserted into the Neo-
Babylonian period.
b) Life expectancy in the Neo-Babylonian period
(1) Adad-guppi’:
As was shown above in the discussion of the Harran stele (Nabon.
H 1, B), Adad-guppi’, the mother of Nabonidus, was born in the
20th year of powerful Assyrian king Ashurbanipal, 649/648 B.C.E.
She died in the ninth year of Nabonidus, in 547/546 B.C.E. at an
age of 101 or 102 years, a remarkable life span.76
What would happen to her age if we were to add twenty years to
the Neo-Babylonian era? This would necessarily increase the age of
74 Some of the most important works are: Saul Weingort, Das Haus Egibi in
neubabylonischen Rechtsurkunden (Berlin: Buchdruckerei Viktoria, 1939), 64
pages; Arthur Ungnad, “Das Haus Egibi,” Archiv fur Orientforschung, Band XIV,
Heft 1/2 (Berlin, 1941), pp. 57–64; Joachim Krecher, Das Geschäftshaus Egibi in
Babylon in neubabylonischer und achämenidischer Zeit (unpublished
“Habilitationsschrift,” Universitätsbibliothek, Munster in Westfalen, 1970), ix +
349 pages.; and Martha T. Roth, “The Dowries of the Women of the Itti-Marduk-
balatu Family,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 111:1,1991, pp. 19–
37.
75 See, for example, J. Kohler & F. E. Peiser, Aus dem Babylonischen Rechtsleben, IV
(Leipzig: Verlag von Eduard Pfeiffer, 1898), p. 22, and M. T. Roth, op. cit., pp. 20,
21, 36. Another private enterprise, the Nur-Sîn family, which through intermarriage
became annexed to the Egibi family, has been thoroughly studied by Laurence
Brian Shiff in The Nur-Sîn Archive: Private Entrepreneurship in Babylon (603–507
B.C.) (Ph. D. dissertation; University of Pennsylvania, 1987), 667 pages.
76 The Adad-guppi’ inscription itself stresses that her age was extreme: “I saw my
[great] great-grandchildren, up to the fourth generation, in good health, and (thus)
had my fill of extreme old age “ — A. Malamat, “Longevity: Biblical Concepts and
Some Ancient Near Eastern Parallels,” Archiv fur Orientforschung, Beiheft 19:
Vorträge gehalten auf der 28. Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale in Wien, 6.–
10. Juli 1981 (Horn, Austria: Verlag Ferdinand Berger & Söhne Gesellschaft
M.B.H., 1982), p. 217. Dr. Malamat also refers to a tablet found at Sultantepe
which “categorizes the stages of life from age 40 through age 90 [as follows]: 40 —
lalûtu (`prime of life’); 50 — umu kurûtu (`short life’); 60—metlutu (`maturity’); 70—
umuarkûtu (long life’); [80]—shibutu Cold age’); 90 — littutu (èxtreme old age’).”—A.
Malamat, ibid., p. 215.
Adad-guppi’ to 121 or 122 years. The only way to avoid this

consequence would be to add the twenty extra years to the reign of
her surviving son Nabonidus after her death, making his reign thirty-
seven instead of seventeen years, something the contemporary
documents simply do not allow us to do.
This is not the only problem of this kind that confronts those
who would defend the Watch Tower Society’s chronology. Many
people, whose names appear in the business and administrative
texts from the Neo-Babylonian period, can be traced from text to
text almost during the entire period, sometimes even into the
Persian era. We find that some of these people-businessmen,
slaves, scribes―must have been eighty or ninety years old or more
at the end of their careers. But if we were to add twenty years to
the Neo-Babylonian era, we would also be forced to add twenty
years to the lives of these people, making them 100 to 110 years
old—and still active in their occupations. A few examples will
follow.
(2) Apla, son of Bel-iddina:
A scribe named Apla, son of Bel-iddina, who belonged to the
trading house of Egibi, appears for the first time as a scribe in a
text dated to the twenty-eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar (577
B.C.E.). Thereafter, his name recurs in many texts dated in the
reigns of Nebuchadnezzar, Awel-Marduk, Neriglissar, Nabonidus,
Cyrus, Cambyses, and Darius I.
He appears for the last time as a witness in a document, a
promissory note, dated to the thirteenth year of Darius, 509 B.C.E.
That means the career of this scribe may be followed for a period
of sixty-eight years, from 577 to 509 B.C.E. The Russian
Assyriologist M. A. Dandamaev comments:
He should have been, at least, twenty years old when he became
a scribe. Even if we assume that Apla died even in the same year
when he was referred to for the last time or soon after, he must
have lived about 90 years.77
But if we allow twenty years to be added to the Neo-Babylonian
era, we would not only increase Apla’s age to 110 years or
more―we would also be forced to conclude that at this old age he
was still active as a scribe.
77 Muhammad A. Dandamaev, “About Life Expectancy in Babylonia in the first
Millennium B.C.,” in Death in Mesopotamia (= Mesopotamia. Copenhagen Studies in
Assyriology, Vol. 8), ed. Bendt Alster (Copenhagen: Akademisk Forlag, 1980), p.
184.
(3) Iddina-Marduk and his wife Ina-Esagila-ramât

Two other examples are the businessman Iddin-Marduk, son of Iqisha,
of the family of Nur-Sin, and his wife Ina-Esagila-ramât. Iddin-Marduk
appears as director of his business activities for the first time in a
text that earlier had been dated to the eighth year of
Nebuchadnezzar (597 B.C.E.). But a recent collation of the original
tablet revealed that the year number is damaged and probably
should be read as the 28th year (577 B.C.E.). Iddin-Marduk then
appears in hundreds of dated documents, the last of which is from
the third year of Cambyses, 527 B.C.E. Other documents indicate
that he died shortly before the fifth year of Darius I (517 B.C.E.).
If we assume that he was only twenty years old when he first
appears as director, he must have been about eighty years old at the
time of his death.
Iddin-Marduk’s wife, Ina-Esagila-ramât, survived her husband.
She, too, was involved in business activities. Documents show that
she got married to Iddin-Marduk no later than the 33rd year of
Nebuchadnezzar (572 B.C.E.). We must assume, therefore, that she
was at least twenty years old when she first appears as a contracting
party in a text dated to Nebuchadnezzar’s 34th year (571 B.C.E.).
She appears for the last time in a text dated to the 15th year of
Darius I (507 B.C.E.), at which time she must has been at least 84
years old.78
Again, if we were to add twenty years to the Neo-Babylonian
era, we would increase the age of Iddina-Marduk to about 100
years, and the age of Ina-Esagila-ramât to at least 104 years. We
would also be forced to hold that she, at this age, was still actively
involved in the businesses.
(4) Daniel the prophet:
The Bible also provides some examples of its own. In the
accession year of Nebuchadnezzar (605 B.C.E.), Daniel, then a
youth of perhaps 15–20 years, was brought to Babylon (Daniel 1:1,
4, 6). He served at the Babylonian court until after the end of the
Neo-Babylonian period, being still alive in the third year of Cyrus,
in 536/ 35 B.C.E. (Daniel 1:21; 10:1). At that time he must have
been close to ninety years old. If another twenty years were added
to this period, Daniel would have been nearly 110 years old.
Is it really likely that people during the Neo-Babylonian period
frequently reached ages of 100, 110, or even 120 years? True, we
78 Cornelia Wunsch, Die Urkunden des babylonischen Geschäftsmannes Iddin-
Marduk, 1 (Groningen: STYX Publications, 1993), pp. 19,10 ftn. 43, 12, 66.
sometimes have heard of people in southern Russia or northern

India who are said to be 150 years old or more. But on close
examination, all such statements have been proved to be false?79
The oldest known individual in modern times has been a French
woman, Jeanne Calment, who was born on February 21, 1875, and
died on August 4, 1997, at an age of 122 years?80 This
Frenchwoman’s record would have been equalled by Adadguppi’ ,
had that Babylonian woman been 122 years old when she died,
instead of about 102, as the ancient records indicate.
Considering these cases of exceptionally long age already
presented, we rightly ask if we have any reason to believe that the
life span of people at that time surpassed that of people of today?
The Russian Assyriologist M. A. Dandamaev has examined the
life span of people in Babylonia from the seventh through to the
fourth century B.C.E., using tens of thousands of business and
administrative texts as the basis for his research. His conclusion is
that the life span of people at that time was not different from
what it is now. In his discussion, Dandamaev refers to Psalms
90:10: “As for the days of our life, they contain seventy years. Or if
due to strength, eighty years” (NASB). These words were as true in
the Neo-Babylonian era as they are today.81
Consequently, the extremely old ages which would be created by
dating the destruction of Jerusalem to 607 instead of 587 B.C.E.
provides one more argument weighing against the Watch Tower
Society’s chronology.
As has been shown in this section, a prosopographical examination
of the cuneiform texts strongly supports the chronology
established for the Neo-Babylonian period. The careers of business
men, scribes, temple administrators, slaves, and others may be
followed for decades, in some cases through almost the whole
Neo-Babylonian period and on into the Persian era. Thousands of
dated documents give a profound insight into their everyday
activities. Notably, however, the lives and activities of these people
never contain reference to any year lying outside the recognized
time frame of the Neo-Babylonian period, never overlap or extend
beyond this at any time so as to point to a single year of the
twenty-year period required by the Watch Tower Society’s
chronology.
79 S. Jay Olshansky et al, “In Search of Methuselah: Estimating the Upper Limits of
Human Longevity,” Science, Vol. 250, 2 November 1990. p. 635.
80 The Guinness Book of Records 2004. According to some media reports, this record
may have been beaten by a woman on Dominica, W. I., Elizabeth Israel, who is
said to have been born on January 27, 1875, and died on October 14, 2003, at an
age of 128 years.
81 M. A. Dandamaev, op. cit. (1980), p. 183.
B-4: Chronological interlocking joints

There are only two possible ways of extending the Neo-Babylonian
period to include the twenty extra years required by the Watch
Tower chronology:
Either the known Neo-Babylonian kings had longer reigns than
indicated by all the documents discussed above, or there were
other, unknown kings who belonged to the Neo-Babylonian era in
addition to those known to us from these documents.
Both of these possibilities, however, are completely excluded,
not only by the several lines of evidence presented so far and the
astronomical evidence that will be discussed in the next chapter,
but also by a series of texts that inseparably interlock each reign with
the next throughout the whole Neo-Babylonian period. Eleven
such chronological interlocking joints wil1 be discussed below.
a) Nabopolassar to Nebuchadnezzar
(1) In the earlier discussion of the Neo-Babylonian chronicles, one of
them (Chronicle 5) was quoted as saying that Nabopolassar, the first
Neo-Babylonian king, ruled “for twenty-one years,” that he died “on
the eighth day of the month Ab [the fifth month] ,” and that on the first
day of the next month (Elul) his son Nebuchadnezzar “ascended the
royal throne in Babylon.”
At this point, then, there is no room for a longer reign of
Nabopolassar beyond the recognized span of twenty-one years, nor
for an “extra king” between him and Nebuchadnezzar.
b) Nebuchadnezzar to Awel-Marduk
(2) That Nebuchadnezzar was succeeded by his son Awel-Marduk
(the Biblical Evil-Merodach) in the forty-third year of
Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is confirmed by a business document,
B.M. 30254, published by Ronald H. Sack in 1972.
This document mentions both the forty-third year of
Nebuchadnezzar and the accession year of Awel-Marduk. A girl,
Lit-ka-idi, the slave of Gugua, “was placed at the disposal of Nabû-
ahhe-iddina, the son of Shulâ, the descendent of Egibi in the month
of Ajaru [the second month], forty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar, king of
Babylon, and (for whom) twelve shekels of silver served as
security.” Later in the same year, “in the month of Kislimu [the ninth
month], accession year of [Amel]-Marduk, king of Babylon, . . . Gugua
of her own will sold Lit-ka-idi to Nabû-ahhe-iddina for the full

price of nineteen and one-half shekels of silver.”82
This document gives no room for a longer reign of
Nebuchadnezzar, or for an “extra king” between him and Awel-
Marduk.
(3) In the Neo-Babylonian period the yield of a field or garden was
often estimated before harvest time. After the harvest the workers
of the field were to turn over the estimated amount to the owners
or buyers. Quite a number of documents recording such
procedures have been found.
One of them, designated AO 8561, not only includes estimated
yields of numerous fields for three successive years, the forty-
second and forty-third years of Nebuchadnezzar and the first year
of Awel-Marduk, but “is also a record of what portions of that
yield were received by and distributed to various persons . . . in the
month of Kislimu [the ninth month], accession year of
Neriglissar.”83
This document, then, provides another joint or dovetail between
the forty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar and the reign of Awel-
Marduk.
(4) Another, similar text, YBC 4038, dated to the “month of Addaru
[the twelfth month], 15th day, accession year of Amel-Marduk,”
describes the monthly portioning out of “500 bushels of barley” at
the Eanna temple in Uruk from “the 43rd year of Nabû-kudurri-
usur [Nebuchadnezzar]” to the “1st year of Amel-Marduk.”84
Again, this text ties together the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and his
successor Awel-Marduk in a way that gives no room for any
additional years between the two.
The Bible itself confirms that Awel-Marduk’s accession year fell
in the forty-third year of his father Nebuchadnezzar. This may be
inferred from the datings given in 2 Kings 24:12; 2 Chronicles
82 Ronald Herbert Sack, Amel-Marduk 562–560 B.C. (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Verlag
Butzon & Bercker Kevelaer, 1972), pp. 62, 63.
83 Ibid., pp. 41, 116–118. The time interval from a harvest to the distribution of the
yield was normally brief, a few years at the most. In the present case the yields of
the three years’ harvests were distributed in the accession year of Neriglissar, that
is, three years after the harvests of the first year. The insertion of twenty extra
years somewhere between Nebuchadnezzar and Neriglissar would increase this
time interval to twenty-three years—an extremely long wait for the yields, to say
the least.
84 Ronald H. Sack, “The Scribe Nabû-bani-ahi, son of Ibnâ, and the Hierarchy of
Eanna as seen in the Erech Contracts,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, Band 67
(Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1977), pp. 43–45.
36:10, and Jeremiah 52:28, 31. A brief discussion of this evidence is

included in the “Appendix for Chapter 3” (page 325).
c) Nebuchadnezzar to Awel-Marduk to Neriglissar
(5) In the Neo-Babylonian period, bookkeeping was already an
ancient, highly complex and formalized business.85 An interesting
example of this is a tablet known as NBC 4897. The document is,
actually, a ledger, tabulating the annual growth of a herd of sheep
and goats belonging to the Eanna temple at Uruk for ten consecutive
years, from the thirty-seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar to the first year of
Neriglissar.
In the entries for each year the number of lambs and kids born
during the year is added, and the number of animals killed
(documented by their hides) or paid to the herdsmen as wages, are
subtracted. The grand totals are then given in the column farthest
to the right. Thus it is possible to follow the numerical increase of
the herd year by year. The text shows that the herdsman
responsible for the herd, Nabû-ahhe-shullim, during the ten years
succeeded in enlarging the herd from 137 sheep and goats to 922
animals.86
True, the Babylonian scribe made a few miscalculations and
mathematical mistakes which partially hampers the interpretation
of the document.87 There is no doubt, however, that it is an annual
record, as year numbers are given for each successive year. In the
entry for the first year of Neriglissar, for example, the grand total
column contains the following information:
Grand total: 922, 1st year of Nergal-sharra-usur, king of Babylon, 9
lambs in Uruk were received (and) 3 lambs for shearing.
Similar information is given for each year from the thirty-
seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar to his forty-third year, for the first
85 Bookkeeping is as old as the art of writing. In fact, the oldest known script, the
proto-cuneiform script, which emerged at Uruk (and usually is dated to about 3200
B.C.E.), “was almost exclusively restricted to bookkeeping; it was an ‘accountant’s
script’.” —H. J. Nissen, P. Damerow, & R. K. Englund, Archaic Bookkeeping
(Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1993), p. 30.
86 G. van Driel & K. R. Nemet-Nejat, “Bookkeeping practices for an institutional herd
at Eanna,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 46:4, 1994, p.47. The form of record-
keeping used in the text “involves accumulating data with cross-footing the
accounts in order to prove that all entries are accounted therein.”—Ibid.,p. 47,
note 1.
87 The errors occur in the totals, probably because the scribes had difficulties in
reading the numbers in their ledgers.—Ibid., pp. 56, 57.
The "ledger" NBC 4897

The document tabulates the annual growth of a herd of
sheep and goats belonging to the Eanna temple at Uruk for
ten successive years, from the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar
to the 1st year of Neriglissar (568-559 B.C.E.). — From G.
van Driel & K. R. Nemet-Nejat, "Bookkeeping practices for
an institutional herd at Eanna." Journal of Cuneiform Studies,
Vol. 46:4, 1994, pp. 48, 49.
and second years of Awel-Marduk, and, as cited, for the first year
of Neriglissar.88
This document, then, not only provides an additional
confirmation of the lengths of reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and
Awel-Marduk, but it also demonstrates that no extra kings or extra
years can be inserted between Nebuchadnezzar and Awel-Marduk,
or between Awel-Marduk and Neriglissar.
d) Neriglissar to Labashi-Marduk
(6) A cuneiform tablet in the Yale Babylonian collection, YBC 4012,
not only shows that Labashi-Marduk succeeded Neriglissar as king,
but also that he did this early in the fourth year of his father’s short
reign.
The document records that “in the month of Addaru [the
twelfth month], 3rd year of Nergal-[sharra-usur], king of Babylon”
(March–April, 556 B.C.E.), Mushezib-Marduk, the overseer of the
Eanna temple in Uruk, carried a considerable amount of money to
Babylon, partly as payment for work and material for the Eanna
temple. This document was drawn up about two months later,
evidently at Babylon before Mushezib-Marduk’s return to Uruk,
and is dated to the “month of Ajaru [the second month of the next
year], 22nd day, accession year of Labashi-Marduk, king of
Babylon” (May 2, 556 B.C.E.).89
According to this document, Labashi-Marduk succeeded to the
throne sometime in the first or second month of Neriglissar’s
fourth year of reign. This is in good agreement with the evidence
given by the contract tablets, which show that the demise of the
crown occurred in the first month of Neriglissar’s fourth year. (See
“Appendix for Chapter 3”, pages 326, 327.)
88 For Nebuchadnezzar, only the year numbers are given. The royal names only
appear with the first year of each king. There are two entries each for the thirty-
seventh, thirty-eighth, and forty-first years (of Nebuchadnezzar), and no entries for
his thirty-ninth and fortieth years. As pointed out by van Driel and Nemet-Nejat,
“these errors can be easily explained: the outcome of the count for the previous
year is the starting point for the inventory of the next year. That is, if the
‘accountant’ had a complete file, he would find the same data in tablets dealing
with consecutive years: once at the end of one text and again at the beginning of
the succeeding text.” (Op. cit., p.54.) From the forty-first year of Nebuchadnezzar
until the first year of Neriglissar, though, the dates follow a regular pattern.
89 Ronald H. Sack, “Some Remarks on Sin-Iddina and Zerija, qipu and shatammu of
Eanna in Erech . . . 562–56 B.C.,” Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie, Band 66 (Berlin, New
York: Walter de Gruyter, 1976), pp. 287, 288. As mentioned earlier, in the
Babylonian system the accession year of a king was the same as the last year of
his predecessor. According to our text the accession year of Labashi-Marduk
followed upon the third year of Neriglissar. Labashi-Marduk’s accession year,
therefore, was also the fourth and last year of Neriglissar.
e) Neriglissar to Labashi-Marduk to Nabonidus

(7) That Neriglissar was succeeded by his son Labashi-Marduk is
plainly stated by Nabonidus in one of the royal inscriptions
discussed earlier, Nabon. No. 8 (the Hillah stele). In column iv of this
stele, Nabonidus relates that the cult of the goddess Anunitum in
Sippar had been renewed by Neriglissar. Then he goes on saying:
After (his) days had become full and he had started out on the
journey of (human) destiny his son Labashi-Marduk, a minor (who)
had not (yet) learned how to behave, sat down on the royal throne
against the intentions of the gods and [three lines missing here].90
After the three missing lines Nabonidus, in the next column,
goes on to speak of his own enthronement, evidently as the
immediate successor of Labashi-Marduk. In doing so, he also
names the last four of his royal predecessors: Nebuchadnezzar and
Neriglissar (whom he regarded as legitimate rulers), and their sons
Awel-Marduk and Labashi-Marduk (whom he regarded as illegiti-
mate usurpers). He states:
They carried me into the palace and all prostrated themselves to
my feet, they kissed my feet greeting me again and again as king.
(Thus) I was elevated to rule the country by the order of my lord
Marduk and (therefore) I shall obtain whatever I desire—there
shall be no rival of mine!
I am the real executor of the wills of Nebuchadnezzar and
Neriglissar, my royal predecessors! Their armies are entrusted to
me, I shall not treat carelessly their orders and I am (anxious) to
please them [i.e. to execute their plans].
Awel-Marduk, son of Nebuchadnezzar, and Labashi-Marduk,
son of Neriglissar [called up] their [troo]ps and ... their ... they
dispersed. Their orders (7–8 lines missing).91
90 James B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton
University Press, 1950), p. 309.
91 Ibid., p. 309. Berossus, whose Neo-Babylonian history was shown to be based on
the Babylonian chronicles, gives a similar account of these events: “After Eveil-
maradouchos had been killed, Neriglisaros, the man who had plotted against him,
succeeded to the throne and was king for four years. Laborosoarchodos [Labashi-
Marduk], the son of Neriglisaros, who was only a child, was master of the kingdom
for nine [probably an error for “2”; see note 20 above] months. Because his
wickedness became apparent in many ways he was plotted against and brutally
killed by his friends. After he had been killed, the plotters met and jointly
conferred the kingdom on Nabonnedus, a Babylonian and a member of the
conspiracy.” — Stanley Mayer Burstein, The Babyloniaca of Berossus. Sources from
the Ancient Near East, Vol.1, fascicle 5 (Malibu, Calif.: Undena Publications, 1978),
p. 28.
This inscription, then, interlinks the reigns of Neriglissar and

Labashi-Marduk, and evidently also those of Labashi-Marduk and
Nabonidus. The possibility of inserting an “extra king” somewhere
between these three kings is ruled out by this text.
(8) Some legal documents, too, contain information that spans the
reigns of two or more kings. One example is Nabon. No. 13, which
is dated to “the 12th day of (the month) Shabatu [the eleventh
month], the accession year of Nabonidus, king of Babylon
[February 2, 555 B.C.E.]. “ The inscription tells about a woman,
Belilitu, who brought up the following case before the royal court:
Belilitu daughter of Bel-ushezib descendant of the messenger
declared the following to the judges of Nabonidus, king of
Babylon: ‘In the month of Abu, the first year of Nergal-shar-usur
[Neriglissar], king of Babylon [August–September, 559 B.C.E.], I
sold my slave Bazuzu to Nabu-ahhe-iddin son of Shula descendent
of Egibi for one-half mina five shekels of silver, but he did not pay
cash and drew up a promissory note.’ The royal judges listened (to
her) and commanded that Nabu-ahhe-iddin be brought before
them. Nabu-ahhe-iddin brought the contract that he had
concluded with Belilitu and showed the judges (the document
which indicated that) he had paid the silver for Bazuzu.92
Reference is thus made to the reigns of Neriglissar and that of
Nabonidus. The generally accepted chronology would indicate that
about three and a half years had passed since Belilitu had sold her
slave in the first year of Neriglissar until she, in the accession year
of Nabonidus, made a fraudulent but futile attempt to receive
double payment for the slave. But if twenty years were to be added
somewhere between the reigns of Neriglissar and Nabonidus, then
Belilitu waited for twenty-three and a half years before she brought her
case before the court, something that appears extremely unlikely.
f) Nabonidus to Cyrus
That Nabonidus was the king of Babylon when Cyrus conquered
Babylonia in 539 B.C.E. is clearly shown by the Nabonidus Chronicle
(B.M. 35382)93 The chronicle evidently dated this event
92 M. A. Dandamaev, Slavery in Babylonia (DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois
93 As early as 1877, W. St. Chad Boscawen found a document among the Egibi
tablets dated to the reign of Cyrus, “which stated that money was paid in the reign
of ‘Nabu-nahid the former king’ .” — Transactions of the Society of Biblical
Archaeology, Vol. VI (London, 1878), p. 29.
to the “seventeenth year” of Nabonidus, but as was pointed out

earlier, this portion of the chronicle is damaged and the year
number is illegible. Nonetheless, a whole group of economic texts
has been found that provides chronological interlocking
connections between Nabonidus’ seventeenth year and the reign of
Cyrus . These include the tablets with the catalogue numbers
CT 56:219, CT 57:52.3, and CT 57:56.94
(9) The first of the three documents (CT 56:219) is dated to the
accession year of Cyrus, and the next two (CT 57:52.3 and CT 57:56)
are dated to his first year. But all three tablets also refer to the
preceding king’s “year 17,” and since it is accepted as fact that
Nabonidus was the final king of the Neo-Babylonian line,
preceding Cyrus the Persian’s rule, this confirms that Nabonidus’
reign lasted 17 years 95
(10) One of the more graphic examples of a chronological linkage
between two reigns is a cuneiform tablet in the archaeological
museum at Florence known as SAKF 165. As Professor J. A.
Brinkman points out, this document “presents a unique year-by-
year inventory of wool stuffs made into garments for the cult
statues of the deities in Uruk. . . . Furthermore, it covers the vital
years before and after the Persian conquest of Babylonia.”96
The inventory is arranged chronologically, and the preserved
portion of the text covers five successive years, from the fifteenth
year of Nabonidus to the second year of Cyrus, with year numbers
given at the end of the inventory for each year:
Lines 3 – 13: year 15 [of Nabonidus]
14 – 25: year 16 [of Nabonidus]
26 – 33: year 17 [of Nabonidus]
34 – 39: year 1 of Cyrus
40 – : [year 2 of Cyrus]
94 “CT 55–57” refers to the catalogues Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the
British Museum, Parts 55–57, containing economic texts copied by T. G. Pinches
during the years 1892 to 1894 and published by British Museum Publications
Limited in 1982.
95 Stefan Zawadzki, “Gubaru: A Governor or a Vassal King of Babylonia?,” Eos, Vol.
LXXV (Wroclaw, Warszawa, Krakow, Gdansk, Lódz, 1987), pp. 71, 81; M. A.
Dandamayev, Iranians in Achaemenid Babylonia (Costa Mesa, California and New
York: Mazda Publishers, 1992), p. 91; Jerome Peat, “Cyrus ‘king of lands,’
Cambyses ‘king of Babylon’: the disputed co-regency,” Journal of Cuneiform
Studies, Vol. 41/2, Autumn 1989, p. 209. It should be noted that one of the three
tablets, CT 57:56, is dated to Cambyses as co-regent with Cyrus in his first year.
96 J. A. Brinkman, “Neo-Babylonian Texts in the Archaeological Museum at Florence,”
Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. XXV, Jan.–Oct. 1966, p. 209.
The inventory tablet SAKF 165

The text presents an inventory of wool stuff for five
successive years, from Nabonidus’ 15th year to Cyrus’ 2nd
year (541–537 B.C.E.). From Karl Oberhuber, Sumerische und
akkadische Keilschriftsdenkmäler des Archäologischen Museums zu
Florenz (Innsbruck, 1960). Obverse (above) and reverse
(below).
The royal name was evidently given only for the first year of
each ruler. But as the immediate predecessor of Cyrus was
Nabonidus, “year 15”, “year 16”, and “year 17” clearly refer to his
reign. The inventory of the year following upon “year 17” ends
with the words, “year 1, Cyrus, King of Babylon, King of the
Lands” (line 39). The last lines of the entry for the fifth year of
inventory are damaged, and “year 2” (of Cyrus) can only be
understood as implied.97
11) In ancient Mesopotamia, in the various temples the presence
of the deities was represented by their statues. In times of war,
when a city was taken, the temples were usually looted and the
divine statues were carried away as “captives” to the land of the
conquerors.
As such captures were seen by the citizens as an omen that the
gods had abandoned the city and called for its destruction, they
often tried to protect the statues by moving them to a safer place at
the approach of a military force.
This is what happened shortly before the Persian invasion of
northern Babylonia in 539 B.C.E., when according to the Nabonidus
Chronicle Nabonidus ordered a gathering of the gods of several cit-
ies into Babylon. The same chronicle also tells that Cyrus, after the
fall of Babylon, returned the statues to their respective cities.98
As discussed by Dr. Paul-Alain Beaulieu, there are several
documents from the archive of the Eanna temple of Uruk which
confirm that, in the seventeenth year of Nabonidus, the statue of
Ishtar (referred to in the documents as “Lady-of-Uruk” or “Lady
of the Eanna”) was brought upstream by boat on the river
Euphrates to Babylon. Further, these documents also show that the
regular offerings to this statue of Ishtar were not interrupted during
her temporary stay at Babylon. Cargoes of barley and other kinds
of foodstuff for her cult were sent from Uruk to Babylon.
One example of this is given by a tablet in the Yale Babylonian
Collection, YOS XIX:94, which is dated to the seventeenth year of
Nabonidus and records a deposition before the assembly of the
noblemen of Uruk:
(These are) the mar banî [noblemen] in whose presence Zeriya,
son of Ardiya, has thus spoken: Bazuzu, son of Ibni-Ishtar,
97 Ibid., p. 209. A transliteration of the tablet is given by Karl Oberhuber in his
Sumerische and akkadische Keilschriftdenkmäler des Archäologischen Museums zu
Florenz (= Innsbruck Beiträge zur Kulturwissenschaft, Sonderheft 8, Innsbruck,
1960), pp. 111–113.
98 A. K. Grayson, ABC (1975), pp. 109, 110.
descendant of Gimil-Nanaya, has brought a boat from Babylon to

lease it fo[r the sum of. . . . . . ], and he said thus: “I will take the
barley for the regular offerings of the Lady-of-Uruk to Babylon.”
......
City of the quay of Nanaya, domain of the Lady of Uruk: Month
Abu [the fifth month] - Day 5 - Seventeenth year of Nabonidus, king of
Babylon [= August 4, 539 B.C.E., Julian calendar].99
These documents clearly demonstrate that Cyrus’ conquest of

Babylon occurred in the seventeenth year of Nabonidus, which
thus once again is proved to have been the last year of his reign.
The many examples cited above demonstrate that the activity
recorded in a text at times spans over and ties together two
successive reigns. They also demonstrate that it is possible to
establish the length of the entire Neo-Babylonian era by the aid of
such “chronological joints” alone. In fact, the lengths of reign of
some kings (Nebuchadnezzar, Nabonidus) are established by more
than one text of this kind.
C. SYNCHRONIC LINKS
TO THE CHRONOLOGY OF EGYPT
An excellent proof of the correctness of a chronology is when it is
in agreement with the chronologies of other contemporary nations,
provided that these other chronologies are independently
established and there are synchronisms, that is, dated connecting
links that serve to join the two or more chronologies together at
one or more points.
The reason why it is important that they be independently
established is to rule out any attempt to discredit their worth by
claiming that the chronology of a certain period in one nation has
been established simply by the aid of the chronology of the
contemporary period in another nation.
During the Neo-Babylonian period there are at least four such
synchronisms between Egypt and the kingdoms of Judah and
Babylon. Three of these are given in the Bible, in 2 Kings 23:29
(where Egyptian pharaoh Necho and Judean king Josiah appear),
Jeremiah 46:2 (Necho, Nebuchadnezzar and Jehoiakim all
appearing), and Jeremiah 44:30 (pharaoh Hophra, kings Zedekiah
and Nebuchadnezzar listed).
99 Paul-Alain Beaulieu, “An Episode in the Fall of Babylon to the Persians,” Journal of
Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 52:4, October 1993, pp. 244, 245; cf. also Beaulieu, The
Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon, 556–539 B.C. (New Haven and London: Yale
The fourth is given in a cuneiform text, B.M. 33041, which refers

to a campaign against Amasis, king of Egypt, in Nebuchadnezzar’s
thirty-seventh regnal year.100 The meaning of these synchronisms
will be unravelled further on.
C-1: The chronology of the Saite period
The kings reigning in Egypt during the Neo-Babylonian period
belonged to the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty (664–525 B.C.E.). The period
of this dynasty is also referred to as the Saite period, as the pharaohs
of this dynasty took the city of Sais in the Delta as their capital.
If the four synchronisms mentioned above are to be of any
definitive help to our study, it first needs to be shown that the
chronology of that twenty-sixth dynasty of Egypt is fixed
independently from the contemporary Neo-Babylonian chronology,
and can thus stand on its own, as it were.
This can be determined in a quite unusual way, of which Dr. F.
K. Kienitz writes:
The chronology of the kings of the 26th dynasty, from
Psammetichus I onwards, is completely established through a
series of death stelae and stelae of holy Apis bulls, which list the
birth date in ‘Day x, Month y, Year z, of King A’ and the death
date in ‘Day x, Month y, Year z, of King B’ , and also the length of
life of the [bull or person] in question in years, months, and
days?101
This means that, if a death stele says that a sacred Apis bull or a
person was born in the tenth year of King A and died at the age of
twenty-five in the twentieth year of King B, we know that King A
ruled for fifteen years.
100 B.M. 33041 was first published by T. G. Pinches in Transactions of the Society of
Biblical Archaeology, Vol. VII (London, 1882), pp. 210–225.
101 Friedrich Karl Kienitz, Die politische Geschichte Ägyptens vom 7. bis zum 4.
Jahrhundert vor der Zeitwende (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1953), pp. 154, 155.
(Translated from the German.) The Apis cult was practiced already in the First
Dynasty of Egypt. At death the Apis bulls were mummified and buried in a coffin
or (from the reign of Amasis onwards) in a sarcophagus made of granite. The
burial place from the reign of Ramesses II onwards–a vast catacomb known as
the “Serapeum” in Saqqara, the necropolis of Memphis–was excavated by A.
Mariette in 1851. From the beginning of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty and on the
burials were marked by grave stelae with biographical data on the Apis bulls
such as dates of installation and death and the age at death. — László Kákosy,
“From the fertility to cosmic symbolism. Outlines of the history of the cult of
Apis,” Acta Classica Universitatis Scientiarum Debrecenienses, Tomus XXVI 1990
(Debrecini, 1991), pp. 3–7.
Grave stele of the 1st Apis of the 26th dynasty

The inscription shows that the first Apis of the 26th dynasty was
born in the 26th year of Taharqah and died in the 20th year of
Psammetichus I at an age of 21 years, which shows that
Taharqah ruled for 26 years. This is also confirmed by other
inscriptions. — From Aug. Mariette, Le Sérapeum de Memphis
(Paris: Gide, Libraire-Éditeur, 1857)
This is the kind of contemporary evidence to which Dr. Kienitz

refers. A translation of Kienitz’ survey of this material is given
here.102
1. GRAVE STELE OF THE 3RD APIS OF THE 26TH DYNASTY
Date of Birth: Year 53 of Psammetichus I, Month 6, Day 19
Installation: Year 54 of Psammetichus I, Month 3, Day 12
Date of Death: Year 16 of Necho II, Month 2, Day 6
Date of Burial: Year 16 of Necho II, Month 4, Day 16
Length of Life: 16 years, 7 months, 17 days
Result: Length of reign of Psammetichus = 54 years.
2. GRAVE STELE OF THE 4TH APIS OF THE 26TH DYNASTY
Date of Birth: Year 16 of Necho II, Month 2, Day 7
Installation: Year 1 of Psammetichus II, Month 11, Day 9
Date of Death: Year 12 of Apries, Month 8, Day 12
Date of Burial: Year 1.2 of Apries, Month 10, Day 21
Result: As the date of Psammetichus II’s death is elsewhere attested as Year 7,
Month 1, Day 23,103 the length of Necho’s reign amounts to 15 years, that of
Psammetichus II to 6 years.
3. TWO GRAVE STELAE OF A PRIEST NAMED PSAMMETICHUS
Date of Birth: Year 1 of Necho II, Month 11, Day 1
Date of Death: Year 27 of Amasis, Month 8, Day 28
Result: The sum of the lengths of reign of Necho II, Psammetichus II, and Apries
= 40 years. As Necho II reigned for 15 years, and Psammetichus II for 6 years,
Apries’ reign amounts to 19 years.
4. GRAVE STELE OF ANOTHER PSAMMETICHUS
Date of Birth: Year 3 of Necho II, Month 10, Day 1 or 2
Date of Death: Year 35 of Amasis, Month 2, Day 6
Result: The same as under 3.
5. GRAVE STELE OF ONE BESMAUT
Year of Birth: Year 18 of Psammetichus I
Year of Death: Year 23 of Amasis
Length of Life: 99 years
Result: The total of 94 years for the lengths of reign from Psammetichus I to
Apries inclusive is once more confirmed.
102 Kienitz, op. cit., pp. 155, 156. The grave stelae under no. 1, 2, and 3 were
translated and published by James Henry Breasted in Ancient Records of Egypt,
Vol. IV (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1906), pp. 497, 498,
501–503, 518–520. For no. 4 and 5, see the references by Kienitz, op.cit., p. 156,
notes 1 and 2.
103 Lines 5/6 of the Ank-nes-nefer-ib-Re Stele. See G. Maspero, Ann. Serv. 5 (1904),
pp. 85, 86, and the translation by J. H. Breasted, op. cit., IV, p. 505.
Consequently, these contemporary death stelae conclusively

establish the lengths of reign of the first four kings of the twenty-
sixth dynasty of Egypt as follows:
Psammetichus I 54 years
Necho II 15 years
Psammetichus II 6 years
Apries (= Hophra) 19 years
For the last two kings of the twenty-sixth dynasty, Amasis and
Psammetichus III, material of this kind unfortunately is lacking.
However, both Greek historian Herodotus (c. 484–425 BCE.) and
the Graeco-Egyptian priest and historian Manetho (active c. 300
B.C.E.) give forty-four years to Amasis and six months to
Psammetichus III.104 And these lengths of reign have been
confirmed by modem discoveries, as follows:
In the papyrus Rylands IX (also called “Petition of Petiese”)
dating from the time of Darius I (521–486 B.C.E.), the forty-fourth
year of Amasis is mentioned in a context indicating it was his last
full year. Each year, a prophet of Amun of Teuzoi
(Psammetkmenempe by name) who lived in the Nile Delta, used to
send a representative to fetch his stipend. This he did until the forty-
fourth year of Amasis. This, in itself, is not decisive. But in the
“Demotic Chronicle,” a report on the compilation of Egyptian
laws written under Darius I, there are also two mentions of the
forty-fourth year of Amasis as some sort of terminal point. Finally,
the same figure is given in an inscription from Wâdi Hammâmât.105
The figure given by Herodotus and Manetho, therefore, is strongly
supported by this combination of inscriptions.
104 Manetho’s Egyptian History, which was written in Greek and probably was based
on the temple archives, is preserved only in extracts by Flavius Josephus and
Christian chronographers, especially by Julius Africanus in his Chronographia (c.
221 C.E.) and by Eusebius of Caesarea in his Chronicon (c. 303 C.E.). Africanus,
who transmits Manetho’s data in a more accurate form, gives forty-four years to
Amasis and six months to Psammetichus III. This agrees with Herodotus’s
figures.—W. G. Waddell, Manetho (London: Harvard University Press, 1948), pp.
xvi–xx, 169–174.
105 W. Spiegelberg, Die Sogenannte Demotische Chronik (Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs’sche
Buchhandlung, 1914), p. 31; Kienitz, op. cit., p. 156; and Richard A. Parker, “The
Length of Reign of Amasis and the Beginning of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty,”
Mitteilungen des Deutschen Archäologischen Instituts, Kairo Abteilung, XV, 1957,
p. 210. For some time it was held that Amasis died in his forty-fourth regnal
year, and because of the Egyptian nonaccession year system, whereby a king’s
accession year was reckoned as his first regnal year, they gave Amasis only forty-
three full years. But in 1957, in the article referred to above, R. A. Parker
demonstrated conclusively that Amasis reigned for forty-four full years. This, of
course, moved the reigns of the earlier kings of the Saite dynasty one year
backwards. The beginning of the dynasty, therefore, was re-dated to 664 instead
of 663 B.C.E., as had been held previously. (R. A. Parker, op. cit., 1957, pp. 208–
212.) Since 1957, Parker’s conclusions have obtained general acceptance among
scholars.—For additional information on the nonaccession year reckoning, see
Appendix For Chapter Two: “Methods of reckoning regnal years.”
As to Psammetichus III, the highest date available for this king

is Year Two. Three documents (papyri) dated to the third, fourth,
and fifth months of his second year have been discovered. And yet,
this is no contradiction to the statement made earlier that the rule
of this king actually covered only six months. How so?
The Egyptians used a nonaccession year system. According to
this system the year in which a king came to power was reckoned as his
first regnal year. Psammetichus III was dethroned by the Persian
king Cambyses during his conquest of Egypt, generally dated to
525 B.C.E. by the authorities.106 At this time the Egyptian civil
calendar year almost coincided with the Julian calendar year.107 If
the conquest of Egypt occurred in the sixth month of the reign of
Psammetichus III, this must have been in May or June, 525
B.C.E.108 With this prerequisite, his six months of rule began at the
end of the previous year, 526 B.C.E., quite possibly only a few days
or weeks before the end of that year. Though he ruled for only a
fraction of that year, this fraction of a few days or weeks was
reckoned as his first regnal year according to the Egyptian
nonaccession year system. Thereby his second regnal year began to
count only a few days or weeks after his accession to the throne.
Thus, although he ruled for only six months, documents dated up
to the fifth month of his second year are, in view of the supporting
evidence, only what we should expect to find. The following
illustration makes the matter plain:
106 Kienitz, op. cit., p. 157, note 2. This date is also accepted by the Watch Tower
Society, as can be seen from Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1 (1988), pp. 698,
699.
107 In the two years 526 and 525 B.C.E. the Egyptian civil calendar year began on
January 2 in the Julian calendar.—Winfried Barta, “Zur Datierungspraxis in
Ägypten unter Kambyses and Dareios I,” Zeitschrift für Ägyptische Sprache and
Altertumskunde, Band 119:2 (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1992), p. 84.
108 The exact time of the year for Cambyses’ capture of Egypt is not known. (Compare
Molly Miller, “The earlier Persian dates in Herodotus,” in Klio, Band 37,1959, pp.
30, 31.)—In the nineteenth century E. Revillout, one of the founders of the
scholarly journal Revue Égyptologique in the 1870’s, claimed that Psammetichus
III ruled for at least two years, as one document dated to the fourth year of a king
Psammetichus seemed to be written at the end of the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty.
(Revue Égyptologique, Vol. 3, Paris, 1885, p. 191; and Vol. 7, 1896, p. 139.) But
since then many new documents have been discovered that make Revillout’s
theory untenable. The document evidently refers either to one of the earlier kings
known by the name of Psammetichus, or to one of the later vassal kings by that
name. There were three kings by the name Psammetichus during the Saite
period, and also two or three vassal kings by that name in the fifth century, and
sometimes it has been difficult to decide which of them is referred to in a text.
Some documents that an earlier generation of Egyptologists dated to the reign of
Psammetichus III have later had to be re-dated. Wolfgang Helck & Wolfhart
Westendorf (eds.), Lexikon der Ägyptologie, Band IV (Wiesbaden, 1982), pp. 1172–
75.
As demonstrated by the discussion above, the chronology of the

Twenty-Sixth Dynasty of Egypt is soundly and independently
established. The results are summarized in the following table:
CHRONOLOGY OF THE TWENTY-SIXTH DYNASTY:
Psammetichus I 54 years 664 – 610 B.C.E.
Necho II 15 610 – 595
Psammetichus II 6 595 – 589
Apries (= Hophra) 19 589 – 570
Amasis 44 570 – 526
Psammetichus III 1 526 – 525
C-2: Synchronisms to the chronology of the Saite period

Does the chronology of the Egyptian Saite period square with that
of the Neo-Babylonian era as established above? Or, instead, does
it harmonize with the chronology of the Watch Tower Society as
presented, for example, in its Bible dictionary Insight on the Scriptures,
Vol. 1, pages 462–466?
The four synchronisms to the Egyptian chronology mentioned
earlier (the first three of these coming from the Scriptures) decide
the matter:
First synchronism—2 Kings 23:29: In his [king Josiah’s] days
Pharaoh Nechoh the king of Egypt came up to the king of Assyria
by the river Euphrates, and King Josiah proceeded to go to meet
him; but he put him to death at Megiddo as soon as he saw him.
(NW)
Here it is clearly shown that Judean king Josiah died at Megiddo
in the reign of Pharaoh Necho of Egypt. According to the
chronology of the Watch Tower Society, Josiah’s death took place
in 629 B.C.E. (See Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2, pp. 118, 483.) But
according to clear historical evidence, Necho’s reign did not begin
until nineteen years later, in 610 B.C.E. (see table above).109 So Josiah’s
death did not take place in 629 B.C.E. but twenty years later, in
609.110
109 Helck & Westendorf, op. cit., Band IV, pp. 369–71. Necho succeeded to the throne
at the death of his father Psammetichus I in the spring or summer of 610 B.C.E.,
but according to the Egyptian antedating method his first year was counted from
the beginning of the Egyptian civil calendar year, which this year began on
January 23 of the Julian calendar. —W. Barta, op. cit., p. 89.
110 For a discussion of the exact date of Josiah’s death, see the final section of the
Appendix: “Chronological tables covering the seventy years.”
Second synchronism—Jeremiah 46:2: For Egypt, concerning the

military force of Pharaoh Necho the king of Egypt, who happened
to be by the river Euphrates at Carchemish, whom
Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon defeated in the fourth year of
Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, the king of Judah. (NW)
This battle in the “fourth year of Jehoiakim” is placed in the year
625 B.C.E. by the Watch Tower Society (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol.
2, p. 483.), which again cannot be harmonized with the
contemporary chronology of Egypt. But if this battle at
Carchemish took place twenty years later, in the accession-year of
Nebuchadnezzar, that is, in June, 605 B.C.E. according to all the
lines of evidence presented earlier, we find this date to be in perfect
harmony with the recognized reign of Pharaoh Necho, 610–595
B.C.E.
Third synchronism—Jeremiah 44:30: This is what Jehovah has said:
‘Here I am giving Pharaoh Hophra, the king of Egypt, into the
hand of his enemies and into the hand of those seeking for his
soul, just as I have given Zedekiah the king of Judah into the hand
of Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, his enemy and the one
seeking for his soul.’ (NW)
As the context shows (verses 1 ff.) these words were uttered not
long after the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, when the
rest of the Jewish population had fled to Egypt after the
assassination of Gedaliah. At that time Egypt was ruled by Pharaoh
Hophra, or Apries, as he is named by Herodotus.111
If Apries ruled Egypt at the time when the Jews fled there some
months after the desolation of Jerusalem, this desolation cannot be
dated to 607 B.C.E., for Apries did not begin his reign until 589 B.C.E.
(see table above). But a dating of the desolation of Jerusalem to
587 B.C.E. is in good agreement with the years of reign historically
established for him: 589–570 B.C.E.
Fourth synchronism—B.M. 33041: As mentioned earlier, this text
refers to a campaign against king Amasis ([Ama]-a-su) in
Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty-seventh year. A. L. Oppenheim’s
translation of this scanty fragment reads as follows: “. . . [in] the
37th year, Nebuchadnezzar, king of Bab[ylon], mar[ched against]
Egypt (Misir) to deliver a battle. [Ama]sis (text: [ . . . ]-a(?)-su), of
Egypt, [called up his a]rm[y] . . . [ . . . ]ku from the town Putu-laman
111 His name in the Egyptian inscriptions is transcribed as Wahibre. In the
Septuagint version of the Old Testament (LXX), his name is spelled Ouaphre.
. . . distant regions which (are situated on islands) amidst the sea

. . . many . . . which/who (are) in Egypt . . . [car]rying weapons,
horses and [chariot]s . . . he called up to assist him and . . . did [ . . .
] in front of him . . . he put his trust . . .. “112
This text is badly damaged, but it does definitely state that the
campaign into Egypt took place in Nebuchadnezzar’s “thirty-
seventh year,” and while it is true that the name of the pharaoh is
only partly legible, the cuneiform signs that are preserved seem
only to fit Amasis, and no other pharaoh of the twenty-sixth
dynasty.
The Watch Tower Society dates the thirty-seventh year of
Nebuchadnezzar to 588 B.C.E. (Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1, p.
698), but this was during the reign of Apries (see the table). On the
other hand, if Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty-seventh year was 568/67
BCE., as is established by all the lines of evidence presented earlier,
this date is in excellent agreement with the reign of Amasis (570–
526 B.C.E.).
Consequently, not one of the four synchronisms with the
independently established chronology of Egypt agrees with the
chronology developed by the Watch Tower Society. The
discrepancy in that Society’s reckoning is consistently about twenty
years out of harmony.
Interestingly, however, all four synchronisms are in perfect
harmony with the dates arrived at from the other lines of evidences
that have been discussed. These synchronisms to the Egyptian
chronology, therefore, add yet another line of evidence to the others,
which point consistently to 587 B.C.E. as the definitive date for the
destruction of Jerusalem.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Seven lines of evidence have been presented above against any
possible dating of the destruction of Jerusalem to the year 607
B.C.E., all of which lines of evidence agree in dating that event
twenty years later. At least four of these lines of evidence are clearly
independent of each other.
Consider first the three which give evidence of interdependence:
(1) Early historians, the Neo-Babylonian chronicles, and
the Uruk kinglist
We first saw that in the third century B.C.E., Babylonian priest
Berossus wrote a history of Babylonia, quoted from by later
historians, both in the B.C.E. and early C.E. periods. The validity
112 Translated by A. Leo Oppenheim in Pritchard’s ANET (see note 2 above), p. 308.
of the dates presented by Berossus in his history is evidenced by

their accurate reflection of historical material now available on
ancient cuneiform tablets unearthed in Babylon, particularly the
Neo-Babylonian Chronicles (a series of historical vignettes setting out
certain episodes relating to the Babylonian empire, notably records
of kingly succesion and of military campaigns waged), and also the
Babylonian kinglists (particularly the one known as the Uruk kinglist)
which list the Babylonian rulers by name along with the years of
their reign.
Likewise with the source known as the Royal Canon, a list of
Babylonian rulers, which, though only fully extant in manuscripts
of Ptolemy’s Handy Tables dated to the eighth century C.E. and in
later manuscripts, seems clearly to have been the common source
relied upon by astronomer Claudius Ptolemy (70–161 C.E.) and by
earlier scholars, such as Hipparchus of the second century B.C.E.,
when these dealt with and dated events of the Neo-Babylonian
period. Though the Royal Canon evidently drew upon sources
common to those employed by Berossus―that is, the ancient Neo-
Babylonian chronicles and kinglists―the order and forms of the names
of kings found in it differ from his presentation sufficiently to
indicate that it is a record developed independently of his writings.
It is acknowledged that the Neo-Babylonian chronicles unearthed up
to this point are still incomplete, and also that some of the figures
in the Uruk kinglist for the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings are
damaged and only partially legible. However, the figures that are
there and are legible on these cuneiform tablets all agree with the
corresponding figures found both in the writings of Berossus and
in the listing of the Royal Canon.
There is, then, strong reason to believe that the chronological
information originally given in those Neo-Babylonian sources has
been preserved unaltered by Berossus and the Royal Canon. Both
of these agree as to the overall length of the Neo-Babylonian era.
In the crucial area here under investigation, their figures point to
604/03 B.C.E. as the first year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, and
587/86 B.C.E. as his eighteenth year when he desolated Jerusalem.
Though this evidence is substantial, it remains true that Berossus
and the Royal Canon are secondary sources, and even those ancient
tablets known as the Babylonian Chronicles and the Uruk kinglist
are evidently copies of earlier originals. What supporting evidence
is there, then, to believe the records involved were actually written
contemporaneously with the times and events described?
(2) Inscriptions Nabon. No.18 and Nabon. No. 8 (the Hillah

stele)
Aside from the Babylonian Chronicles and kinglists there are
other ancient documents which give evidence of being, not copies,
but originals. The royal inscription Nabon. No. 18, dated by the aid
of another inscription known as the Royal Chronicle to the second
year of Nabonidus, fixes this year astronomically to 554/53 B.C.E.
As Nabonidus’ reign ended with the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C.E.,
the total length of his reign is shown by this inscription to have
been seventeen years (555/54–539/38 B.C.E.).
The whole length of the Neo-Babylonian period prior to Nabonidus is
given by Nabon. No. 8 (the Hillah stele), which gives the time elapsed
from the sixteenth year of initial ruler Nabopolassar up to the
accession-year of final ruler Nabonidus as fifty-four years. The stele
thus fixes the sixteenth year of Nabopolassar to 610/09 B.C.E.
If this was Nabopolassar’s sixteenth year, his twenty-first and
last year was 605/04 B.C.E. Nebuchadnezzar’s first year, then, was
604/03 B.C.E. and his eighteenth year was 587/86, during which
Jerusalem was destroyed.
(3) Nabon. H 1, B (the Adad-guppi’ stele)
Nabon. H 1, B (the Adad-guppi’ stele) gives the reigns of all the
Neo-Babylonian kings (except for that of Labashi-Marduk, as his
brief reign does not affect the chronology presented) from
Nabopolassar up to the ninth year of Nabonidus. Since the Watch
Tower Society indirectly accepts a seventeen-year rule for
Nabonidus (as was shown above in the discussion of the Nabonidus
Chronicle), this stele of itself overthrows their 607 B.C.E. date for
the desolation of Jerusalem and shows this event to have taken
place twenty years later, in 587 B.C.E.
These three lines of evidence may logically be grouped together
because it cannot be clearly established that the various documents
involved are wholly independent of one another. Reasons for
believing that Berossus and the Royal Canon both got their
information from Babylonian chronicles and kinglists have already
been pointed out. It is also possible that the chronological
information given in the royal inscriptions was derived from the
chronicles (although this is something that cannot be proved).113
Grayson’s suggestion, that the chronicles themselves may have
113 A. K. Grayson, “Assyria and Babylonia,” Orientalia, Vol. 49 (1980), p. 164
been composed with the help of the information given in the

astronomical “diaries” has been strongly argued against by other
scholars.114
This possible interdependence of some of these sources,
however, does not nullify their conclusive power. As the ancient
royal inscriptions preserve chronological information that is
contemporary with the Neo-Babylonian era itself, we have every
reason to accept it as factual and true information. This would be
true even if this information was based upon contemporary
Babylonian chronicles. For, although the chronology of these
chronicles is preserved only in a few fragmentary copies, in a late
kinglist, and by Berossus and the Royal Canon, the agreement
between these later sources and the ancient royal inscriptions is
striking. This agreement confirms that the figures of the original
Neo-Babylonian chronicles have been correctly preserved in these
later sources.
There remain four lines of evidence which have sound claim to
independence.
(4) Economic-administrative and legal documents
Tens of thousands of economic, administrative and legal texts,
dated to the year, month, and the day of the reigning king, have
come down to us from the Neo-Babylonian period. A large
number of dated tablets are extant from each year during this whole
period. The length of reign of each king may, then, be established
by these documents, sometimes almost to the day.
The results arrived at are in good agreement with the figures
given by Berossus, the Royal Canon, the chronicles, and the
contemporary royal inscriptions from the reign of Nabonidus.
The twenty years demanded by the chronology of the Watch
Tower Society are totally missing.
The business and administrative documents are original
documents, contemporary with the Neo-Babylonian era itself, which
makes this line of evidence exceedingly strong. These documents
definitely point to 587/86 B.C.E. as Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth
regnal year, when he desolated Jerusalem.
(5) Prosopographical evidence
The prosopographical study of the cuneiform tablets provides
various checks on the accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian chronology.
114 Ibid.,p. 174. Cf. John M. Steele, Observations and Predictions of Eclipse Times by
Early Astronomers (Dordrecht, etc: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000), pp. 127,
128. The astronomical observations recorded in these diaries must anyway be
treated as separate and independent lines of evidence.
The careers of scribes, temple administrators, slaves, business

men, and others may be followed for decades, in some cases
through almost the whole Neo-Babylonian period and on into the
Persian era. Thousands of dated documents give insight into the
business, legal, religious, family and other activities of these
individuals. Many texts deal with matters that extend over weeks,
months, or even years, such as inventories, lease of land or houses,
instalments of debts, hire of slaves and livestock, run-away slaves,
court proceedings, and so on.
The activities of some individuals may be followed through
almost their whole lives. But never do we find that their activities
cross the established chronological borders of the period into some
unknown twenty-year period that the Watch Tower Society would
add to the Neo-Babylonian era. The insertion of these twenty years
would, in fact, not only distort the understanding of the careers,
activities, and family relations of many individuals, but it would
also give many of them abnormal life spans.
(6) Chronological interlocking joints
Sometimes a text may contain activities and dates that intersect
two or more consecutive reigns in a way that chronologically ties
them together and excludes every possibility of inserting extra
kings and years between them.
As was demonstrated in this particular section, quite a number
of such documents exist that interlock each reign with the next
throughout the whole Neo-Babylonian period. Although eleven documents
of this kind were presented earlier, a close examination of the tens
of thousands of unpublished tablets from the Neo-Babylonian
period would probably multiply the number. Those presented,
however, suffice to show that the length of the whole Neo-
Babylonian era may be securely established by the aid of such
“chronological joints” alone.
(7) Synchronisms with the contemporary Egyptian
chronology
The chronology of contemporary Egyptian kings provides an
excellent test of Neo-Babylonian chronology, as there are four
synchronisms tied to it, three of which are given in the Bible.
These synchronisms are of the utmost importance, as the
contemporary chronology of Egypt has been established
independently of the chronologies of other nations of that time. Yet it
was shown that the Egyptian chronology is in complete harmony
with the data given by Berossus, the Royal Canon, and all the
cuneiform documents discussed above, while a comparison with

the chronology of the Watch Tower Society shows a consistent
difference of about twenty years.
These four synchronisms to Egyptian chronology all refute the
607 B.C.E. date for the desolation of Jerusalem and once again
uphold 587/86 B.C.E. as the correct date for that event.
The evidence from all this material is overwhelming and should
certainly be considered conclusive. For most scholars, just two or three
of these seven lines of evidence would be sufficient proof of the
accuracy of the Neo-Babylonian chronology. For the leaders of the
Watch Tower Society, however, not even seven lines of evidence are
enough to change their minds, as shown by their consistent
rejection of such evidence presented to them earlier.
Since the chronology constitutes the very foundation for the
major claims and message of the organization, they evidently feel
that too much is at stake for abandoning their Gentile times
chronology, not least of this being their own claimed position of
divine authority. It is extremely unlikely, therefore, that even twice
the number of lines of evidence will have any influence on their
minds.
For the sake of completeness, however, another seven lines of
evidence will be presented in detail in the next chapter, and a few
others wil1 be briefly described. As all of them are based on
ancient Babylonian astronomical texts, they will be shown to turn the
chronology of the whole Neo-Babylonian era into what is termed
an absolute chronology.
4
THE ABSOLUTE CHRONOLOGY

OF
THE NEO-BABYLONIAN ERA
A S EXPLAINED earlier in chapter 2, an absolute chronology is

usually best established by the aid of ancient astronomical
observations.
Although no observations usable for dating purposes are
recorded in the Bible, it was pointed out that at 2 Kings 25:2, 8 the
dating of the desolation of Jerusalem to “the eleventh year of King
Zedekiah,” the last king of Judah, is synchronized with “the
nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar,” the Babylonian desolator of
the city. If the reign of Nebuchadnezzar could be fixed
astronomically to our era, it would be possible to establish the
B.C.E. date for the desolation of Jerusalem.
In this chapter it will be demonstrated that the whole Neo-
Babylonian period, including the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, may be
established as an absolute chronology by the aid of astronomical
cuneiform documents found in Mesopotamia.
The study of the Babylonian astronomical documents
The study of the astronomical cuneiform texts started more than
one hundred years ago. One of the leading Assyriologists at that
time was J. N. Strassmaier (1846–1920). He was a diligent copyist
of the cuneiform texts that from the 1870’s onwards were being
brought from Mesopotamia to the British Museum in enormous
quantities.
Strassmaier found that a great number of the texts contained
astronomical data. He sent copies of these texts to his colleague J.
Epping, who taught mathematics and astronomy in Falkenburg,
Holland. Thus Epping (1835–1894) was to become the pioneer in
153
the study of the Babylonian astronomical texts. After his death

another of Strassmaier’s colleagues, Franz Xaver Kugler (1862–
1929), took over the work of Epping.
Few, if any, have contributed as much to the study of the
astronomical texts as Kugler. He published his results in a series of
monumental works, such as Die Babylonische Mondrechnung (1901),
Sternkunde and Sterndienst in Babel, Vol. I and II (1907–1924), and
Von Moses bis Paulus (1922). The last two works include detailed
studies of ancient chronology, in which the astronomical texts are
fully developed and studied in depth.1
After Kugler’s death in 1929 some of the key names in the study
of the Babylonian astronomy have been P. J. Schaumberger
(deceased 1955), Otto Neugebauer (1899–1990), and Abraham J.
Sachs (1914–1983). Many other modern scholars have contributed
much to the understanding of the astronomical texts, some of
whom have been consulted for the following discussion.
Ancient astronomy
As can be deduced from the Babylonian astronomical tablets, a
regular and systematic study of the sky began in the mid-eighth
century B.C.E., perhaps even earlier. Trained observers were
specifically employed to carry out a regular watch of the positions
and movements of the sun, the moon and the planets, and to
record from day to day the phenomena observed.
This regular activity was performed at a number of
observational sites in Mesopotamia, located in the cities of
Babylon, Uruk, Nippur, Sippar, Borsippa, Cutha, and Dilbat.2 (See
the accompanying map.)
As a result of this activity, the Babylonian scholars at an early
stage had recognized the various cycles of the sun, the moon and
the five planets visible to the naked eye (Mercury, Venus, Mars,
Jupiter, and Saturn), enabling them even to predict certain
phenomena, such as lunar eclipses.
1 Kugler’s results are of lasting value. Dr. Schaumberger states that Kugler “on all
essential points has fixed the chronology for the last centuries before Christ,
having thus performed an invaluable service to the science of history.”—P. J.
Schaumberger, “Drei babylonische Planetentafeln der Seleukidenzeit,” Orientalia,
Vol. 2, Nova Series (Rome, 1933), p. 99.
2 In Assyrian times, such observations were also performed in the cities of Assur
and Nineveh. The observations in Babylonia were possibly performed on top of
temple-towers, ziggurats, such as the ziggurat of Etemenanki in Babylon.
The Absolute Chronology of the Neo-Babylonian Era 155
Astronomical Observation Sites in Babylonia

Finally, in the Persian and Seleucid eras, they had developed a
very high level of scientific and mathematical astronomy that had
never been reached by any other ancient civilization.3
The nature of the Babylonian astronomical texts*
Although astronomical cuneiform texts have been found also in
the ruins of Nineveh and Uruk, the bulk of the texts—about
1,600—comes from an astronomical archive somewhere in the city
of Babylon.
3 It has often been pointed out that the Babylonian interest in the sky to a great
extent was astrologically motivated. Although this is correct, Professor Otto
Neugebauer points out that the main purpose of the Babylonian astronomers was
not astrology, but the study of calendaric problems. (Otto Neugebauer, Astronomy
and History. Selected Essays. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1983, p. 55.) For further
comments on the astrological motive, see the Appendix for chapter four, section 1:
“Astrology as a motive for Babylonian astronomy.”
* Consideration of astronomical evidence inescapably involves much technical data.
Some readers may prefer to bypass this and go to the summary at the end of this
chapter. The technical data is nonetheless there for corroboration.
The archive was found and emptied by local inhabitants from

nearby villages, and the exact finding spot within the city is not
known today. Most of the texts were obtained for the British
Museum from dealers in the latter part of the nineteenth century.
About 300 of the texts are concerned with scientific
mathematical astronomy and belong to the last four centuries
B.C.E. Most of them are ephemerides, that is, tables with calculations
of the positions of the moon and the five naked-eye planets.
The greater part of the remaining texts, however, about 1,300 in
number, are non-mathematical and principally observational in
nature. The observations date from about 750 B.C.E. to the first
century of the Christian era.4 The great number of observational
texts are of the utmost importance for establishing the absolute
chronology of this whole period.
With respect to content, the non-mathematical texts may be
subdivided into various categories. By far the largest group are the
so-called astronomical “diaries. “ These record on a regular basis a
large number of phenomena, including the positions of the moon
and the planets. It is generally accepted that such “diaries” were
kept continuously from the mid-eighth century B.C.E. onwards.
The other categories of texts, which include almanacs (each
recording astronomical data for one particular Babylonian year),
texts with planetary observations (each giving data for one specific
planet), and texts recording lunar eclipses, were apparently excerpts
from the “diaries.”
Thus, although only a handful of diaries from the four earliest
centuries are extant, quite a number of the observations recorded
in other diaries compiled in this early period have been preserved
in these excerpts.
A comprehensive examination of all the non-mathematical texts
was started several decades ago by Dr. A. J. Sachs, who devoted the
last thirty years of his life to the study of these texts.5 After his
death in 1983, Sachs’ work has been continued by Professor
Hermann Hunger (in Vienna, Austria), who today is the leading
expert on the astronomical observational texts. Both of these
authorities were consulted for the following discussion.
4 Asger Aaboe, ‘Babylonian Mathematics, Astrology, and Astronomy,” The Cambridge
Ancient History, Vol. III:2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 277–
78. The observational texts may also occasionally contain descriptions of eclipses
calculated in advance.
5 The various kinds of texts were classified by A. J. Sachs in the Journal of
Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 2 (1948), pp. 271–90. In the work Late Babylonian
Astronomical and Related Texts (Providence, Rhode Island: Brown University Press,
1955), Sachs presents an extensive catalogue of the astronomical, astrological, and
mathematical cuneiform texts, most of which had been copied by T. G. Pinches
and J. N. Strassmaier in the late nineteenth century. The catalogue lists 1520
astronomical texts, but many more have been discovered since.
A. THE ASTRONOMICAL DIARIES

A “diary” usually covers the six or seven months of the first or
second half of a particular Babylonian year and records, often on a
day-to-day basis, the positions of the moon and the planets in
relation to certain stars and constellations, and also gives details of
lunar and solar eclipses. Much additional information is added,
such as meteorological events, earthquakes, market prices, and
similar data. Sometimes also historical events are recorded.6 Over
2,000 years old, it is only to be expected that these clay tablets are
often fragmentary.
More than 1,200 fragments of astronomical diaries of various
sizes have been discovered, but because of their fragmentary
condition only about a third of the number are datable.
Most of these cover the period from 385 to 61 B.C.E. and
contain astronomical information from about 180 of these years,
thus firmly establishing the chronology of this period.7
Half a dozen of the diaries are earlier. The two oldest are VAT
4956 from the sixth and BM. 32312 from the seventh centuries
B.C.E. Both provide absolute dates that firmly establish the length
of the Neo-Babylonian period.
A-l: The astronomical diary VAT 4956
The most important astronomical diary for our discussion is
designated VAT 4956 and is kept in the Near Eastern department
(”Vorderasiatischen Abteilung”) in the Berlin Museum. This diary
is dated from Nisanu 1 of Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty-seventh regnal
year to Nisanu 1 of his thirty-eighth regnal year, recording
observations from five months of his thirty-seventh year (months
1, 2, 3, 11 and 12). The most recent transcription and translation of
the text is that of Sachs and Hunger, published in 1988.8
6 The scribes evidently kept running records of their day-to-day observations, as
may be seen from smaller tablets that cover much shorter periods, sometimes only
a few days. From these records the longer diaries were compiled.—A. J. Sachs & H.
Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, Vol. I (Wien: Verlag
der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1988), p. 12.
7 Otto Neugebauer, for example, explains: “Since planetary and lunar data of such
variety and abundance define the date of a text with absolute accuracy—lunar
positions with respect to fixed stars do not even allow 24 hours of uncertainty
which is otherwise involved in lunar dates—we have here records of Seleucid
history [312–64 B .C.E.] which are far more reliable than any other historical
source material at our disposal.”—Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, Vol. 52 (1957),
p. 133.
8 Sachs—Hunger, op.cit. (1988), pp. 46–53. The first translation of the text, which
also includes an extensive commentary, is that of P. V. Neugebauer and Ernst F.
Weidner, “Ein astronomischer Beobachtungstext aus dem 37. Jahre
Nebukadnezars II. (–567/66),” in Berichte über die Verhandlungen der Königl.
Sachsischen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig: Philologisch-Historische
Klasse, Band 67:2, 1915, pp. 29–89.
The extant datable astronomical diaries

The earliest diary is from 652/51 B.C.E. Then follows VAT 4956
from 568/67 B.C.E. Most cover the period from 385 to 61
B.C.E., containing astronomical information from about 180 of
these years. — The chart is reproduced from A. J. Sachs,
"Babylonian observational astronomy," in F. R Hodson (ed.), The
Place of Astronomy in the Ancient World (London: Oxford University
Press, 1974), p. 47.
Among the many observed positions recorded on VAT 4956,

there are about thirty which are so exactly described that modern
astronomers can easily fix the precise dates when they were seen.
By doing so they have been able to show that all these observations
(of the moon and the five then known planets) must have been
made during the year 568/67 B.C.E.
If Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty-seventh regnal year was 568/67
B.C.E., then it follows that his first year must have been 604/03
B..C.E., and his eighteenth year, during which he desolated
Jerusalem, 587/86 B.C.E.9 This is the same date indicated by all the
seven lines of evidence discussed in the previous chapter!
Could all these observations also have been made twenty years
earlier, in the year 588/87 B.C.E., which according to the
chronology of the Watch Tower Society’s Bible dictionary Insight on
the Scriptures corresponded to Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty-seventh
regnal year?10 The same dictionary (page 456 of Vol. 1, where VAT
4956 is obviously alluded to) acknowledges that “Modern
chronologers point out that such a combination of astronomical
positions would not be duplicated again in thousands of years.”
Let us consider one example. According to this diary, on Nisanu
1 of Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty-seventh year the planet Saturn could
be observed “in front of the Swallow,” the “Swallow” (SIM)
referring to the south-west part of the constellation of the Fishes
(Pisces) of the Zodiac.11 As Saturn has a revolution of c. 29.5 years,
it moves through the whole Zodiac in 29.5 years. This means that it
can be observed in each of the twelve constellations of the Zodiac
for about 2.5 years on the average. It means also that Saturn could
be seen “in front of the Swallow” 29.5 years previous to 568/67
B.C.E., that is, in 597/96 B.C.E, but certainly not 20 years earlier, in
588/87 B.C.E., the date the Watch Tower would like to assign for
Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty-seventh regnal year. That is simply an
astronomical impossibility, even in the case of this one planet. But
there are five planets that figure in the diary’s astronomical
observations.
Add, therefore, the different revolutions of the other four planets,
the positions of which are specified several times in the text, along
with the positions given for the moon at various times of the year,
and it becomes easily understood why such a combination of
observations could not be made again in thousands of years. The
observations recorded in VAT 4956 must have been made in the
year 568/67 B.C.E., because they fit no other situation which
occurred either thousands of years before or after that date!
9 The diary clearly states that the observations were made during Nebuchadnezzar’s
thirty-seventh year. The text opens with the words: “Year 37 of Nebukadnezar,
king of Babylon.” The latest date, given close to the end of the text, is: “Year 38 of
Nebukadnezar, month I, the 1st.”—Sachs–Hunger, op. cit., pp. 47, 53.
10 Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2 (Brooklyn, New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, 1988), p. 481, under the subheading “Takes Tyre.”
11 Sachs-Hunger, op. cit., pp. 46–49. The expression “in front of” in the text refers to
the daily westward rotation of the celestial sphere and means “to the west of”.
(Ibid., p.22) For a discussion of the Babylonian names of the constellations, see
Bartel L. van der Waerden, Science Awakening, Vol.II (New York: Oxford University
Press, 1974), pp. 71–74, 97.
VAT 4956, now in the ”Vorderasiatisches Abteilung” in the

Berlin Museum, gives detail on about 30 positions of the moon
and the five then known planets for the 37th year of
Nebuchadnezzar (568/67 B.C.E.), establishing that year as the most
reliable absolute date in the sixth century B.C.E.—Reproduced from A.
J. Sacks & H. Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from
Babylonia, Vol. I (Wien: Verlag der österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften, 1988), Plate 3. Photo used courtesy of the
Vorderasiatisches Museum in Berlin.
Thus VAT 4956 gives very strong support to the chronology of

the Neo-Babylonian era as established by the historians.
Attempting to overcome this evidence, the Watch Tower Society,
in the above-mentioned Bible dictionary, goes on to state that,
“While to some this might seem like incontrovertible evidence,
there are factors greatly reducing its strength.”
What are these factors? And do they genuinely reduce the
strength of the evidence in this ancient tablet?
(a) The first is that the observations made in Babylon may have
contained errors. The Babylonian astronomers showed greatest
concern for celestial events or phenomena occurring close to the
horizon, at the rising or setting of the moon or the sun. However,
the horizon as viewed from Babylon is frequently obscured by
sandstorms.
Then Professor Otto Neugebauer is quoted as saying that
Ptolemy complained about “the lack of reliable planetary
observations [from. ancient Babylon] .”12
However, many of the observations recorded in the diaries were
not made close to the horizon, but higher up in the sky. Further,
Babylonian astronomers had several means of overcoming
unfavorable weather conditions.
As noted earlier, the observations were performed at a number of
sites in Mesopotamia. What could not be observed at one place due
to clouds or sandstorms, could probably be observed somewhere
else.13
One method used to get over the difficulty of observing stars
close to the horizon due to dust was to observe, instead, “the
simultaneously occurring of other stars, the so-called ziqpu-stars,”
that is, stars crossing the meridian higher up on the sky at their
culmination.14
Finally, the horizon as viewed from Babylon was not obscured
by sandstorms every day, and some planetary events could be
observed many days or weeks in succession, also higher up in the
sky, for example, the position of Saturn which, according to our
text, could be observed “in front of the Swallow [the south-west
part of the Fishes].” As was pointed out above, Saturn can be
observed in each of the twelve constellations of the Zodiac for
about 2.5 years on the average.
12 Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 456.
13 See the comments by Hermann Hunger (ed.) in Astrological Reports to Assyrian
Kings (Helsinki: Helsinki University Press, 1992), p. XXII.
14 B. L. van der Waerden, op. cit., pp. 77, 78. ziqpu is the Babylonian technical term
for culmination. The procedure is explained in the famous Babylonian
astronomical compendium MUL.APIN from about the seventh century B.C.E. (van
der Waerden, ibid.)
Saturn’s position in the vicinity of the southern Fish, then, could

have been observed for several months in succession, which would
have made it impossible for Babylonian astronomers in their
regular observations of the planets to make any mistake as to where
this planet could be seen during the thirty-seventh year of
Nebuchadnezzar, in spite of frequent sandstorms. Our text, in fact,
directly states that Saturn was observed “in front of the Swallow”
not only on the first day of Nisanu (the first month), but also on
the first day of Ayyaru (the second month)!
That the observations recorded in VAT 4956 are substantially
correct may be seen from the fact that all of them (except for one
or two containing scribal errors) fit the same year. This would not
have been the case if the observations were erroneous.15
The next factor brought up in the Watch Tower Society’s Bible
dictionary that is held to reduce the strength of VAT 4956 is the
fact that some diaries are not original documents but later copies:
(b) Second, the fact is that the great majority of the
astronomical diaries found were written, not in the time of the
Neo-Babylonian or Persian empires, but in the Seleucid period
(312–65 B.C.E.), although they contain data relating to those
earlier periods. Historians assume that they are copies of earlier
documents.
There is nothing to show that most diaries are later copies, but
some are, as indicated by writing conventions used in the text. The
earliest dated diaries frequently reflect the struggle of the copyists
to understand the ancient documents they were copying, some of
which were broken or otherwise damaged, and often the
documents used an archaic terminology which the copyists tried to
“modernize.” This is clearly true of VAT 4956, too. Twice in the
text the copyist added the comment “broken off,” indicating he
was unable to decipher a word in the copy. Also, the text reflects
15 Some events recorded in the diaries are actually not observations, but events
calculated in advance. Thus VAT 4956 records an eclipse of the moon which
occurred on the 15th day of the month Simanu (the third month). That this eclipse
had been calculated in advance is evident from the expression AN-KU10 sin (also
transcribed atalû Sin), which denotes a predicted lunar eclipse. It is further pointed
out in the text that the eclipse “was omitted” (literally, “passed by”), that is, it was
invisible in Babylon. (Sachs-Hunger, op. cit., Vol. I, 1988, pp. 23, 48, 49) This does
not mean that the prediction failed. The expression implied that the eclipse was
expected not to be seen. According to modern calculations, the eclipse took place
on July 4,568 B.C.E. (Julian calendar), but as it took place in the afternoon it was
not visible at Babylon. The method that may have been used by the Babylonian
astronomers for predicting this eclipse is discussed by Professor Peter Huber in B.
L. van der Waerden (op. cit., note 11 above), pp. 117–120.
his attempt to change the archaic terminology. But did he also

change the content of the text?
On this the first translators of the text, P. V. Neugebauer and E.
F. Weidner, concluded: “As far as the contents are concerned the
copy is of course a faithful reproduction of the original.”16 Other
scholars, who since have examined the document, agree. Professor
Peter Huber states:
It is preserved only in a copy of much later date, but that
appears to be a faithful transcript (orthographically somewhat
modernized) of an original of NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S time.17
Suppose that some of the material in the about thirty
completely received observations recorded in VAT 4956 had been
distorted by later copyists. How great is the possibility that all these
“distorted” observations would fit into one and the same year—the
very one corroborated by Berossus, the Royal Canon, the
chronicles, the royal inscriptions, the contract tablets, the Uruk
kinglist, and many other documents—that is, Nebuchadnezzar’s
thirty-seventh regnal year? Accidental errors of this kind do not
“cooperate” to such a great extent. So there is no sound reason to
doubt that the original observations have been correctly preserved
in our copy.
(c) Finally, as in the case of Ptolemy, even though the
astronomical information (as now interpreted and understood) on
the texts discovered is basically accurate, this does not prove that
the historical information accompanying it is accurate. Even as
Ptolemy used the reigns of ancient kings (as he understood them)
simply as a framework in which to place his astronomical data, so
too, the writers (or copyists) of the astronomical texts of the
Seleucid period may have simply inserted in their astronomical
texts what was then the accepted, or “popular,” chronology of that
time!18
What is suggested by the Watch Tower organization is that the
later copyists changed the dates found in the “diaries” in order to
adapt them to their own concepts of the ancient Babylonian and
Persian chronology. Thus a writer in the Awake! magazine imagines
that “the copyist of ‘VAT 4956’ may, in line with the chronology
16 P. V. Neugebauer and E. F. Weidner, op. cit. (see note 8), p. 39.
17 Peter Huber in B . L. van der Waerden, ap. cit., p. 96.
18 Insight an the Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 456. As pointed out in chapter 3 above (section
A2), the so-called “Ptolemy’s Canon” (or, Royal Canon) was not worked out by
Claudius Ptolemy. Further, as his quotations from ancient Babylonian
astronomical texts available to him show that these were already dated to specific
regnal years of ancient kings, he cannot have used the canon “as a framework in
which to place his astronomical data.”
accepted in his time, have inserted the ‘thirty-seventh year of

Nebuchadnezzar’ .”19 Is this a plausible theory?
As was pointed out above, VAT 4956 is dated from Nisanu 1 of
Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty-seventh year to Nisanu 1 of his thirty-
eighth year. Further, almost all events mentioned in the text are
dated, with the month, the day and—when necessary—the time of the
day given. About forty dates of this kind are given in the text, though
the year, of course, is not repeated at all these places. All known
diaries are dated in a similar way.
In order to change the years in the text, the copyists would also
have been forced to change the name of the reigning king. Why?
Nebuchadnezzar died in his forty-third year of rule. If his thirty-
seventh year fell in 588/87 B.C.E., as the Watch Tower Society
holds, he must have been dead for many years by 568/67 B.C.E.
when the observations of VAT 4956 were made.
Is it really likely that the Seleucid copyists devoted themselves to
such large-scale forgeries? What do we know about the “popular”
chronology of their time, which is proposed in the Watch Tower’s
publication as the motive for this deliberate fraud?
The chronology for the Neo-Babylonian era composed by
Berossus early in the Seleucid period evidently represents the
contemporary, “popular” concept of Neo-Babylonian
chronology. If counted backwards from the fall of Babylon in 539
20
B.C.E., Berossus’ figures for the reigns of Neo-Babylonian kings
place Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty-seventh year in 568/67 B.C.E. as
does VAT 4956.
More importantly, Berossus’ Neo-Babylonian chronology, as
shown earlier in chapter three, is of the same length as that given by the
many documents contemporary with the Neo-Babylonian era itself such as
chronicles, royal inscriptions, business documents, as well as with
contemporary Egyptian documents!
The “popular” Neo-Babylonian chronology as presented in the
Seleucid era, then, was not something based on mere supposition,
but meets the qualifications of a true and correct chronology, and
there was no need for copyists to alter the ancient documents in
order to adapt them to it. The theory that they falsified these
documents, therefore, is groundless. Besides, it is refuted
completely by other astronomical texts, including the next diary to
be discussed.
19 Awake!, May 8, 1972, page 28.
20 As explained in chapter 3 above (section A-1), Berossus’ chronology was composed
about 281 B.C.E. The Seleucid era began in 312 B.C.E.
The astronomical diary B.M. 32312

This diary gives details on the positions of Mercury, Saturn, and Mars,
which date it to the year 652/51 B.C.E. An historical notice, also
repeated in the Akitu Chronicle and there dated to the 16th year of
Shamashshumukin, fixes that year to 652/51 B.C.E., which
prevents any extension of the Neo-Babylonian era backwards in
time. Photo used courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.
A-2: The astronomical diary BM. 32312

In an article published in 1974, Professor Abraham J. Sachs gives a
brief presentation of the astronomical diaries. Mentioning that the
oldest datable diary contains observations from the year 652
B.C.E., he explains how he was able to fix its date:
When I first tried to date this text, I found the astronomical
contents to be just barely adequate to make this date virtually
certain.
It was a great relief when I was able to confirm the date by

matching up a historical remark in the diary with the
corresponding statement for –651 in a well-dated historical
chronicle.21
As this diary seemed to be of great importance for the question
of Babylonian chronology, I wrote to Professor Sachs back in 1980
and asked two questions:
1. What information in the diary makes the date –651 [=652
B.C.E.], “virtually certain”?
2. What kind of historical remark in the diary corresponds with
what statement in which well-dated chronicle?
In his answer Professor Sachs enclosed a copy of a photograph
of the diary in question, B.M. 32312, and added information which
fully answered my two questions. The astronomical contents of the
diary clearly establish the year as 652/51 B.C.E. when the
observations were made. Sachs writes that “the preserved
astronomical events (Mercury’s last visibility in the east behind
Pisces, Saturn’s last visibility behind Pisces, both around the 14th
of month I; Mars’ stationary point in Scorpio on the 17th of month
I; Mercury’s first visibility in Pisces on the 6th of month XII)
uniquely determine the date.”22
Interestingly, it cannot be claimed that this diary was redated by
later copyists, because the name of the king, his regnal year, and
month names are broken away. Yet these data may justifiably be
supplied because of a historical remark at the end of the diary. For
“the 27th” of the month (the month name is broken away) the
diary states that at the site of “Hiritu in the province of Sippar the
troops of Babylonia and of Assyria fou[ght with each] other, and
21 A. J. Sachs, ‘Babylonian observational astronomy,” in F. R. Hodson (ed.), The Place
of Astronomy in the Ancient World (Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of
London, ser. A. 276, London: Oxford University Press, 1974), p.48. — For the
purpose of facilitating astronomical computations, the year preceding 1 C.E. is
called 0 instead of 1 B.C.E. and the year preceding 0 is called -1 instead of 2
B.C.E. The year 652 B.C.E., therefore, is astronomically written as —651.
22 Letter Sachs-Jonsson, dated February 10, 1980. The diary has since been
published in Sachs-Hunger, op. cit., Vol. I (1988; see note 6 above), pp. 42–47. Of
the first two events, the scribe says: “I did not watch because the days were
overcast “ (Ibid., p. 43) This statement does not make the astronomically fixed date
of the positions less certain. As pointed out earlier, the Babylonian scholars not
only knew the various cycles of the visible planets , but they also regularly
watched their daily motions and positions relative to certain fixed stars or
constellations along the ecliptic. Thus, even if a planet could not be observed for
some days due to clouds, its position could easily be deduced from its position
when it was last seen.
the troops of Babylonia withdrew and were heavily defeated.”23

Fortunately, it is possible to place the time of this battle since it is
also mentioned in a well-known Babylonian chronicle.
The chronicle is the so-called Akitu Chronicle, B.M. 86379, which
covers a part of Shamashshumukin’s reign, especially his last five
years (the sixteenth to the twentieth). The battle at Hiritu is dated
in his sixteenth year as follows:
The sixteenth year of Shamash-shuma-ukin: . . . On the twenty-
seventh day of Adar [the 12th month] the armies of Assyria and
Akkad [Babylonia] did battle in Hirit. The army of Akkad retreated
from the battlefield and a major defeat was inflicted upon them.24
The astronomical events described in the diary fix the battle at
Hiritu on Adam 27 to 651 B.C.E.25 The Akitu Chronicle shows
that this battle at this place on this day was fought in the sixteenth
year of Shamashshumukin. Thus Shamashshumukin’s sixteenth
year was 652/51 B.C.E. His entire reign of twenty years, then, may
be dated to 667/66 – 648/47 B.C.E.
Now this is the way historians have dated Shamashshumukin’s
reign for a long time, and that is why Professor Sachs concluded
his letter by saying: “I should perhaps add that the absolute
chronology of the regnal years of Shamash-shuma-ukin was never
in doubt, and it is only confirmed again by the astronomical diary.”
Shamashshumukin’s reign has been known, for example,
through the Royal Canon which gives him twenty years and his
successor Kandalanu twenty-two years. Thereafter Nabopolassar,
Nebuchadnezzar’s father, succeeded to the throne.26 These figures
are in good agreement with the ancient cuneiform sources.
Business documents, as well as the Akitu Chronicle, show that
Shamashshumukin ruled for twenty years. Business documents,
supported by the Uruk King List, also show that from the first year
23 Sachs-Hunger, op. cit., p. 45. For a discussion of this battle, see Grant Frame,
Babylonia 689–627 B.C. (Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Institut to
Istanbul, 1992), pp. 144–45, 289–92.
24 A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Locust Valley, New York: J. J.
Augustin Publisher, 1975), pp. 131–32.
25 As the first month, Nisanu, began in March or April, 652 B.C.E., Adaru, the twelfth
month, began in February or March, 651 B.C.E.
26 That Kandalanu was succeeded by Nabopolassar is directly stated in the Akitu
Chronicle: “After Kandalanu, in the accession year of Nabopolassar”— Grayson, op.
cit., p. 132.
of Kandalanu to the first year of Nabopolassar was a period of

twenty-two years. Thus the chronology of that era, supplied by
these sources, is as follows:
Shamashshumukin 20 years 667 – 648 B.C.E.
Kandalanu 22 years 647 – 626 B.C.E.
Nabopolassar 21 years 625 – 605 B.C.E.
Nebuchadnezzar 43 years 604 – 562 B.C.E.
The diary B.M. 32312, although establishing a date prior to the
Neo-Babylonian period (which began with Nabopolassar), again
coincides with and helps corroborate the chronology of that era.
This diary, then, adds yet another witness to the increasing
amount of evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date. A change of
Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth year from 587 to 607 B .C.E. would
also change Shamashshumukin’s sixteenth year from 652 to 672
B.C.E. But the diary B.M. 32312 rules out such a change.
And, as already pointed out, no one can claim that later copyists
inserted “the 16th year of Shamashshumukin” in this diary, because
the text is damaged at this point and that datum is broken away! It
is the unique historical information in the text, information
repeated in the Akitu Chronicle, that fixes the diary to
Shamashshumukin’s sixteenth year.
This diary, therefore, may be regarded as an independent witness
which upholds the authenticity of the dates given in VAT 4956 and
other diaries.27
27 A catalogue of business documents compiled by J. A. Brinkman and D. A. Kennedy
that includes the reigns of Shamashshumukin and Kandalanu is published in the
Journal of Cuneiform Studies (JCS), Vol. 35, 1983, pp. 25–52. (Cf. also JCS 36,
1984, pp. 1–6, and the table of G. Frame, op. cit., pp. 263–68.) Cuneiform texts
show that Kandalanu evidently died in his twenty-first regnal year, after which
several pretenders to the throne fought for power, until Nabopolassar succeeded in
ascending to the throne. Some business documents span the period of
interregnum by artificially carrying on Kandalanu’s reign after his death, the last
one (B.M. 40039) being dated to his “22nd year” (”the second day of Arahsamnu
[the 8th month] of the 22nd year after Kandalanu”). This method is also used by
the Royal Canon, which gives Kandalanu a reign of twenty-two years. Other
documents span the period differently. The Uruk King List gives Kandalanu
twenty-one years, and gives the year of interregnum to two of the combatants, Sin-
shum-lishir and Sin-shar-ishkun. See chapter three above, section B-1-b.) The
Babylonian chronicle B.M. 25127 states of the same year: “For one year there was
no king in the land” (Grayson, op. cit., p. 88) All documents agree, however, to the
total length of the period from Shamashshumukin to Nabopolassar. (For additional
details on Kandalanu’s reign, see the discussion by G. Frame, op. cit., pp. 191–96,
209–13, 284–88.)
B. THE SATURN TABLET (BM. 76738 + BM. 76813)

One of the most important astronomical texts from the seventh
century B.C.E. is the Saturn tablet from the reign of the Babylonian
king Kandalanu (647–626 B.C.E.), predecessor of Nabopolassar,
Nebuchadnezzar’s father.
This text consists of two broken pieces, B.M. 76738 and B.M.
76813.28 The text was first described by C. B. F. Walker in 1983 in
the Bulletin of the Society for Mesopotamian Studies.29 A transcription and
a translation with a full discussion of the text by Mr. C.B.F. Walker
has recently been published.30
As explained earlier (section A-1 above), the planet Saturn has a
revolution of c. 29.5 years. Due to the revolution of the earth
round the sun, Saturn disappears behind the sun for a few weeks
and reappears again at regular intervals of 378 days.
The Saturn tablet gives the dates (regnal year, month, and day in
the Babylonian calendar) and the positions of the planet Saturn at
its first and last appearances for a period of fourteen successive
years, specifically, the first fourteen years of Kandalanu (647–634
B.C.E.). The name of the king, given only in the first line, is
partially damaged, but may be restored as [Kand]alanu. The name of
the planet is nowhere mentioned in the text, but the observations
fit Saturn and no other planet.
As Mr. Walker explains:
The name of the planet Saturn is not given on the tablet, and
the name of Kandalanu is to be restored from only a few traces in
the first line. It is, however, certain that we are dealing with Saturn
and Kandalanu. Saturn is the slowest moving of the visible planets,
and only Saturn would move the distances indicated between
successive first visibilities.31
The text is damaged in several places, and many of the year
numbers are illegible. Years 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 13 are undamaged,
however.
28 Listed as AH 83-1-18, 2109+2185 in E. Leichty et al, Catalogue of the Babylonian
Tablets in the British Museum. VIII (London: British Museum Publications Ltd,
1988), p. 70.
29 C. B. F. Walker, “Episodes in the History of Babylonian Astronomy,” Bulletin of the
Society for Mesopotamian Studies, Vol. 5 (Toronto, May 1983), pp. 20, 21.
30 C. B. F. Walker, ‘Babylonian observations of Saturn during the reign of
Kandalanu,” in N. M. Swerdlow (ed.), Ancient Astronomy and Celestial Divination
(Cambridge, Massachusetts, and London: The MIT Press, 2000), pp. 61–76.
31 Walker, ibid., p. 63.
Besides this, each year is covered by two lines in the text, one for
the last appearance of the planet and the other for its first, the total
number of lines covering the fourteen years, therefore, being
twenty-eight. With this framework there is no problem in restoring
the year numbers that are damaged.
Most of the positions given for Saturn at its first or last appearance
are legible.32 The entry for year eight, which is almost wholly
preserved, is quoted here as an example:
Year 8, month 6, d ay 5, behind the Furrow (α+ Virginis), last
appearance.
[Year 8], month 7, day 5, ‘between’ the Furrow (α+ Virginis)
and the Balance (Libra), first appearance.33
What is the implication of this astronomical tablet for the
chronology of the Neo-Babylonian era?
As noted, Saturn has a revolution of 29.5 years, which also
means that the planet moves through the whole ecliptic in this
period.
But for the planet to be seen again at a specific point (close to a
certain fixed star, for example) of the ecliptic at the same time of the
year, we have to wait for 59 solar years (2 x 29.5). This interval,
actually, is much longer in the Babylonian lunar calendar. As C. B.
F. Walker explains:
A complete cycle of Saturn phenomena in relation to the stars
takes 59 years. But when that cycle has to be fitted to the lunar
calendar of 29 or 30 days then identical cycles recur at intervals of
rather more than 17 centuries. Thus there is no difficulty in
determining the date of the present text.34
In other words, the absolute chronology of Kandalanu’s reign is
definitely fixed by the Saturn tablet, because the pattern of
positions described in the text and fixed to specific dates in the
Babylonian lunar calendar is not repeated again in more than seventeen
centuries! The first fourteen years of his reign mentioned in the
document are thus fixed to 647–634 B.C.E. As Kandalanu’s total
reign may chronologically be counted as twenty-two years
32 In three cases the dates given for the first or last appearance are followed by the
comment “not observed”, the reason in two cases being said to be clouds; and in
another case it is said to have been “computed” (for the same reason). As
suggested by Walker, “in these cases the date of theoretical first or last visibility
was deduced from the planet’s position when first or last actually seen.” —Ibid.,
pp. 64, 65, 74.
33 Ibid., p. 65.
34 1bid., p. 63.
(twenty-one years plus one year “after Kandalanu”; see section A-2
above), our tablet establishes the absolute chronology of his reign
as 647–626 B.C.E.35
Like the previous text discussed earlier (B.M. 32312), the
Saturn tablet puts a definite block to the attempts at lengthening
the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period. If twenty years were
to be added to this period, the reign of Nabopolassar, the father of
Nebuchadnezzar, would have to be moved from 625–605 back to
645–625 B.C.E., and this in turn would mean moving the reign of
his predecessor, Kandalanu, from 647–626 back to 667–646 B.C.E.
The astronomical data on the Saturn tablet makes such changes
completely impossible.
C. THE LUNAR ECLIPSE TABLETS
Many of the Babylonian astronomical tablets contain reports of
consecutive lunar eclipses , dated to the year, month, and often also
the day of the reigning king. About forty texts of this type,
recording several hundreds of lunar eclipses from 747 to about 50
B.C.E., were catalogued by Abraham J. Sachs in 1955.36
In about a third of the texts the eclipses are arranged in 18-year
groups, evidently because the Babylonians knew that the pattern of
lunar eclipses is repeated at intervals of approximately 18 years and
11 days, or exactly 223 lunar months (= 6585 1/3 days). This cycle
was used by the Babylonian astronomers “to predict the dates of
possible eclipses by at least the middle of the 6th century B.C. and
most probably long before that.”37
As modern scholars call this cycle the Saros cycle, the 18-year
texts are often referred to as the Saros cycle texts.38 Some of these
texts record series of 18-year intervals extending over several
centuries.
35 In his earlier discussion of the tablet, Walker points out that the pattern of Saturn
phenomena described in this text, dated in terms of the phase of the moon, “will in
fact occur approximately every 1770 years:”—C. B. F. Walker, “Episodes in the
History of Babylonian Astronomy,” Bulletin of the Society for Mesopotamian Studies,
Vol. 5 (Toronto, May 1983), p. 20.
36 Abraham J. Sachs, Late Babylonian Astronomical and Related Texts (Providence,
Rhode Island: Brown University Press, 1955), pp. xxxi–xxxiii. See nos. 1413–30,
1432, 1435–52, and 1456–57. For translations of most of these, see now H.
Hunger et al, Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia (ADT), Vol. V
(Vienna, 2001).
37 Paul-Alain Beaulieu and John P. Britton, ‘Rituals for an eclipse possibility in the
8th year of Cyrus,” in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol.46 (1994), p. 83.
38 The Greek word saros is derived from the Babylonian word SAR, which actually
denoted a period of 3,600 years. “The use of the term ‘Saros’ to denote the eclipse
cycle of 223 months is a modem anachronism which originated with Edmund
Halley [Phil. Trans. (1691) 535–40] . . . The Babylonian name for this interval was
simply ‘18 years’ “ — Beaulieu & Britton, op. cit., p.78, note 11.
Lunar Eclipse
Lunar eclipses are possible only at full moon, when the earth is
between the moon and the sun and the moon may enter the
shadow of the earth. This would occur at every full moon if the
moon’s orbital plane were the same as the earth’s orbital plane
(the ecliptic). But as the moon’s orbital plane is inclined about 5°
to the ecliptic, lunar eclipses can occur only when the moon, on
approaching its full phase, is close to one of two points (the nodes)
where its orbit intersects with the ecliptic. This occurs at about
every eighth full moon on the average, which means there are
about 1.5 lunar eclipses per year, although they are not evenly
dispersed in time.
Most of the lunar eclipse texts were compiled during the Seleucid
era (312–64 B.C.E.). The evidence is that the eclipse records were
extracted from astronomical diaries by the Babylonian
astronomers, who evidently had access to a large number of diaries
from earlier centuries.39 Thus, even if most of the diaries from the
39 “It is all but certain that these eclipse records could have been extracted only from
the astronomical diaries.” — A. J. Sachs, “Babylonian observational astronomy,” in
F. R. Hodson (ed.), The Place of Astronomy in the Ancient World (Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London, ser. A. 276, 1974), p. 44. See also the
comments by F. Richard Stephenson and Louay J. Fatoohi, “Lunar eclipse times
recorded in Babylonian history,” in Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol. 24:4,
No. 77 (1993), p. 256.
earliest centuries are missing, many of their entries on eclipses have

been preserved in these excerpts.
Many of the eclipse texts were copied by T. G. Pinches and J. N.
Strassmaier in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and these
copies were published by A. Sachs in 1955.40 Translations of a few
of the texts appeared in print in 1991.41 The rest of the texts,
translated by H. Hunger, were published in ADT V, 2001. (See
footnote 36 above.)
A preliminary typescript with transliterations and translations of
most of the lunar eclipse texts was prepared in 1973 by Professor
Peter Huber, but he never brought it into a form ready for
publication, although it has been unofficially circulated among
scholars for a long time. Huber’s memoir has been consulted in the
following discussion, but every passage used has been checked, and
in several cases improved upon or corrected, by Professor
Hermann Hunger, whose transliterations and translations of these
eclipse texts have since been published.
The texts recording the earliest lunar eclipses are LBAT 1413–
1421 in Sachs’ catalogue. Only the last four of these, nos. 1418–
1421, contain eclipses from the Neo-Babylonian period. But as
LBAT 1417 contains eclipses from the reigns of Shamashshumukin
and Kandalanu, the last two Babylonian kings prior to the Neo-
Babylonian period (cf. sections A-2 and B above), this text, too, is
an important witness to the length of the Neo-Babylonian period.
A discussion of four of these texts and their implications for the
Neo-Babylonian chronology of the Watch Tower Society is
presented in the following section.42
40 A. J. Sachs, op. cit. (1955; see note 36 above), pp. 223ff.
41 A. Aaboe, J. P. Britton, J. A. Henderson, O. Neugebauer, and A. J. Sachs, “Saros
Cycle Dates and Related Babylonian Astronomical Texts,” in Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society, Vol. 81:6 (1991), pp. 1–75. The Saros cycle texts
published are those designated LBAT 1422, 1423, 1424, 1425, and 1428 in Sachs
catalogue. As these texts belong to a separate small group of theoretical texts, none
of them are used in the present study. (See J. M. Steele in H. Hunger, ADT V,
(2001), p. 390.)
42 A discussion of LBAT 1418 is not included here, as this is one of the theoretical
texts ‘referred to in note 41 above. It contains no royal names , just year numbers.
(Royal names are usually mentioned only with a ruler’s first year.) Still, as pointed
out by Professor Hermann Hunger, “the records of lunar eclipses are detailed
enough that they can be dated.” The preserved part of the text gives years and
months of lunar eclipse possibilities at 18-year intervals from 647 to 574 B.C.E.
The eclipses dated in the text at 18-year intervals to years “2”, “20”, “16”, and “13”,
for example, correspond to eclipses in years “2” and “20” of Kandalanu (646/45
and 628/27 B.C.E.), year “16” of Nabopolassar (610/09), and year “13” of
Nebuchadnezzar (592/91). Thus LBAT 1418 strongly supports the chronology
established for the reigns of these kings. —A transliteration and translation of this
tablet is published by Hunger, ADT V (2001), pp. 88, 89.
The lunar eclipse table LBAT 1417

The tablet records four lunar eclipses at 18-year intervals dated to
the 3rd year of Sennacherib, the accession year and 18th year of
Shamashshumukin, and the 16th year of Kandalanu. The four
eclipses may be shown to have occurred on April 22, 686; May 2,
668; May 13, 650, and on May 23, 632 B.C.E. — Published by A.
J. Sachs, Late Babylonian Astronomical and Related Texts (Providence,
Rhode Island: Brown University Press, 1955), p. 223.
C-1: The lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1417

LBAT 1417 records four lunar eclipses at 18-year intervals from
686 to 632 B.C.E .It seems to be a part of the same tablet as the
previous two texts in the series, LBAT 1415 and 1416. The first
entry records an eclipse from Sennacherib third year of reign in
Babylonia,43 which may be identified with the eclipse that took
place on April 22, 686 B.C.E. Unfortunately, the year number is
damaged and only partially legible.
The next entry, dated to the accession year of
Shamashshumukin, gives this information:
Accession year Shamash-shum-ukin,
Ayyaru, 5 months,
which passed by.
At 40° after sunrise.
43 Babylonian chronicles and king lists show that the Assyrian king Sennacherib also,
for two periods, was the actual ruler of Babylonia, the first time for two years
(dated to 704–703 B.C.E.), and the second time for eight years (dated to 688–681
B.C.E.). Our text evidently refers to the second period.
At a cursory glance this report seems to give very little

information. But there is more in the few brief lines than one might
possibly imagine.
The Babylonian astronomers had developed such an abbreviated
technical terminology in describing the various celestial phenomena
that their reports assumed an almost stenographic character. The
Akkadian phrase translated “which passed by” (shá DIB), for
example, was used in connection with a predicted eclipse to indicate
that it would not be observable.
As Hermann Hunger explains, “the eclipse was known to the
Babylonians as occurring at a time when the moon could not be
observed. It does not show that they looked for an eclipse and were
disappointed that it did not occur.”44 The Babylonians had not only
computed this eclipse some time in advance by means of a known
cycle (perhaps the Saros cycle); their computation also showed it
would not be observable from the Babylonian horizon.
This is also implied in the next line, “At 40° after sunrise.” 40° is
a reference to the movement of the celestial sphere, which, due to
the rotation of the earth, is seen to make a full circle in 24 hours.
The Babylonians divided up this period into 360 time units
(degrees) called USH, each of which corresponded to four of our
minutes. The text, therefore, tells us that the eclipse had been
calculated to begin 160 minutes (40 USH x 4) after sunrise, which
means it would take place in the daytime and thus not be
observable in Babylonia.
Modern astronomical calculations confirm this. If
Shamashhumukin’s first year was 667/66 B.C.E. as is generally held
(see above, section A-2), his accession year was 668/67. The eclipse
is dated to Ayyaru, the second month, which began in April or
May. (The “5 months” indicates the time interval from the
previous eclipse.)
Was there an eclipse of the type described in our text at that
time of the year in 668 B.C.E.? Yes, there was.
Modern lunar eclipse catalogues show that such an eclipse took
place on May 2, 668 B.C.E. (Julian calendar). It began at about 9:20
local time*, which only roughly agrees with the Babylonian
computation that it would begin 160 minutes —2 hours and 40
44 Letter Hunger–Jonsson, dated October 21, 1989. (Cf. also note 15 above.) In a later
letter (dated June 26, 1990) Hunger adds: “The technical expression if the observer
waits for an eclipse and finds that it does not occur is ‘not seen when watched
for’.”
*Note: Times listed in this discussion are according to a 24-hour format, rather than
the 12 hour a.m./p.m format.
minutes — after sunrise. As sunrise occurred at about 5:20, the

error in computation was ca. 1 hour and 20 minutes.45
In the chronology of the Watch Tower Society the accession
year of Shamashshumukin is moved back twenty years to 688/87
B.C.E. No lunar eclipses occurred in April or May that year, but
there was a total one on June 10, 688 B.C.E. Contrary to the eclipse
recorded in our text, however, this one was observable in Babylonia.
It is, therefore, an impossible alternative.
The next entry in the text is dated to the eighteenth year of
Shamashshumukin, that is, 650/49 B.C.E. This eclipse, too, was a
computed one, predicted to “pass by” in the second month. It
would begin about four hours (60 USH) “before sunset”.
According to modern calculations the eclipse took place on May
13, 650 B.C.E. The canon of Liu and Fiala shows it began at 16:25
and ended at 18:19, about half an hour before sunset at that time of
the year.46
According to the chronology of the Watch Tower Society this
eclipse occurred twenty years earlier, in 670 B.C.E. No lunar
eclipses took place in April or May that year, but there was a total
one on June 22, 670 B.C.E. However, it did not occur “before
sunset”, as did the one recorded in our text, but early in the
forenoon, beginning about 7:30. So, again, it does not fit.
The next and last entry in LBAT 1417 is dated to the sixteenth
year of Kandalanu. The eclipse recorded was observed in Babylonia
and several important details are given:
(Year) 16 Kandalanu
(month) Simanu, 5 months, day 15.2 Fingers (?)
on the northeast side covered (?)
On the north it became bright. The north wind [blew]
20° onset, maxima1 phase, [and clearing.]
Behind Antares (α Scorpio) [it was eclipsed.]
As indicated by the question marks and the square brackets, the
text is somewhat damaged at places, but the information preserved
45 See Bao-Lin and Alan D. Fiala, Canon of Lunar Eclipses 1500 B.C.–AD. 3000
(Richmond, Virginia: Willman-Bell, Inc., 1992), p. 66, No. 2010. As demonstrated
in Dr. J. M. Steele’s detailed study of the Babylonian lunar eclipses, the accuracy
of Babylonian timings of observed eclipses was within about half an hour as
compared to modem calculations, while the accuracy of the timings of predicted
eclipses usually was about an hour and half. It should be noted that before about
570 B.C.E. the Babylonians also rounded off their timings to the nearest 5–10 USH
(20–40 minutes). Although rough, these timings are close enough for the eclipses
to be identified. (See John M. Steele, Observations and Predictions of Eclípse Times
by Early Astronomers, Dordrecht, etc: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000, pp. 57–
75, 231–235.) For further comments on the identification of ancient 1unar
eclipses, see the Appendix for chapter four: “Some comments on ancient lunar
eclipses”.
46 Liu/Fiala, op. cit., p. 67, No 2056. Steele’s computation shows it began at 16:45.
is sufficient for identifying the eclipse. It took place on “day 15” of

Simanu, the third month, which began in May or June. “2 fingers”
means it was partial, with only two twelfths of the moon’s diameter
being eclipsed. The total duration of the eclipse was 20°, that is, 80
minutes.
If Kandalanu’s sixteenth year began on Nisan 1, 632 B.C.E., as
is generally held (compare above, sections A-2 and B), we want to
know if there was a 1unar eclipse of this type in the third month of
that year.
Modern calculations show there was. According to the eclipse
canon of Liu and Fiala the eclipse began on May 23, 632 B.C.E. at
23:51 and lasted until 1:07 on May 24, which means its total
duration was about 76 minutes, that is, very close to the period
given in the text. The same canon gives the magnitude as 0.114. 47
These data are in good agreement with the ancient record. In the
chronology of the Watch Tower Society, however, this eclipse
should be looked for twenty years earlier, in May, June, or possibly
July, 652 B.C.E. It is true that there was an eclipse on July 2 that
year, but in contrast to the partial one recorded in our text it was
total. But as it began about 15:00. no phase of it was observable in
Babylonia.
In summary, LBAT 1417 records four lunar eclipses at successive
18-year intervals (18 years and nearly 11 days), all of which may be
easily identified with those of April 21, 686; May 2, 668; May 13,
650, and May 23, 632 B.C.E. The four eclipse records are interlaced
by the successive Saros cycles into a pattern that fit no other series
of years in the seventh century B.C.E.48
The last three dates are thus established as the absolute dates of
the accession year and the eighteenth year of Shamashshumukin
and the sixteenth year of Kandalanu, respectively. The Watch
Tower Society’s attempt to add twenty years to the Neo-
Babylonian era, in that way moving the reigns of the earlier kings
twenty years backwards in time, is once again effectively blocked by
a Babylonian astronomical tablet, this time by the lunar eclipse text
LBAT 1417.
LBAT 1419 records an uninterrupted series of lunar eclipses at
47 Liu/Fiala, ap. cit., p. 68, No. 2103.
48 It is to be noted that the Saros cycle does not comprise an even number of days; it
consists of 6,585 1/3 days. The excess third part of a day (or c: a 7.5 hours)
implies that the subsequent eclipses in the series are not repeated at the same time
of the day, but about 7.5 hours later after each successive cycle. The duration and
magnitude, too, are changing from one eclipse to the next in the cycle. An eclipse,
therefore, cannot be mixed up with the previous or the next ones in the series. —
See the discussion by Beaulieu and Britton, op. cit. (note 37 above), pp. 78–84.
18-year intervals from 609/08 to 447/46 B.C.E. The first entries,

which evidently recorded eclipses that ocurred in September 609
and March 591 B.C.E., are damaged. Royal names and year
numbers are illegible. However, two of the following entries are
clearly dated to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar (the words in
parentheses are added to elucidate the laconic reports):
14th (year of) Nebukadnezar,
month VI, (eclipse) which was omitted [literally, “passed by”]
at sunrise,
……………..
32nd (year of) Nebukadnezar,
month VI, (eclipse) which was omitted.
At 35° (= 35 USH, i.e. 140 minutes) before sunset.
The royal name in the original text is written as “Kudurri”,
which is an abbreviation of Nabu-kudurri-usur, the transcribed
Akkadian form of Nebuchadnezzar.
Nebuchadnezzar’s fourteenth and thirty-second years are
generally dated to 591/90 and 573/72 B.C.E., respectively. The
two eclipses recorded, one Saros cycle apart, both took place in the
sixth month (Ululu), which began in August or September. Both
eclipses had been calculated in advance, and the Babylonians knew
that none of them would be observable in Babylonia. The first
eclipse began “at sunrise”, the second 140 minutes (35 USH)
“before sunset.” Thus both of them occurred in the daytime in
Babylonia.
This is confirmed by modem calculations. The first eclipse
occurred on September 15, 591 B.C.E. It began about 6:00. The
second took place in the afternoon on September 25, 573 B.C.E.49
Both eclipses, then, fit in very well with the chronology established
for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.
In the chronology of the Watch Tower Society, however, the
two eclipses should be sought for twenty years earlier, in 611 and
593 B.CE. But no eclipses that fit those described in the text
occurred in the autumn of any of those years.50
The next entry, which records the subsequent eclipse in the 18-
year cycle, gives the following detailed information:
49 Liu and Fiala, op. cit., pp. 69–70, Nos. 2210 and 2256. The entries also record
eclipses in the twelfth month of both years, but the text is severely damaged at
both places.
50 On Sept. 26, 611 and Oct. 7, 593 B.C.E. there were so-called penumbral eclipses,
i.e., the moon passed through the half-shadow (penumbra) outside the shadow
(umbra) of the earth. (Liu & Fiala, op. cit., pp. 68–69, nos. 2158 and 2205.) Such
passages are hardly observable even at night, and the Babylonians evidently
recorded them as “passed by’ . The first eclipse (Sept. 26, 611 B.C.E.) began well
after sunset, not at sunrise as is explicitly stated in the text. The penumbral phase
of the second eclipse (Oct. 7, 593 B.C.E.) began well before sunrise, not before
sunset as stated in the text. Both alternatives, therefore, are definitely out of the
question anyway.
Month VII, the 13th, in 17° on the east side

all (of the moon) was covered. 28° maximal phase.
In 20° it cleared from east to west.
Its eclipse was red.
Behind the rump of Aries it was eclipsed.
During onset, the north wind blew, during clearing, the west
wind. At 55° before sunrise.
As stated in the text, this eclipse took place on the thirteenth

day of the seventh month (Tashritu), which began in September or
October. The royal name and the year number unfortunately are
missing.
Yet, as Professor Hunger points out, “the eclipse can
nevertheless be identified with certainty from the observations
given.”51 The various details about the eclipse—its magnitude (total),
duration (the total phase lasting 112 minutes), and position (behind
the rump of Aries)—clearly identify it with the eclipse that took
place in the night of Oct. 6–7, 555 B.C.E.52
According to the generally established chronology for the Neo-
Babylonian period, this eclipse took place in the first year of
Nabonidus, which began on Nisan 1, 555 B.C.E. Although the
royal name and year number are missing, it is of the utmost
importance to notice that the text places this eclipse one Saros cycle
after the eclipse in the thirty-second year of Nebuchadnezzar. As the last
eclipse may be securely dated in 555 B.C.E., it at once also places
Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty-second year eighteen years earlier, in 573
B.C.E.
Consequently, all three eclipses in our text concur in establishing
591 and 573 B.C.E. as the absolute dates of Nebuchadnezzar’s
14th and 32nd regnal years, respectively.
The Saros cycle text LBAT 1419 thus provides yet another
independent evidence against 607 B.C.E. as the eighteenth year of
Nebuchadnezzar. If, as is established by the text, his thirty-second
year was 573/72 B.C.E. and his fourteenth year was 591/90 B.C.E.,
then his first year was 604/03, and his eighteenth year, in which he
desolated Jerusalem, was 587/86 B.C.E.
51 Letter Hunger-Jonsson, dated October 21, 1989.
52 According to the calculations of Liu and Fiala the eclipse, which was total, began
on October 6 at 21:21 and ended on October 7 at 1:10 The total phase lasted from
22:27 to 0:04, i.e. for 97 minutes, which is not far from the figure given in the text,
28 USH (112 minutes).—Liu and Fiala, op. cit., p.70, n. 2301.

Instead of recording eclipses at 18-year intervals, LBAT 1420
contains annual eclipse reports. All eclipses in the text are from the
reign of Nebuchadnezzar, dating from his first year (604/03
B.C.E.) to at least his twenty-ninth year (576/75 B.C.E.).
The first entry, which records two eclipses that “passed by”
(that is, though correctly predicted would not be observable), is
damaged and the year number is illegible. But the last part of
Nebuchadnezzar’s name is preserved:
[(Year) 1 Nebuchadn]ezzar, (month) Simanu.
The name of the king is not repeated in the subsequent entries,
indicating that the king is the same during the whole period. This is
also confirmed by the continuous series of increasing year numbers
right until the last year preserved in the text, “(Year) 29”.
The entries recording eclipses in the period 603–595 B.C.E. are
very damaged, too, and the year numbers for this period are
missing. The first entry in which the year number is preserved
records two eclipses from the eleventh year:
(Year) 11, (month) Ayyaru [. . . . . .] 10(?) USH after sunset and it
was total. 10 [+x . . .] (Month) Arahsamnu, which passed by.
Addaru2.
The eleventh year of Nebuchadnezzar began on Nisan 1, 594
B.C.E. “Addaru2” is added to indicate that there was an intercalary
month at the end of the year.
There is no problem in finding both of these eclipses. Ayyaru,
the second month, began in April or May, and Arahsamnu, the
eighth month, began in October or November. The first eclipse
occurred on May 23, and the second one on November 17. The
eclipse canon of Liu and Fiala confirms that the first eclipse was
total and was observable in Babylonia, as stated in the text. It began
at 20:11 and ended at 23:48. The second eclipse “passed by” (was
unobservable) as it occurred in the daytime. According to the
canon of Liu and Fiala it began at 7.08 and ended at 9:50.53
Most of the year numbers from the twelfth to the seventeenth
year (593/92–588/87 B.C.E.) are legible.54 Thirteen lunar eclipses
53 Liu & Fiala, op. cit., p.69, nos. 2201 and 2202.
54 In the entries for the fourteenth and fifteenth years the year numbers are damaged
and only partially legible. But as these entries stand between those for years “13”
and “16”, the damaged numbers obviously were “14” and “15”.
are described and dated in this period, eight of which “passed by”
and five were observed. Modern calculations confirm that all these
eclipses occurred in the period 593–588 B.C.E.
After the seventeenth year there is a gap in the record until the
twenty-fourth year. The entry for that year records two eclipses,
but the text is damaged and most of it is illegible. From then on,
however, year numbers and also most of the text are well
preserved.
These entries contain annual records of a total of nine eclipses
(five observable and four that “passed by”) dating from the twenty-
fifth to the twenty-ninth year (580/79–576/75 B.C.E.). There are
no difficulties in identifying any of these eclipses. They all occurred
in the period 580–575 B.C.E. It would be tiresome and useless to
expose the reader to a detailed examination of all these reports.
The entry for year “25” may suffice as an example:
(Year) 25, (month) Abu, 1 1/2 beru after sunset.
(Month) Shabatu, it occurred in the evening watch.
Abu, the fifth Babylonian month, began in July or August. The
Babylonians divided our 24-hour day into twelve parts called beru.
One beru, therefore, was two hours. The first eclipse is said to have
occurred 1 1/2 beru, that is, three hours, after sunset. As
Nebuchadnezzar’s twenty-fifth year is dated to 580/79 B.C.E., this
eclipse should be found in July or August that year, about three
hours after sunset.
The eclipse is not difficult to identify. According to the canon of
Liu and Fiala it was a total eclipse which began on August 14, 580
B.C.E. at 21:58 and ended at 1:31 on August 15.55
The next eclipse occurred six months later in Shabatu, the
eleventh month, which began in January or February. It is said to
have occurred “in the evening watch” (the first of the three
watches of the night).
This eclipse, too, is easy to find. It took place on February 8,
579 B.C.E. and lasted from 18:08 to 20:22. according to the canon
of Liu and Fiala.56
In the chronology of the Watch Tower Society the twenty-fifth
year of Nebuchadnezzar is dated twenty years earlier, in 600/599
B.C.E. But no lunar eclipses observable in Babylonia occurred in
600 BCE. And although there was an eclipse in the night of
February 19–20, 599 B.C.E., it did not occur “in the evening
watch” as the one reported in our text.57
55 Liu & Fiala, op. cit., p. 69, no. 2238. Sunset occurred at ca. 19:00.
56 Ibid., p. 69, no. 2239.
57 Ibid., p. 69, no. 2188. The eclipse began at 23:30 and ended at 2:25. There were
four eclipses in 600 B.C.E. (Liu & Fiala, nos. 2184–87), but al1 these were
penumbral and thus not observable (see note 50 above).
Details on some two dozens of lunar eclipses, dated to specific years

and months in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, are preserved on
LBAT 1420. Not one of them is found to agree with the Watch
Tower Society’s chronology for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.
Together these lunar eclipses form an irregular but very distinct
pattern of events scattered over the first twenty-nine years of
Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. Only on the assumption that his reign
began in 604 B.C.E. do we find a far-reaching correspondence
between this pattern and the celestial events that gave rise to it. But
if Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is moved back one, two, five, ten, or
twenty years, this correlation between the records and reality
immediately dissolves. LBAT 1420 alone, therefore, suffices to
disprove completely the idea that the eighteenth year of
Nebuchadnezzar should be dated to 607 B.C.E.
The preserved part of LBAT 1421 records two eclipses observed in
Babylonia in the sixth and twelfth month of year “42”, evidently of
the reign of Nebuchadnezzar:
(Year) 42, (month) Ululu, (day) 14. It rose eclipsed [. . .]
and became bright. 6 (USH) to become bright.
At 35° [before sunset] .
(Month) Addaru, (day) 15, 1,30° after sunset [. . .].
25° duration of maximal phase. In 18° it [became bright.]
West(wind) went. 2 cubits below
γ Virginis eclipsed
[. . . . . .]
Provided that these eclipses occurred in the forty-second year of
Nebuchadnezzar—and there was no other Babylonian king ruling
that long in the sixth, seventh, or eighth centuries B.C.E.—they
should be looked for in 563/62 B .C.E. And there is no difficulty
in identifying them: The first, dated in the sixth month, occurred
on September 5, 563 B.C.E., and the second one, dated in the
twelfth month, occurred on March 2–3, 562 B.C.E.
The first eclipse “rose eclipsed”, meaning that it began some
time before sunset, so that when the moon rose (at about 18:30 at
that time of the year), it was already eclipsed. This agrees with
modern calculations, which show that the eclipse began about
17:00 and lasted until about 19:00.58
58 Liu & Fiala, op. cit., p. 70, no. 2281.
The lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1421

The tablet records two lunar eclipses dated to months six and
twelve of year "42," evidently of Nebuchadnezzar. The details
given help to identify them with eclipses that occurred on
September 5, 563 and March 2-3, 562 B.C.E. respectively. —
From A. J. Sachs, Late Babylonian Astronomical and Related Texts
(Providence, Rhode Island: Brown University Press, 1955), p.
223.
The canon of Liu and Fiala confirms that the second eclipse was
total. “1,30° [six hours] after sunset” probably refers to the
beginning of the total phase, which began after midnight, at 0:19,
and lasted until 2:03, i.e. it lasted for 104 minutes.59 This is in good
agreement with our text, which gives the duration of the maximal
phase as 25 USH, that is, 100 minutes.
In the chronology of the Watch Tower Society,
Nebuchadnezzar’s forty-second year is dated to 583/82 B .C.E. But
no eclipses of the type described in our text occurred in that year.
A possible alternative to the first one might have been that of
October 16, 583 B.C.E., had it not began too late—at 19:45
according to Liu and Fiala—to be observed at moonrise (which
occurred at about 17:30). And as for the second eclipse, there were
no eclipses at all that could be observed in Babylonia in 582
B.C.E.60
The lunar eclipse texts presented above provide four additional
independent evidences for the length of the Neo-Babylonian
period.
59 Ibid., p. 70, no. 2282. Sunset began ca. 18:00.
60 In 582 B.C.E. there were four lunar eclipses, but all of them were penumbral. —
Liu & Fiala, op. cit., p.69, nos. 2231–34.
The first text (LBAT 1417) records lunar eclipses from the
accession year and eighteenth year of Shamash-shum-ukin and the
sixteenth year of Kandalanu, turning these years into absolute dates
that effectively block any attempt to add even one year to the Neo-
Babylonian period, far less twenty.
The other three texts (LBAT 1419, 1420, and 1421) records
dozens of lunar eclipses dated to various years within the reign of
Nebuchadnezzar, thus time and again turning his reign into an
absolute chronology. It is like fastening a painting to a wall with
dozens of nails all over it, although but one would suffice.
Similarly, it would have sufficed to establish only one of
Nebuchadnezzar’s regnal years as an absolute date to overthrow
the idea that his eighteenth year began in 607 B.C.E.
Before concluding this section on the lunar eclipse texts, it
seems necessary to forestall an anticipated objection to the
evidence provided by these texts. As the Babylonian astronomers
as early as in the seventh century B.C.E. were able to compute in
advance certain astronomical events such as eclipses, could it be that
they also, in the later Seleucid era, were able to retrocalculate lunar
eclipses and attach them to the chronology established for the
earlier centuries? Could the lunar eclipse texts simply be the results
of such a procedure?61
It is certainly true that the various cycles used by the
Babylonians for predicting eclipses just as well could be used for
retrocalculating eclipses, and there is a particular small group of
tablets showing that Seleucid astronomers did extrapolate such
cycles backwards in time.62
However, the observational texts record a number of
phenomena that were impossible for the Babylonians to predict or
retrocalculate. Of the records in the diaries and planetary texts
61 This idea was held by A. T. Olmstead, who in an article published back in 1937 (in
Classical Philology, Vol. XXXII, pp. 5f.) criticized Kugler’s use of some of the eclipse
texts. As explained later by A. J. Sachs, Olmstead “completely misunderstood the
nature of a group of Babylonian astronomical texts which Kugler used. He was
under the misapprehension that they were computed at a later date and hence of
dubious historical value; in reality, they are compilations of extracts taken directly
from authentic, contemporary Astronomical Diaries and must therefore be handled
with great respect”—A. J. Sachs & D. J. Wiseman, “A Babylonian King List of the
Hellenistic Period,” Iraq, Vol. XVI (1954), p. 207, note 1.
62 These texts do not record any observations at all and are, therefore, classified as
theoretical texts. They are quite different from the diaries and the eclipse texts
discussed above. Five such theoretical texts are known, four of which were
published by Aaboe et al in 1991 (see note 41 above). Two of these are known as
the “Saros Canon” (LBAT 1428) and the “Solar Saros” (LBAT 1430). The fifth tablet
is LBAT 1418, described in note 42 above.—See J. M. Steele in Hunger, ADT V
(2001),p. 390.
Professor N. M. Swerdlow points out that, although the distances

of planets from normal stars could be predicted, “Conjunctions of
planets with the moon and other planets, with their distances,
could neither be calculated by the ephemerides nor predicted by
periodicities.”63 With respect to lunar eclipses, the Babylonians
could predict and retrocalculate their occurrences, “but none of the
Babylonian methods could have allowed them to calculate
circumstances such as the direction of the eclipse shadow and the
visibility of planets during the eclipse.”64
Thus, although the Babylonians were able to calculate certain
astronomical phenomena, the observational texts record a number
of details connected with the observations that they were unable to
predict or retrocalculate. This disproves conclusively the idea
proposed by some that the data may have been calculated
backwards from a later period.
In the previous chapter the length of the Neo-Babylonian era was
firmly established by seven different lines of evidence. All of them
were based upon ancient Babylonian cuneiform texts such as
chronicles, kinglists, royal inscriptions, and tens of thousands of
economic, administrative, and legal documents from the Neo-
Babylonian period.
In this chapter another seven independent evidences have been
presented. All of these are based on ancient Babylonian astronomical
texts, which provide a whole string of absolute dates from the sixth
and seventh centuries B.C.E. These tablets establish—over and
over again—the absolute chronology of the Neo-Babylonian era:
63 N. M. Swerdlow, The Babylonian Theory of the Planets (Princeton University Press,
1998), pp. 23, 173.—The diaries also record a number of other phenomena that
could not be calculated, such as solar halos, river levels, and bad weather—clouds,
rain, fog, mist, hail, lightning, winds, etc. Some data in the diaries were computed
because of bad weather, but most are observations. This is also evident from the
Akkadian name of the diaries engraved at the end of their edges: natsaru sha ginê,
‘regular watching”.
64 Communication J. M. Steele-Jonsson, dated March 27, 2003. As pointed out in
footnote 45 above, there is also a clear difference of accuracy in the timings given
for observed and predicted eclipses.
1) The Astronomical diary VAT 4956

The diary VAT 4956 contains about thirty completely verified
observed astronomical positions from Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty-
seventh regnal year.
Such a combination of astronomical positions is not duplicated
again in thousands of years. Consequently, there is only one year
which fits this situation: 568/67 B.C.E.
If this was Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty-seventh regnal year, as is
twice stated on this tablet, then 587/86 B.C.E. must have been his
eighteenth year, in which he desolated Jerusalem.
(2) The astronomical diary B.M. 32312
B.M. 32312 is the oldest preserved astronomical diary. It records
astronomical observations that enable scholars to date this tablet to
652/51 B.C.E.
A historical remark in the text, repeated in the Babylonian
chronicle B.M. 86379 (the “Akitu Chronicle”) shows this to have
been the sixteenth year of Shamashshumukin. The diary, then, fixes
his twenty-year reign to 667–648 B.C.E., his successor Kandalanu’s
twenty-two-year reign to 647–626, Nabopolassar’s twenty-one-year
reign to 625–605, and Nebuchadnezzar’s forty-three-year reign to
604–562 B.C.E.
This, again, sets Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth year and the
destruction of Jerusalem at 587/86 B.C.E.
(3) The Saturn tablet B.M. 76738+76813
The Saturn tablet records a successive series of positions of the planet
Saturn at its first and last appearances , dated to the first fourteen years
of Kandalanu.
Such a pattern of positions, fixed to specific dates in the
Babylonian lunar calendar, is not repeated again in more than
seventeen centuries.
This text, then, again fixes Kandalanu’s twenty-two-year reign to
647–626 B.C.E., Nabopolassar’s twenty-one-year reign to 625–605,
and Nebuchadnezzar’s reign to 604–562 B.C.E.
(4) The lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1417
LBAT 1417 records four lunar eclipses, each succeeding the other at
intervals of 18 years and nearly 11 days, an eclipse period known as
the Saros cycle.
The eclipses are dated to the third year of Sennacherib’s reign in

Babylonia, to the accession year and the eighteenth year of
Shamashshumukin, and to the sixteenth year of Kandalanu,
respectively.
The four interrelated eclipses may be clearly identified with a
series of eclipses that occurred in 686, 668, 650 and 632 B.C.E.
This tablet, therefore, once again fixes the absolute chronology for
the reigns of Shamashshumukin and Kandalanu, and also—
indirectly for the reigns of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar.
LBAT 1419 contains reports of an uninterrupted series of lunar eclipses
at 18-year intervals directly from the Neo-Babylonian era itself.
Two of the eclipses are dated to the fourteenth and thirty-
second years of Nebuchadnezzar. They may be identified with
eclipses that occurred in 591 and 573 B.C.E., respectively,
confirming again at these points the chronology established for the
reign of this king.
Although the royal name and year number are missing in the
report on the next eclipse in the 18-year series, the very detailed
information makes it easy to identify it with the eclipse that
occurred on October 6–7, 555 B.C.E. This date, therefore,
confirms and adds further strength to the two earlier dates in the
18-year series, 573 and 591 B.C.E.
As these years correspond to Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty-second
and fourteenth years, respectively, his eighteenth year is, of course,
once again fixed to 587/86 B.C.E. by this tablet.
LBAT 1420 gives an annual record of lunar eclipses from the first to the
twenty-ninth years of Nebuchadnezzar, except for a gap between
his eighteenth and twenty-third years. The entries in which regnal
year numbers are preserved—about a dozen—give details on some
two dozens of eclipses, all of which are found exactly in the B.C.E.
years that has been established earlier for the regnal years
mentioned in the text.
As this specific compound of dated lunar eclipses does not tally
with any corresponding series of eclipses that occurred in the
immediate preceding decades, this tablet alone suffices to establish
the absolute chronology of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign.65
65 This tablet “was probably compiled shortly after –575 [576 BCE].”—J. M. Steele in
Hunger, ADT V, p. 391.
( 7) The lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1421

LBAT 1421 records two eclipses dated in the sixth and twelfth
months of year “42”, evidently of Nebuchadnezzar, generally dated
to 563/62 B.CE. And both eclipses are also actually found in these
months of that year. But no eclipses of the type recorded in the
text occurred in 583/82 B.CE.―the date of Nebuchadnezzar’s
forty-second year in the chronology of the Watch Tower Society.
This tablet, therefore, provides an additional proof of the falsity of
that chronology.
(8-11) Another four astronomical tablets
The seven astronomical texts discussed above provide more than
enough evidence against the Watch Tower Society’s 607 B .C.E.
date. And yet this is not all. Another four texts have recently been
published that will be described only briefly here. Translations of
three of these are published in Hunger, ADT V (2001).
The first is LBAT 1415 which, as mentioned on page 174 above,
is part of the same tablet as LBAT 1417. It records lunar eclipses
dated to year 1 of Bel-ibni (702 B.C.E.), year 5, evidently of
Sennacherib (684 B.C.E.), and year 2, evidently of Shamash-shum-
ukin (666 B.C.E).
The second is lunar eclipse text no. 5 in Hunger, ADT V. It is
badly damaged and the royal name is missing, but some historical
remarks in the text shows it is from the reign of Nabopolassar.
One of the eclipses described is dated to year 16 and may be
identified with the eclipse of September 15, 610 B.C.E.
The third is text no. 52 in Hunger, ADT V. This is a planetary
text containing over a dozen legible records of the positions of
Saturn, Mars, and Mercury dated to years 14, 17, and 19 of
Shamash-shum-ukin (654, 651, and 649 B.C.E), years 1, 12, and 16
of Kandalanu (647, 636, and 632 B.C.E.), and years 7, 12, 13, and
14 of Nabopolassar (619, 614, 613, and 612 B.C.E.). Like some of
the previous texts discussed above, these three texts effectively
prevent all attempts at lengthening the chronology of the Neo-
Babylonian period.
The fourth is a planetary tablet, SBTU IV 171, which records
first and last appearances and stationary points of Saturn in years
28, 29, 30, and 31 of an unknown king.66 However, as Professor
Hermann Hunger has demonstrated, the year numbers combined
with the position of Saturn in the constellation of Pabilsag (roughly
Sagittarius) exclude all alternatives in the first millennium B.C.E.
66 Hermann Hunger, “Saturn beobachtungen aus der Zeit Nebukadnezars II.,”
Assyriologica et Semitica (=AOAT, Band 252), (Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2000), pp.
189–192.
except years 28–31 of Nebuchadnezzar, fixing these to 577/76–

574/73 B.C.E. Again, this establishes his 18th year as 587/86
B.C.E.
As has been clearly seen, the Watch Tower Society’s
interpretation of the “Gentile Times” requires that these have a
starting date of 607 B.C.E., their claimed date for the fall of
Jerusalem. Since that event took place in Nebuchadnezzar’s
eighteenth year, that regnal year must also be dated as of 607
B.C.E. This creates a gap of twenty years when compared with all
existing ancient historical records, since these place the start of
Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth year in 587 B.C.E. How can this
twenty-year gap possibly be explained?
In this chapter it has been demonstrated that the ten
astronomical texts presented establish the absolute chronology of
the Neo-Babylonian period at a number of points, especially within
the 43-year-reign of Nebuchadnezzar. Their combined witness
proves beyond all reasonable doubt that his reign cannot be moved
backwards in time even one year, far less twenty.
Together with the evidence presented in Chapter 3, therefore,
we now have seventeen different evidences, each of which in its own way
overthrows the Watch Tower Society’s dating of Nebuchadnezzar’s
eighteenth year to 607 B.C.E., showing it to have begun twenty
years later, that is, in 587 B.C.E.
Indeed, few reigns in ancient history may be dated with such
conclusiveness as that of the Neo-Babylonian king
Nebuchadnezzar.
Suppose for a moment that Berossus’ figures for the reigns of the
Neo-Babylonian kings contain an error of twenty years, as is
required by the chronology of the Watch Tower Society. Then the
compiler(s) of the Royal Canon must have made exactly the same
mistake, evidently independently of Berossus!
It might be argued, though, that both simply repeated an error
contained in the sources they used, namely the Neo-Babylonian
chronicles. Then the scribes of Nabonidus, too, who possibly used
the same sources, would have had to have dropped twenty years
from the reign of the same king (or kings) when they made the
inscriptions of the Hillah stele and the Adad-guppi’ stele.
Is it really likely, however, that those scribes, who wrote right
during the Neo-Babylonian era, did not know the lengths of the reigns
of the kings under whom they lived, especially since those reigns
also functioned as calendar years by which they dated different
events?
If they really made such a strange mistake, how is it possible that
contemporary scribes in Egypt also made the same mistake,
dropping the same period of twenty years when making
inscriptions on death stelae and other documents?
Curiously then, the Babylonian astronomers must also have

regularly made similar “mistakes” when dating the observations
recorded in VAT 4956, LBAT 1420, SBTU IV 171, and also other
tablets from which later astronomers abstracted their Saros cycle
eclipse records — unless of course changes were purposely made
by copyists in the Seleucid era, as the Watch Tower Society posits.
Still more incredible is the idea that scribes and astronomers
could remove twenty years from the Neo-Babylonian era several
years prior to that era—as is shown by the oldest diary, BM. 32312,
the lunar eclipse tablets LBAT 1415+1416+1417 and ADTV, no.
5, the Saturn tablet B.M.76738+76813 , and the planetary tablet
ADT V, no.52—all the five of which inexorably block all attempts
at lengthening the Neo-Babylonian period.
But the most remarkable “coincidence” is this: Tens of thousands
of dated economic, administrative and legal documents have been
excavated from the Neo-Babylonian period, covering every year of
this period—except, as the Watch Tower Society would have it, for
a period of twenty years from which not one tablet has been found.
Again, most curiously, according to this logic, that period
happens to be exactly the same as that lost through a series of
other “mistakes” by scribes in Babylon and Egypt, and by later
copyists and historians.
Either there was an international agreement during several
centuries to erase this twenty-year period from the recorded history
of the world—or it never existed! If such an international “plot”
ever took place it was so successful that of all the tens of thousands
of documents unearthed from the Neo-Babylonian era there is not
one, not even a line in any of them, that indicates that such a twenty-year
period ever existed. We can safely conclude, then, that the Watch
Tower Society’s chronology is unquestionably in error.
But if this is the conclusion of our study, how are we to
harmonize this fact with the Biblical prophecy of the seventy years,
during which the land of Judah and Jerusalem would lay desolate
according to the Watch Tower Society? And how are we to view
the year 1914, the supposed terminal date for the times of the
Gentiles according to the prophetic time scale of the Watch Tower
Society? Do not world events clearly show that Bible prophecies
have been fulfilled since that year? These questions will be dealt
with in the following chapters.
5
THE SEVENTY YEARS FOR

BABYLON
For thus says the LORD, “When

seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I
will visit you and fulfill my good word to you, to
bring you back to this place.” — Jeremiah
29:10, NASB.
T HE DATE 607 B.C.E. as given by Watchtower chronologists

for the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the
Babylonians is determined by adding the seventy years predicted by
Jeremiah to 537 B.C.E., the date when the Jewish remnant are
thought to have returned from exile. It is held that these seventy
years were a period of complete desolation for Judah and Jerusalem:
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. It
clearly specifies that the 70 years would be years of devastation of the
land of Judah.1
If no other understanding of the seventy-year period is allowed
for by Bible prophecy, then a choice has to be made between the
date determined by this application and the one established by at
least seventeen lines of historical evidence.
When a certain interpretation of a Biblical prophecy contradicts
historical fact, this indicates that either the prophecy failed or
1 Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1 (Brooklyn. N.Y.: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society of New York, Inc., 1988), p. 463.
191
the interpretation is wrong. It is true that a certain application

sometimes looks very convincing, so much so that no other
appears feasible. It seems to the reader to be given by the Bible
itself. In such a case it may also seem to be a sound Christian
position to discard the historical evidence and “just stick to what
the Bible says.”
When this position is taken, however, those taking it often
overlook the fact that the fulfillment of a prophecy cannot be
demonstrated aside from history, because only history can show
whether, when, and how it was fulfilled. Actually, prophecy is not
generally understood until after it has been fulfilled historically
through events in time. Serious mistakes have sometimes been
made by sincere Bible students because historical evidence contrary
to a certain application or interpretation has been rejected. One
example will be given below to illustrate this fact.
History and time prophecies—a lesson
Most commentators agree that Daniel’s prophecy of the “seventy
weeks” (Daniel 9:24–27) refers to a period of 490 years. But
various opinions have been held regarding the starting point of this
period. Although it is stated at Daniel 9:25 that “from the going
forth of [the] word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until
Messiah [the] Leader, there will be seven weeks, also sixty-two
weeks” (NW), different views are held regarding when and by
whom this “word” was sent forth.2
If we “just stick to the Bible,” it seems to point to the Persian
king Cyrus. At Isaiah 44:28 Jehovah “saith of Cyrus, He is my
shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure, even saying of
Jerusalem, She shall be built; and of the temple, Thy foundation
shall be laid” (ASV). And further, in chapter 45, verse 13: “I myself
have roused up someone in righteousness [Cyrus], and all his ways
I shall straighten out. He is the one that will build my city, and those of
mine in exile he will let go, not for a price nor for bribery” (NW).
Thus it would seem clear that according to the Bible itself the
“word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” was issued by Cyrus. This
application, however, limits the period from Cyrus’ edict (Ezra 1:1–
4) until Messiah to 483 years (”seven weeks, also sixty-two weeks”).
If this period ended at the baptism of Christ, usually dated
somewhere in the period 26–29 C.E., Cyrus’ first year as king of
2 The principal interpretations are stated by Edward J. Young in The Prophecy of
Daniel (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1949), pp. 192–195.
The Seventy Years for Babylon 193
Babylon would have to be dated in the period 458–455 B.C.E.

instead of 538, the historically acknowledged date.
Contrary to all historical evidence, several Christian
commentators in the past have chosen this application, and it is still
adhered to by some expositors. The idea was popularized in the
last century by Martin Anstey in his work The Romance of Bible
Chronology, London 1913.3 Dr. E. W. Bullinger (1837–1913)
accepted the same position, as may be seen in Appendix 91 (pp.
131–32) of his The Companion Bible.
The reasoning underlying this unhistorical position is clearly
demonstrated by one of its adherents, George Storrs, a Bible
student from the 19th century and editor of the periodical Bible
Examiner. In an article dealing with the seventy weeks, he states:
In examining this point, we have nothing to do with profane
chronology, or the chronology of the historians. The Bible must
settle the question, and if profane chronology does not tally with
it, we have a right to conclude such chronology is false, and not to
be trusted.4
Storrs, like some other expositors before and after him, tried to
cut off nearly 100 years from the Persian period, holding that a
number of the Persian kings mentioned in “Ptolemy’s canon” (the
Royal Canon) and other historical sources never existed! George
Storrs surely was an honest and sincere Christian Bible student, but
his (and others’) rejection of historical sources proved to be a grave
mistake.5
3 Republished in 1973 by Kregel Publications under the title Chronology of the Old
Testament. See p. 20 on the 490 years. Among more recent Bible commentators,
Dr. David L. Cooper, founder of the Biblical Research Society and editor of the
Biblical Research Monthly, held this same thesis in his The Seventy Weeks of Daniel
(Los Angeles: Biblical Research Society, 1941).
4 George Storrs (ed.), Bible Examiner (published in Brooklyn, N.Y.), April, 1863, p.
120.
5 The early Christian writer Tertullian (c. 160–c. 225 C.E.), in his Against the Jews,
reckoned the 490 years from the first year of “Darius the Mede” (Dan. 9:1, 2) to the
destruction of the second temple by the Romans in 70 C.E. This would date the
first year of “Darius the Mede” to 421 B.C.E. instead of 538. Jewish rabbis in the
Talmud (Seder Olam Rabbah) counted the 490 years from the destruction of the
first temple by the Babylonians to the destruction of the second temple by the
Romans, which would place the destruction of the first temple in 421 B.C.E.
instead of 587. (R. T. Beckwith, “Daniel 9 and the Date of Messiah’s Coming in
Essene, Hellenistic, Pharisaic, Zealot and Early Christian Computation,” in Revue
de Qumran, Vol. 10:40, 1981, pp. 531–32, 539–40.) Although modern discoveries
have made such applications wholly untenable, they still find adherents. See, for
example, Rabbi Tovia Singer in Outreach Judaism. Study Guide to the “Let’s Get
Biblical!” Tape Series, Live! (Mousey, NY: Outreach Judaism, 1995), pp. 40–41.
That the Persian kings mentioned in the Royal Canon really did
exist has been proved beyond all doubt by archeological discoveries
in modern times.6 This is an instructive illustration of the necessity
of considering the historical evidence in relation to biblical time
prophecies. Although this special application of the seventy weeks
seemed very biblical and very convincing, it has been refuted by
historical facts and therefore cannot be correct.
The same is also true of the application of the seventy-year
prophecy made by the Watch Tower Society. Although on the
surface it may seem to be supported by some passages in the Bible,
it should be abandoned because it is incompatible with historical
facts established by a multitude of modern discoveries.
Is it possible, then, to find an application of the seventy years
that accords with the historical evidence? It is, and a close
examination of biblical texts dealing with the seventy years will
demonstrate that there is no real conflict between the Bible and
secular history in this matter. As will be shown below, it is the
application made by the Watch Tower Society that conflicts, not only with
secular history, but also with the Bible itself.
There are seven scriptural texts referring to a period of seventy
years which the Watch Tower Society applies to one and the same
period: Jeremiah 25:10–12; 29:10; Daniel 9:1–2; 2 Chronicles
6 During the years 1931–1940, reliefs, tombs, and inscriptions of the kings these
expositors thought never existed were excavated in Persia. (Edwin M. Yamauchi,
Persia and the Bible. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1990, pp. 368–70.) That
the Roya1 Canon puts these kings in the right order is also demonstrated by the
inscription discovered on the walls of a palace of Artaxerxes III (358–337 B.C.E.),
which reads: “Says Artaxerxes the great king, king of kings, king of countries, king
of this earth: I (am) the son of Artaxerxes (II) the king: Artaxerxes (was) the son of
Darius (II) the king; Darius (was) the son of Artaxerxes (I) the king; Artaxerxes
(was) the son of Xerxes the king; Xerxes (was) the son of Darius (I) the king; Darius
was the son of Hystaspes by name.” (E. F. Schmidt, Persepolis I. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1953, p. 224.) The absolute chronology of the later
Persian kings thought not to have existed is today firmly established by numerous
astronomical cuneiform texts extant from this period.
In passing, the Watch Tower Society’s application of the 490 years is basically as
historically unsound as are those of the others mentioned in this section. The
dating of the 20th year of Artaxerxes I to 455 B.C.E. instead of 445 is in direct
conflict with a number of historical sources, including several astronomical texts.
When, therefore, The Watchtower of July 15, 1994, p. 30, claims that, “Accurate
secular history establishes 455 B.C.E. as that year,” this is grossly misleading. (Cf.
the similar misstatement in Awake!, June 22, 1995, p. 8.) No secular historian
today would date the 20th year of Artaxerxes I to 455 B.C.E. (For a refutation of
the idea, se the web essay referred to in footnote 14 on page 82 above.)
36:20–23; Zechariah 1:7–12; 7:1–7, and Isaiah 23:15–18. These will

now be examined one by one in chronological order.7
A. JEREMIAH 25:10–12
The original prediction is that of Jeremiah 25:10–12, which is dated
to “the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, the king of
Judah, that is, the first year of Nebuchadrezzar the king of
Babylon” (verse 1). Jehoiakim ruled for eleven years and was
followed by his son Jehoiachin, who ruled for three months.
Jehoiachin in turn was succeeded by his uncle Zedekiah, in whose
eleventh year Jerusalem was desolated. Jeremiah’s prophecy, then,
was given eighteen years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.
Jeremiah 25:10–12:
”And I will destroy out of them the sound of exultation and the
sound of rejoicing, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of
the bride, the sound of the hand mill and the light of the lamp.
And all this land [Judah) must become a devastated place, an
object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of
Babylon seventy years. And it must occur that when seventy years have
been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against
that nation,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “their error, even against
the land of the Chaldeans, and I will make it desolate wastes to
time indefinite.” (NW) 8
7 The seventy years for Tyre at Isaiah 23:15–18 will not be discussed here, as it
cannot be proved that they refer to the period of Neo-Babylonian supremacy. Some
scholars, in fact, apply it to circa 700–630 B.C.E., when Tyre was controlled by
Assyria. See, for example, Dr. Seth Erlandsson, The Burden of Babylon (=
Coniectanea Biblica. Old Testament Series 4) (Lund, Sweden: CWK Gleerup, 1970),
pp. 97–102.
8 The quotation is from The New World Translation (NW), which is based on the
Hebrew Masoretic text (MT). The Greek Septuagint version (LXX) says: “and they
will serve among the nations,” instead of: “and these nations wil1 have to serve the
king of Babylon.” In Jeremiah 25:1–12 of the LXX, for some unknown reason, all
references to Babylon and king Nebuchadnezzar are omitted. There are many
differences between Jer-MT and Jer-LXX. Jer-LXX is about one-seventh shorter
than Jer-MT, which contains 3,097 more words than Jer-LXX. A number of
modem scholars hold that Jer-LXX was translated from a Hebrew text that was
earlier than the text tradition represented by Jer-MT, arguing that Jer-MT
represents a later revision and expansion of the original text, either by Jeremiah
himself, his scribe Baruch, or some later editor(s). Thus, with respect to
Jeremiah’s prediction that the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar would attack and
destroy the kingdom of Judah, these scholars often find it difficult to believe that
Jeremiah was able to give such concrete and specific forecasts. They find it easier
to accept the more general and vague wordings of the Jer-LXX as representing the
original prediction, with all references to Babylon and king Nebuchadnezzar being
left out. However, some of the scholars who have adopted this view admit that it
creates problems. If the origina1 prophecy of Jeremiah 25:1–12, which was given
in the fourth year of [continued on next page]
Three things are predicted in this prophecy:

(1) The land of Judah would become a “devastated place”.
(2) ”These nations” would “serve the king of Babylon
seventy years”.
(3) When the seventy years had been “fulfilled” God would
“call to account against the king of Babylon and against
that nation . . . their error, even against” the land of the
Chaldeans.
What does this passage really tell us about the “seventy years”?
A-1: Desolation or servitude—which?
Although it is predicted in the passage that the land of Judah would
be a devastated place, it should be noted that this “devastation” is
not equated with, or linked with, the period of the seventy years.
All that is clearly and unambiguously stated in the text is that
“these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years”
The phrase “these nations” is a reference back to verse 9, in which
it is predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would come against “this land
[that is, Judah] and its inhabitants, and also against all these nations
round about.”
The seventy years, then, should be understood to mean years of
servitude for these nations. This conclusion is so obvious that the
Watch Tower Society, at the head of page 826 of its large-print
Jehoiakim and was presented to the king a few months later (Jeremiah 36:1–32), did not
contain any references to Babylon and king Nebuchadnezzar, how then could
Jehoiakim, after having listened to and burned up the roll with the prophecy, ask
Jeremiah: “Why is it that you have written on it, saying: The king of Babylon will come
without fail and will certainly bring this land to ruin and cause man and beast to
cease from it?’ “ (Jeremiah 36:29, NW) As this same question is found both in Jer-MT
and Jer-LXX, the original prophecy must have explicitly mentioned the king of Babylon.
Professor Norman K. Gottwald cites this verse and says: “If the prophet had not
somewhere in his scroll openly identified Babylon as the invader, the sharp retort of the
king is difficult to explain.” (N. K. Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth. New York,
Evanston, and London: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1964, p. 251.) This strongly
indicates that Jer-MT might very well represent the original text here.
It should be kept in mind that LXX is a translation made hundreds of years after the
time of Jeremiah from a Hebrew text that is now lost, and, as the editors of Bagster’s
The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament point out in the “Introduction,” some of
the translators of the LXX were not competent to their task and often inserted their
own interpretations and traditions. Most scholars agree with this observation. The
Watch Tower Society, too, emphasizes that “the Greek translation of this book
[Jeremiah] is defective, but that does not lessen the reliability of the Hebrew text.”—
Insight an the Scriptures, Vol. 2, 1988, p. 32.
For a thorough defense of the superiority of the MT text of Jeremiah, see Dr. Sven
Soderlund, The Greek Text of Jeremiah (= Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament, Supplement Series 47), Sheffield, England: JSOT Press, 1985.
edition of the New World Translation (1971 ed.), automatically

describes the seventy years as “70 years’ servitude due.”9
Yet, in their discussions of this text, Watchtower writers never
point out that Jeremiah spoke of seventy years of servitude, or that
this servitude related to the nations surrounding Judah. They try always
to give the impression that the seventy years referred to Judah, and
Judah only, and they always describe the seventy years as a period
in which Judah suffered complete desolation, “without an inhabitant.”10
This they reckon as having happened from the destruction of
Jerusalem and its temple. But their application is in direct conflict
with the exact wording of Jeremiah’s prediction, and it can be
upheld only by ignoring what the text actually says.
”Servitude” here should not be taken to mean the same thing as
desolation and exile. For the nations surrounding Judah the
9 As the attention was drawn to this heading in the original version of the present
work (sent to the Watchtower headquarters in 1977), and also in the published
edition of 1983, it was no surprise to find that it had been changed in the 1984
large-print edition of NW. The heading (p. 965) now reads: “70 years’ exile due.”
10 The Hebrew word for “desolation,” chorbáh is also used in verse 18, where
Jerusalem and the cities of Judah are stated to become “a desolation (chorbáh), . . .
as it is today.” As Dr. J. A. Thompson remarks, “The phrase as it is today suggests
that at the time of writing some aspects of this judgment, at 1east, were apparent.”
(The Book of Jeremiah, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980, p. 516) The prophecy was
uttered and written down in the fourth year of Jehoiakim . . . that is, the first year
of Nebuchadnezzar.” (Jer. 25:1; 36:1–4) But as that scroll was burned by
Jehoiakim some months later, in the ninth month of his fifth year (36:9–25),
another scroll had to be written. (36:32) At that time Nebuchadnezzar’s armies had
already invaded and ravaged the land of Judah. At the time of writing, therefore,
the phrase “as it is today” was probably added as a result of this desolation.
That the word chorbáh does not necessarily imply a state of total desolation
“without an inhabitant” can be seen from other texts which use the word, for
example Ezekiel 33:24, 27 (”the inhabitants of these devastated places”) and at
Nehemiah 2:17. During Nehemiah’s time Jerusalem was inhabited, yet the city is
said to be “devastated (chorbáh).” The phrase “desolate waste, without an
inhabitant” is found at Jeremiah 9:11 and 34:22. Although it refers to Jerusalem
and the cities of Judah it is nowhere equated with the period of seventy years. As
pointed out by Professor Arthur Jeffrey in the Interpreter’s Bible (Vol. 6, p. 485),
chorbáh is ‘often employed to describe the state of a devastated land after the
armies of an enemy have passed (Leviticus 26:31, 33; Isaiah 49:19; Jeremiah
44:22; Ezekiel 36:34; Malachi 1:4; 1 Maccabees 1:39).” It would not be inaccurate,
therefore, to talk of Judah as chorbáh eighteen years prior to its depopulation, if
the land had been ravaged by the army of an enemy at that time. Inscriptions from
Assyria and Babylonia show that, in order to break the power and morale of a
rebel quickly, the imperial army would try to ruin the economic potential “by
destroying unfortified settlements, cutting down plantations and devastating
fields” — Israel Eph’al, “On Warfare and Military Control in the Ancient Near
Eastern Empires,” in H. Tadmor & M. Weinfield (eds.), History, Historiography and
1nterpretatian (Jerusalem: The Magnes Press, 1984), p. 97.
servitude first of all meant vassalage.11 Although Judah, too, was

subdued by Babylon, it time and again revolted and attempted to
throw off the Babylonian yoke, which brought wave after wave of
devastating military ravages and deportations until the country was
at last desolated and depopulated after the destruction of Jerusalem
in 587 B.C.E. That such a fate was not the same thing as servitude,
but would come as a punishment upon any nation that refused to
serve the king of Babylon, had been clearly predicted by Jeremiah, at
chapter 27, verses 7, 8, and 11:
”And all the nations must serve even him [Nebuchadnezzar]
and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land
comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as a
servant.
”And it must occur that the nation and the kingdom that will not serve
him, even Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon; and the one that
will not put its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, with the
sword and with the famine and with the pestilence I shall turn my attention
upon that nation,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “until I have finished
them off by his hand.”
”And as for the nation that will bring its neck under the yoke of the king
of Babylon and actually serve him, I will also let it rest upon its ground,” is
the utterance of Jehovah, “and it will certainly cultivate it and dwell in
it.” (NW)
From these verses it is very clear what it meant to a nation to
serve the king of Babylon. It meant to accept the yoke of Babylon as
a vassal and by that be spared from desolation and deportation.
The servitude, therefore, was the very opposite of revolt, desolation,
deportation, and exile.12 That is why Jeremiah warned the people
11 As brought out by any Hebrew dictionary , the Hebrew verb ‘abad, “work, serve,”
could also mean to serve as a subject or vassal, e.g. by paying tribute. The
corresponding noun ‘ebed, “slave, servant,” is often used of vassal states or
tributary nations. In fact, the technical term for “vassal” in Hebrew was precisely
‘ebed. —See Dr. Jonas C. Greenfield, “Some aspects of Treaty Terminology in the
Bible,” Fourth World Congress of Jewish Studies: Papers, Vol. I, 1967, pp. 117–119;
also Dr. Ziony Zevit, “The Use of ‘ebed as a Diplomatic Term in Jeremiah,” Journal
of Biblical Literature, Vol. 88, 1969, pp. 74–77.
12 The difference is noted by Dr. John Hill in his analysis of Jeremiah 25:10, 11: “In
vv. 10–11 there is a twofold elaboration of the punishment announced in v. 9. The
first part of the elaboration is in vv. 10–11a, which refers to the subjugation and
devastation of Judah. The second part is in v. 11b which refers to the subjugation
of Judah’s neighbours. Vv. 10–11 then distinguishes the fate of Judah from that of
its neighbours, which is that of subjugation. Judah’s fate is to suffer the
devastation of its land.”—J. Hill, Friend or Foe? The Figure of Babylon in the Book of
Jeremiah MT (Brill:Leiden etc., 1999, p. 110, note 42.
against attempting to throw off the Babylonian yoke and

admonished them: “Serve the king of Babylon and keep on living.
Why should this city become a devastated place?” —Jeremiah
27:17, NW.
Thus, the nations that accepted the Babylonian yoke would serve
the king of Babylon seventy years. But the nations that refused to
serve the Babylonian king would become devastated. This fate at last
befell Judah after about eighteen years of servitude, interrupted by
repeated rebellions. The seventy years of servitude foretold by
Jeremiah, therefore, did not apply to Judah as a nation, but only to
the nations who submitted to the king of Babylon. As Judah
refused to submit, it had to get the punishment for this―desolation
and exile―exactly as had been predicted at Jeremiah 25:11. Of
course, the exiled Jews also had to perform various kinds of
“service” in Babylonia. This was not the service of a vassal state,
however, but the service of captured and deported slaves!13
A-2: When would the seventy years end?
The prediction that “these nations will have to serve the king of
Babylon seventy years” (Jeremiah 25:11) implies that there would
be a change in Babylon’s position of supremacy at the end of the
seventy-year period. This change is described in verse 12 of
Jeremiah 25:
”And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall
call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,”
is the utterance of Jehovah, “their error, even against the land of
the Chaldeans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time
indefinite.” (NW)
All historians, and also the Watch Tower Society, agree that the
Neo-Babylonian empire ended in 539 B.C.E. On October 12
(Julian calendar) that year the city of Babylon was captured by the
13 Other nations, too, who refused to accept the Babylonian yoke, were desolated, and
captives were brought to Babylon. For example, one of the Philistine city-states,
probably Ashkelon (the name is only partly legible), was “plundered and sacked”
and “turned . . . into a ruin heap,” according to the Babylonian Chronicle (B. M.
21946). This destruction, predicted by Jeremiah at Jeremiah 47:5–7, took place in
the month Kislimu (9th month) of the first year of Nebuchadnezzar according to
the chronicle, that is, in November, or December, 604 B.C.E. (A. K. Grayson,
Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Locust Valley, N.Y.: J.J. Augustin Publisher,
1975, p. 100.) That Ashkelon was mined is now confirmed by excavations. In 1992,
Lawrence E. Stager uncovered at Ashkelon the archaeological evidence for this
Babylonian destruction.— See L. E. Stager, “The Fury of Babylon: Ashkelon and
the Archaeology of Destruction,” Biblical Archaeology Review, Vol. 22:1 (1996), pp.
56–69, 76–77.
armies of the Persian king Cyrus. Belshazzar, the son of king

Nabonidus, was killed, according to the book of Daniel, chapter 5,
verse 30. Nabonidus himself was taken prisoner and exiled to
Carmania in the east, where he spent the rest of his life as governor
of that province, according to Berossus.14
The year in which Jehovah would “call to account against the
king of Babylon and against that nation . . . their error, even against
the land of the Chaldeans” therefore was evidently 539 B.C.E. At
that time the seventy years had “been fulfilled,” according to
Jeremiah’s prophecy. The Persian conquest of Babylonia in 539
B.C.E. definitely put an end to the Babylonian supremacy over the
nations who had served as its vassals up to that year. After that year
it was impossible to “serve the king of Babylon” in any sense,
either as vassals or as exiled captives in Babylonia. From that year
onward these people had to serve, not the king of Babylon, but the
king of Persia.15 The seventy years of servitude, therefore, definitely
ended in 539 B.C.E., not later.
Note, then, that Jeremiah’s prophecy is clearly incompatible with
the view that the seventy years referred to the period of the desolation
of Judah and Jerusalem. Why? Because this desolation did not end in
539 B.C.E. but later, when a remnant of the Jewish exiles had
returned to Judah as a result of Cyrus’ edict. (Ezra 1:13:1)
According to the Watch Tower Society this took place two years after
the fall of Babylon, or in 537 B.C.E. In that year, they hold, the
seventy years ended. But how did Jehovah “call to account against the
king of Babylon and against that nation . . . their error” in 537 B.C.E.,
two years after his dethronement and the fall of Babylon? A
solution to this problem has never been presented in the
publications of the Watch Tower Society.
A-3: The historical setting of the seventy-year prophecy
If the seventy years ended in 539 B.C.E., when did they begin?
Clearly, they cannot be counted from the year of the desolation of
Jerusalem. The period from the established date of 587 B.C.E. to
539 was only forty-eight years. However, as the seventy years have
been shown above to refer to the period of subservience to Babylon,
14 See the comments of Paul-Alain Beaulieu in The Reign of Nabonidus, King of
Babylon, 556–539 B.C. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989),
pp. 230, 231
15 In accordance with this, 2 Chron. 36:20 states that the exiled Jews “came to be
servants to him [Nebuchadnezzar] and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to
reign” (NW), that is, until the autumn of 539 B.C.E., but no longer.
not to Jerusalem’s desolation , the right question to be asked is:

When did the period of servitude begin?
First of all, it is important to establish the historical background
against which this prophecy was given. As pointed out earlier, it
was given eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem and its
temple, “in the fourth year of Jehoiakim” (Jeremiah 25:1), that is, in
605 B.C.E.
That year saw a very important event take place, with
momentous consequences to Judah and its neighbours. It was the
year of the well known battle of Carchemish (on the Euphrates river in
northern Syria), when Nebuchadnezzar decisively defeated the
Egyptian Pharaoh Necho and his military force. This important
victory opened the way for the Babylonian king to the areas in the
west, Syria and Palestine, which for a few years previous (609–605
B.C.E.) had been controlled by Egypt. This famous battle is also
referred to, and dated, at Jeremiah 46:2:
For Egypt, concerning the military force of Pharaoh Necho the
king of Egypt, who happened to be by the river Euphrates at
Carchemish, whom Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon defeated
in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, the king of Judah.
(NW)
The prophecy of the seventy years was thus given at a crucial
point of time. Could it be that Judah and her neighbours were
made vassals to and began to serve the king of Babylon in that
year? Research does find evidence to show that Judah and a
number of the surrounding nations began to be made subservient to the
king of Babylon very soon after the battle of Carchemish, in the fourth year of
Jehoiakim and thereafter.
In 1956 Professor D. J. Wiseman published a translation of the
Babylonian Chronicle B.M. 21946, covering the period from the
last (21st) year of Nabopolassar up to and including the tenth year
of his son and successor, Nebuchadnezzar.16 This tablet
commences with a concise description of the battle at Carchemish
and the subsequent events. The opening portion is quoted here in
full because of its importance for our examination:17
16 D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of the Chaldean Kings (London: The Trustees of the
British Museum, 1961), pp. 66–75.
17 The quotations in the following are taken from A. K. Grayson’s more recent
translation of the chronicles in his Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Locust
Valley, N.Y.: J. J. Augustin Publisher, 1975), pp. 99, 100.
Nebuchadnezzar II (604–562 B.C.E.)

The only portrait of Nebuchadnezzar II extant is found on this
cameo, now in the Berlin Museum. It was probably engraved by a
Greek in the service of the great king. The surrounding cuneiform
inscription reads: "To Marduk his lord, Nebuchadnezzar, King of
Babylon, for his life this made." The picture of the cameo, which
has the inventory number VA 1628, is used courtesy of the
Vorderasiatisches Museum in Berlin.
[The twenty-first year]: The king of Akkad stayed home (while)

Nebuchadnezzar (II), his eldest son (and) the crown prince,
mustered [the army of Akkad]. He took his army’s lead and
marched to Carchemish which is on the bank of the Euphrates. He
crossed the river [to encounter the army of Egypt] which was encamped
at Carchemish. [...] They did battle together. The army of Egypt
retreated before him. He inflicted a [defeat] upon them (and)
finished them off completely. In the district of Hamath the army
of Akkad overtook the remainder of the army of [Egypt which]
managed to escape [from] the defeat and which was not overcome.
They (the army of Akkad) inflicted a defeat upon them (so that) a
single (Egyptian) man [did not return] home. At that time
Nebuchadnezzar (II) conquered all of Ha[ma]th.18
For twenty-one years Nabopolassar ruled Babylon. On the eighth
day of the month Ab he died. In the month Elul Nebuchadnezzar
(II) returned to Babylon and on the first day of the month Elul he
ascended the royal throne in Babylon.19
In (his) accession-year Nebuchadnezzar (II) returned to Hattu.
Until the month Shebat he marched about victoriously in Hattu. In
the month Shebat he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.
...
The first year of Nebuchadnezzar (II): In the month Sivan he
mustered his army and marched to Hattu. Until the month Kislev
he marched about victoriously in Hattu. All the kings of Hattu came
into his presence and he received their vast tribute.
The chronicle makes evident the far-reaching consequences of
Egypt’s defeat at Carchemish. Immediately after the battle in the
summer of 605 B.C.E., Nebuchadnezzar began to take over the
western areas in vassalage to Egypt, using Riblah in Hamath in
Syria as his military base.
The terrifying annihilation of the whole Egyptian army at
Carchemish and in Hamath paved the way for a rapid occupation
of the whole region by the Babylonians, and they do not seem to
have met much resistance. During this victorious campaign
Nebuchadnezzar learned that his father Nabopolassar had died, so
he had to return to Babylon to secure the throne, evidently leaving
his army in Hattu to continue the operations there.
As Wiseman points out, Hattu was a geographical term that at
that time denoted approximately Syria-Lebanon. As argued by Dr.
18 Hamath was a district at the river Orontes in Syria where Pharaoh Nechoh, at a
place called Riblah, had established the Egyptian headquarters. After the defeat of
the Egyptian army, Nebuchadnezzar chose the same site as the base for his
operations in the west.—See 2 Kings 23:31–35; 25:6, 20–21; Jeremiah 39:5–7;
52:9–27.
19 Nabopolassar’s death on 8 Abu corresponds to August 16, 605 B.C.E. (Julian
calendar). Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne on Ululu 1 (September 7, 605).
The battle of Carchemish in May or June, 605, therefore, took place in the same
year as his accession-year. His first regnal year began next spring, on Nisanu 1,
604 B.C.E. The reason why the Bible dates the battle to the first year of
Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Jer. 46:2 and 25:1) seems to be that the Jewish kings applied
the nonaccession-year system, in which the accession-year was counted as the
first year. See the Appendix for chapter two, “Methods of reckoning regnal years.”
J. D. Hawkins in Reallexikon der Assyriologie, it also, ‘in an extended

sense,’ included Palestine and Phoenicia.20
After his enthronement in Babylon (on September 7, 605),
Nebuchadnezzar quickly went back to the Hattu territory, where he
“marched about victoriously” for some months until “the month
Shebat” (the eleventh month, corresponding to February, 604
B.C.E.). Evidently most of the countries in the west had now been
brought under Babylonian control, and he could, therefore, take a
heavy tribute to Babylon, which also, as will be shown immediately,
included prisoners from Judah and adjacent countries.
Early in his first regnal year (in June, 604 B.C.E.)
Nebuchadnezzar led another campaign to Hattu to maintain his
rule over the conquered territories. Similar campaigns are also
recorded for the following years. Clearly, the nations in the Hattu
area became vassals to Babylon very soon after the battle at
Carchemish. The seventy years of servitude had evidently begun to
run their course.
A-4: The Babylonian occupation of Hattu and Daniel 1:1–6
Not only did Nebuchadnezzar bring a number of the nations
surrounding Judah under his dominion in 605 B.C.E., but he also
laid siege to Jerusalem and brought some Jewish captives to
Babylon in that very year. This is clear from Daniel 1:1–6.
In recording the event, Daniel states that it occurred “in the third
year of the kingship of Jehoiakim” Yet the siege and deportation
apparently followed the battle at Carchemish which Jeremiah places
“in the fourth year of Jehoiakim.” (Jeremiah 46:2) This seeming
contradiction has caused much debate, and different solutions have
been proposed in order to resolve the difficulty. But if, as is
pointed out in note 19, the different methods of reckoning regnal
years in Judah and Babylon are taken into consideration, the whole
matter is easily cleared up. Daniel, as a Jewish exile living in
Babylon and as an official at the Babylonian court, quite naturally
conformed to the Babylonian regnal year system and adopted the
accession-year method and even did so when referring to Jewish
20 D. J. Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1985, p. 18; Reallexikon der Assyriologie, Vol. 4 [ed. D. O. Edzard], 1972–1975, pp.
154–56. Reasonably, Jehoiakim must have been one of “all the kings of Hattu”
paying tribute to Nebuchadnezzar at this time. Of this, J. P. Hyatt says: “It was
probably in 605, or in the following year, that Jehoiakim submitted to the
Babylonian king, as recorded in II Kings 24:1; . . . and II Kings 24:7 says that ‘the
king of Babylon took all that belonged to the king of Egypt from the Brook of Egypt
to the River Euphrates.’ “—J. P. Hyatt, “New Light on Nebuchadnezzar and Judean
History,” in Journal of Biblical Literature, 75 (1956), p. 280.
Judah and the surrounding nations

kings. This method of counting would make Jehoiakim’s fourth
year his third, in accordance with the accession-year system.
Daniel 1:2 states that at this time “Nebuchadnezzar king of
Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And the Lord gave
Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand” (NASB). This does not
necessarily imply that the city was taken and Jehoiakim brought
captive to Babylon. To be given into someone’s hand may simply
mean to be forced into submission. (Compare Judges 3:10;
Jeremiah 27:6, 7, and similar texts.) The indication is that Jehoiakim
capitulated and became a tributary to the king of Babylon. He
evidently paid a tribute to Nebuchadnezzar at this time in the form
of “some of the vessels of the house of God”—Daniel 1:2.
As this clearly points to a beginning of the servitude early in the
reign of Jehoiakim, the Watch Tower Society has advanced several
arguments against a natural and direct reading of this text. Thus it
holds that the “third year” should be understood as the third year of
Jehoiakim’s vassalage to Nebuchadnezzar, which, it is argued, was his
eleventh and last regnal year (which partly overlapped the seventh year of
Nebuchadnezzar, or his eighth year in the nonaccession-year
system).
But this explanation directly contradicts Daniel 2:1, which shows
Daniel at the court of Nebuchadnezzar and interpreting his dream
of the image already in the “second year” of this king. If Daniel
was brought to Babylon in Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh year, how
could he be there interpreting his dreams in his second year? So, to
save their interpretation, this text, too, had to be changed and made
to say something else besides what it clearly says. Two different
explanations have been offered through the years, the last one
being that in this verse Daniel reckons Nebuchadnezzar’s years
from the destruction of Jerusalem in his eighteenth year.
Nebuchadnezzar’s second year, then, should be understood as his
nineteenth year (the twentieth year in the nonaccession-year system)!
Thus, once again we find that the application of the seventy
years held to by the Watch Tower Society contradicts the Bible,
this time Daniel 1:1–2 and 2:1. In order to uphold its theory, it is
forced to reject the easiest and most direct reading of these texts?21
That some Jewish captives had already been brought to Babylon
in the year of Nebuchadnezzar’s accession is also confirmed by
Berossus in his Babylonian history written in the third century
B.C.E. His account of the events of this year reads as follows:
Nabopalassaros, his father, heard that the satrap who had been
posted to Egypt, Coele Syria, and Phoenicia, had become a rebel.
No longer himself equal to the task, he entrusted a portion of his
army to his son Nabouchodonosoros, who was still in the prime of
life, and sent him against the rebel. Nabouchodonosoros drew up
his force in battle order and engaged the rebel. He defeated him
and subjected the country to the rule of the Babylonians again. At
this very time Nabopalassaros , his father fell ill and died in the city
of the Babylonians after having been king for twenty-one years.
Nabouchodonosoros learned of his father’s death shortly
thereafter. After he arranged affairs in Egypt and the remaining
territory, he ordered some of his friends to bring the Jewish,
Phoenician, Syrian, and Egyptian prisoners together with the bulk of the army
and the rest of the booty to Babylonia. He himself set out with a few
companions and reached Babylon by crossing the desert.22
21 For additional comments on Daniel 1:1, 2 and 2:1, see the Appendix for Chapter 5.
22 Stanley Mayer Burstein, The Babyloniaca of Berossus (Malibu: Undena
Publications, 1978), pp. 26, 27.
Thus Berossus gives support to Daniel’s statement that Jewish

captives were brought to Babylon in the year of Nebuchadnezzar’s
accession. This confirmation of Daniel 1:1 is important because, as
was shown in Chapter three, Berossus derived his information
from the Babylonian chronicles, or sources close to those
documents, originally written during the Neo-Babylonian era
itself.23
A-5: The servitude as reflected in Jeremiah, chapters 27,
28, and 35
That the servitude of “these nations” (Jer. 25:11) began long
before the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E. is also clear from
Jeremiah, chapters 27, 28, and 35.
In chapter 27, as discussed earlier, Jeremiah urges Zedekiah not
to revolt, but to bring his neck under the yoke of the king of
Babylon and serve him. The context shows this occurred in the
fourth year of Zedekiah, that is, in 595/94 B.C.E.24 The
background of this “word . . . from Jehovah” was, according to
verse 2, that messengers had come to Zedekiah from Edom, Moab,
Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon, apparently in order to enlist him in an
extensive revolt against the Babylonian yoke. Obviously all these
nations were vassals to Babylon at this time, as was Judah.
The revolt plans aroused unfounded hopes and enthusiasm
among the people, and the prophet Hananiah even foretold that
the Babylonian yoke would be broken within two years:
23 Berossus’ account of these events has been the subject of criticism, but was
accepted by historians such as Hugo Winkler, Edgar Goodspeed, James H.
Breasted and Friedrich Delitzsch. See “The Third Year of Jehoiakim,” by Albertus
Pieters, in From the Pyramids to Paul, edited by Lewis Gaston Leary (New York:
Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1935), p. 191. The discovery of the Babylonian
Chronicle B.M. 21946 has given additional support to Berossus’ description of
Nebuchadnezzar’s conquests after the battle at Carchemish. D. J. Wiseman, the
first translator of this chronicle, says that Berossus’ account of these events “rings
true” (The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. III:2, J. Boardman et al [eds.],
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 230–231.) On Berossus’
description of Pharaoh Necho as a rebellious satrap Dr. Menahem Stem says:
“From the point of view of those who regarded the neo-Babylonian empire as a
continuation of the Assyrian, the conquest of Coele-Syria and Phoenicia by the
Egyptian ruler might be interpreted as the rape of Babylonian territory.”—M. Stem,
Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, Vol. 1 (Jerusalem 1974), p.59.
24 In verse 1 of chapter 27 this message is dated to the beginning of the reign of
“Jehoiakim,” but a comparison with verses 3 and 12 shows that the original
reading most probably was “Zedekiah.” This is also confirmed by the next chapter,
Jeremiah 28, dated in verse 1 to “the same year,” which is explained to be “in the
beginning of the reign of Zedekiah king of Judah, in the fourth year” (NASB), that
is, in 595/94 B.C.E.
This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said, “I

will break the yoke of the king of Babylon. Within two full years
more I am bringing back to this place all the utensils of the house
of Jehovah that Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon took from
this place that he might bring them to Babylon. “—Jeremiah 28:2,
3, NW.25
This prophecy, of course, presupposed that the Babylonian yoke
had already been put on the neck of the nations. That is why
Hananiah could take the yoke bar from the neck of Jeremiah, break
it and say: “This is what Jehovah has said, ‘Just like this I shall
break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon within two
full years more from off the neck of all the nations.’ “ (Jeremiah 28: 10,
11) So, in the fourth year of Zedekiah the Babylonian yoke lay on
“the neck of all the nations.” The servitude was a hard felt reality
for “all these nations” at that time, and had evidently been so for a
number of years.
The Babylonian invasion of Judah soon after the battle at
Carchemish is also reflected in Jeremiah chapter 35, dated in “the
days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah.” (verse 1) The Rechabites,
who normally dwelt in tents in obedience to the command of their
forefather, Jehonadab the son of Rechab, lived in Jerusalem at that
time. Why? They explained to Jeremiah:
But it came about when Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon came up
against the land that we began to say, “Come, and let us enter into
Jerusalem because of the military force of the Chaldeans and
because of the military force of the Syrians, and let us dwell in
Jerusalem.”— Jeremiah 35:11, NW.
Thus, some time earlier in the reign of Jehoiakim, the
Babylonian army had invaded the territory of Judah, forcing the
Rechabites to seek refuge inside the walls of Jerusalem. Either this
invasion was the one described in Daniel 1:1–2, or the one that
took place in the following year, when, according to the Babylonian
chronicle, “all the kings of Hattu” presented their tribute to the
Babylonian king as a sign of their vassalage.
That Judah became a vassal of Babylon early in the reign of
Jehoiakim is clearly stated in 2 Kings 24:1, which says that in the
25 The reason for the widespread revolt plans in this year could have been the
rebellion in Nebuchadnezzar’s own army in Babylonia, in the tenth year of his
reign (= 595/94 B.C.E.) according to the Babylonian Chronicle B.M. 21946.—A. K.
Grayson, ABC (see note 17 above), p. 102. Nebuchadnezzar’s tenth year partly
overlapped Zedekiah’s fourth year. See the remarks on this revolt in the last
section of the Appendix: “Chronological tables covering the seventy years.”
days of Jehoiakim “Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came up,

and so Jehoiakim became his servant for three years. However, he
turned back and rebelled against him.” (NW) This rebellion caused
the king of Babylon “to send against him marauder bands of
Chaldeans and marauder bands of Syrians and marauder bands of
Moabites and marauder bands of the sons of Ammon [these
nations were now obviously under the control of the king of
Babylon], and he kept sending them against Judah to destroy it.”
(Verse 2, NW)
It has been demonstrated above that Jeremiah’s prediction of
the seventy years in Jeremiah 25:10–12 did not refer to a period of
complete desolation of Jerusalem, but a period of servitude, not for
Judah, but for “these nations,” that is, the nations surrounding
Judah.
It was further shown that the Bible and secular historical
sources, such as the Babylonian chronicle and Berossus, all agree
that the servitude for these nations began long before the
destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E. The Babylonian chronicle
B.M. 21946 shows that Nebuchadnezzar started to conquer these
areas immediately after the battle at Carchemish in 605 B.C.E.
Daniel 1:1–6 relates that Nebuchadnezzar, in the same year, laid
siege to Jerusalem and brought Jewish captives to Babylon.
Berossus confirms Daniel 1:1–6 with respect to this first
deportation (which probably was rather small). Jeremiah, chapters
27, 28, and 35 all show that Judah and the surrounding nations
were vassals to Babylon as early as in the reign of Jehoiakim, and
this is also apparent from 2 Kings 24:1–2. For Judah and a number
of the surrounding nations, the servitude evidently began in the
same year Jeremiah uttered his prophecy, that is in 605 B.C.E.
The application of the seventy years made by the Watch Tower
Society, on the other hand, is in direct conflict with the prophecy
of Jeremiah. It applies the seventy years to Judah only, ignoring the
fact that Jeremiah’s prophecy refers to a period of servitude for a
number of nations, not a state of complete desolation “without an
inhabitant” of Jerusalem and Judah.
The next text which deals with the seventy years will be seen to
be in direct conflict with the Society’s application as well.
B: JEREMIAH 29:10
Jeremiah’s second reference to the seventy years is given in a letter
that Jeremiah sent from Jerusalem to the Jews who had been
deported to Babylon, not only those who had been brought there
in the first deportation in 605 B.C.E., but also those “whom
Nebuchadnezzar had carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon,
after Jeconiah the king [= Jehoiachin; compare 2 Kings 24:10–15] and
the lady and the court officials, the princes of Judah and Jerusalem, and the
craftsmen and the builders of bulwarks had gone forth from Jerusalem.” —
Jeremiah 29:1–2, NW.
This would date the prophecy to the reign of Zedekiah (verse 3)
and probably about the same time as the preceding chapter, that is,
to the fourth year of Zedekiah, 595/94 B.C.E.—Jeremiah 28:1.
The background situation seems to have been the same in both
chapters: The widespread revolt plans which stirred up hopes of
liberation from the Babylonian yoke in Judah and the surrounding
nations also reached the exiles at Babylon. As in Judah, false
prophets arose among the Jews at Babylon and promised release in
a short time. (Jeremiah 29:8–9) This was the reason why at this
time, several years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, Jeremiah sent a
letter to these exiles at Babylon, calling their attention to the
prophecy of the seventy years:
Jeremiah 29:8–10:
For this is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said:
“Let not YOUR prophets who are in among YOU and YOUR
practicers of divination deceive YOU, and do not YOU listen to
their dreams that they are dreaming. For it is in falsehood that they
are prophesying to YOU in my name. I have not sent them,” is the
utterance of Jehovah. For this is what Jehovah has said, “In accord
with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention
to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in
bringing YOU back to this place.” (NW)
This utterance clearly presupposed that the seventy years were in
progress at the time. If the period had not commenced, why did
Jeremiah connect it with the exiles’ staying on at Babylon? If the
seventy-year period was not already in progress, what relevance is
there in Jeremiah’s reference to it? Jeremiah did not urge the exiles
to wait until the seventy years would begin, but to wait until the
period had been completed. As Jeremiah sent his message to the exiles
some six or seven years before the destruction of Jerusalem, it is
obvious that he reckoned the beginning of the seventy years from a
point many years prior to that event.
The context of Jeremiah 29:10, therefore, further supports the

earlier conclusion that the seventy years should be reckoned from a
point several years before the destruction of Jerusalem.
However, apart from the context, the text itself makes it clear
that the seventy years can be applied neither to the period of the
desolation of Jerusalem nor to the period of the Jewish exile.
B-1: Seventy years—”at” Babylon or ‘for” Babylon?
The New World Translation’s rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 seems to
depict the seventy years as a period of captivity: “seventy years at
Babylon.” Although it is true that the Hebrew preposition le, here
translated “at”, in certain expressions may have a local sense (”at,
in”), its general meaning is “for, to, in regard to, with reference to,”
and is so rendered at Jeremiah 29:10 by most modern
translations.26
The following examples are taken from some of the better
known translations in English:
Revised Version (1885): “After seventy years be accomplished for
Babylon.”
26 The view that the basic meaning of le (l) is local and directional is rejected by
Professor Ernst Jenni, who is probably the leading authority on the Hebrew
prepositions today.—Ernst Jenni, Die Hebräischen Präpositionen, Band 3: Die
Präposition Lamed (Stuttgart, etc.: Verlag Kohlhammer, 2000), pp. 134, 135. This
work devotes 350 pages to the examination of the preposition le alone.
(Interestingly, the Danish NWT of 1985 has “for Babylon”, and the new revised
Swedish NWT of 2003, too, has now changed its earlier “in” to “for Babylon”!)
Rotherham’s The Emphasized Bible (3rd ed., 1897): “That as soon as

there are fulfilled to Babylon seventy years.”
American Standard Version (1901): “After seventy years are
accomplished for Babylon.”
New American Standard Version (1973): “When seventy years have
been completed for Babylon.”
New International Version (1978): “When seventy years are
completed for Babylon.”
The New Jerusalem Bible (1985): “When the seventy years granted to
Babylon are over.”
Other translations give expression to the same thought in other
words:
Smith-Goodspeed’s The Complete Bible (1931): “As soon as
Babylon has finished seventy years.”
Byington’s The Bible In Living English (1972): “As soon as Babylon
has had a full seventy years.”
The Anchor Bible (John Bright: Jeremiah, 2nd ed., 1986): “Only when
Babylon’s seventy years have been completed.”
Tanakh. The Holy Scriptures (The Jewish Publication Society, 1988):
“When Babylon’s seventy years are over.”
The Revised English Bible (1989): “When a full seventy years have
passed over Babylon
All these translations express the same thought, namely, that the
seventy years refer to the Babylonian supremacy, not to the Jewish
captivity nor to the desolation following the destruction of
Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E.
That this is what the Hebrew text meant to say is supported by
the fact that it is in agreement with Jeremiah’s prophecy at
Jeremiah 25:11 on the seventy years’ servitude. As long as the
Babylonian king held supremacy, other nations had to serve him.
The New World Translation, however, is not the only translation
that renders the preposition le by “at” in Jeremiah 29:10. Some
other translations, too, use the preposition “at” in this text. The
best known is the King James Version (KJV), originally published in
1611, which for more than three centuries remained the Authorized
Version (AV) for Anglican and many other Protestant churches. In
the course of time this translation has acquired an authority and
sanctity of its own. This is also reflected in modern revisions of
KJV. A recent example is the New King James Version (NKJV),

published in 1982. Although the language has been modernized,
the editors have endeavoured to retain the text of the old venerable
KJV as far as possible. The progress made in the last two centuries,
especially by the discoveries of numerous ancient manuscripts of
the Bible, is at best reflected in the footnotes, not in the running
text. That this very conservative version retains the preposition
“at” in Jeremiah 29:10, therefore, is not to be wondered at.
It is interesting to note, however, that other, less tradition-
bound revisions of KJV, such as RV, ASV, and RSV, have replaced
“at” by “for” in Jeremiah 29:10, as shown by the quotations given
above. And the latest revision of this kind, the New Revised Standard
Version (1990), has replaced KJV’s “seventy years . . . at Babylon”
by “Babylon’s seventy years”.27
Why do these and most other modern translations reject the
rendering “at Babylon” in Jeremiah 29:10 in favour of “for
Babylon” or some paraphrase conveying the same idea?
B-2: What Hebrew scholars say
Modern Hebrew scholars generally agree that the local or spatial
sense of le is highly improbable, if not impossible, at Jer. 29:10. Dr.
Tor Magnus Amble at the University of Oslo, Norway, for
example, says:
”The preposition le means ‘to’, ‘for’ (`direction towards’ or
‘reference to’). Aside from in a few fixed expressions, it hardly has a
locative sense, and in any case not here. Very often it introduces an
indirect object (‘respecting to’, corresponding to a Greek dative).
This is also how the translators of LXX have understood it, as you
quite correctly point out. Thus the translation has to be: seventy
years ‘for Babel’.” — Private letter dated November 23, 1990.
(Emphasis added.)
The Swedish Hebraist Dr. Seth Erlandsson is even more emphatic:
”The spatial sense is impossible at Jer. 29:10. Nor has LXX ‘at
Babylon’, but dative; consequently ‘for Babylon’ .” — Private letter
dated December 23, 1990. (Emphasis added.)
27 A few other modem translations that still have “at Babylon” in Jeremiah 29:10 may
have been influenced, directly or indirectly, by KJV. One of my friends , a Danish
1inguist, has also drawn my attention to the fact that the Latin Vulgate (4th
century C.E.) has “in Babylon” in our text, which, like KJV’s “at Babylon”, is an
interpretation rather than a translation. It is quite possible that this ancient and
highly esteemed translation, too, may have influenced some modern translations.
It would be easy to add many other similar statements by Hebrew

scholars, but it may suffice here to quote Professor Ernst Jenni at
Basel, Switzerland. This leading authority on le (footnote 26 above)
says:
The rendering in all modern commentaries and translations is
“for Babel” (Babel as world power, not city or land); this is clear
from the language as well as also from the context. By the “local
meaning” a distinction is to be made between where? (in, at) and
where to? (local directional “to, towards”). The basic meaning of l
is with reference to, and with a following local specification it can
be understood as local or local-directional only in certain adverbial
expressions (e.g. Num. 11, 10 [Clines DCH IV, 481b] “at the
entrance”, cf. Lamed pp. 256, 260, heading 8151).
On the translations: LXX has with babylôni unambiguously a
dative (”for Babylon”). Only Vulgata has, to be sure, in Babylone,
“in Babylon”, thus King James Version “at Babylon”, and so
probably also the New World Translation.—Letter Jenni-Jonsson,
October 1, 2003. (Emphasis added.)
Thus, as Jeremiah 29:10 literally speaks of seventy years “for
Babylon,” it is clear that they cannot refer to the period of the
desolation of Jerusalem and its temple, or even to the period of the
Jewish exile at Babylon. Rather, like Jeremiah 25:10–12, what is in
view is the period of Babylonian supremacy. This is also the conclusion
arrived at by scholars who have carefully examined the text. Some
typical comments are cited in the accompanying box.
Jeremiah 25:10–12 and 29:10 contain the prophecy of the seventy
years. The next two texts to be discussed, Daniel 9:2 and 2
Chronicles 36:20–21, are just brief references to Jeremiah’s prophecy.
Neither of them pretends to be a thorough discussion of the
prophecy nor gives a detailed application of the period. Every
attempt to find an application of the seventy-year period, therefore,
must proceed from the prophecy, not from the references to it. It is only
the prophecy that gives specific details on the seventy years, as
follows, (1) that they refer to “these nations,” (2) that they were to
be a period of servitude for these nations, (3) that they refer to the
period of Babylonian supremacy, and (4) that this period would be
fulfilled when the king of Babylon was punished. Such detailed
information is missing in the latter references to the prophecy by
Daniel and Ezra. The discussion of these references, then, should
always be done in the light of what the prophecy actually is about.
The seventy years "for Babylon"

"The sense of the Hebrew original might even be rendered
thus: ‘After seventy years of (the rule of) Babylon are
accomplished etc.’ The seventy years counted here evidently
refer to Babylon and not to the Judeans or to their captivity.
They mean seventy years of Babylonian rule, the end of which
will see the redemption of the exiles"—Dr. Avigdor On, "The
seventy years of Babylon," Vetus Testamentum, Vol. VI (1956), p.
305.
"It is appropriate to begin with the passages of Jeremiah and to
observe, with On, that the references in Jer. 25:11-12 and
29:10—whether original to the passages or not—are to a period
of seventy years of Babylonian rule, and not to a period of
seventy years of actual captivity"—Dr. Peter R. Ackroyd, "Two
Old Testament historical problems of the early Persian period,"
Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. XVII (1958), p. 23.
"Certainly it must be stressed that the seventy years refer
primarily to the time of Babylonian world dominion and not to
the time of the exile, as is often carelessly supposed. As an
estimate of Babylon’s domination of the ancient Near East it
was a remarkably accurate figure, for from the Battle of
Carchemish (605) to the fall of Babylon to Cyrus (539) was
sixty-six years"—Professor Norman K. Gottwald, All the
Kingdoms of the Earth (New York, Evanston, London: Harper &
Row, Publishers, 1964), pp. 265, 266.
"It has often been pointed out that the textually
unobjectionable verse with its seventy years does not have in
view the length of the exile , but rather the duration of the
Babylonian dominion, which from its beginning until the
Persian conquest of Babylon may be calculated to about seven
decades. "—Dr. Otto Plöger, Aus der Spätzeit des Alten Testaments
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), p. 68. (Translated
from the German.)
C: DANIEL 9:1–2
The Babylonian dominion was definitely broken when the armies
of Cyrus the Persian captured Babylon in the night between the
12th and 13th October, 539 B.C.E. (Julian calendar). Previously in
the same night Belshazzar, the son of king Nabonidus and his
deputy on the throne, got to know that the days of Babylon were
numbered. Daniel the prophet, in his interpretation of the
miraculous writing on the wall, told him that “God has numbered
[the days or years of] your kingdom and has finished it.” In that
very night Belshazzar was killed, and the kingdom was given to
“Darius the Mede.” (Daniel 5:26–31, NW) Obviously, the seventy
years allotted to Babylon ended that night. This sudden collapse of
the Babylonian empire incited Daniel to turn his attention to
Jeremiah’s prophecy of the seventy years. He tells us:
Daniel 9:1–2:
In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus of the seed of
the Medes, who had been made king over the kingdom of the
Chaldeans; in the first year of his reigning I myself, Daniel,
discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which
the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for
fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years. ―
Daniel 9:1–2, NW.
It is not unreasonable to think that the “books” consulted by
Daniel may have been a collection of scrolls containing the
prophecies of Jeremiah. But the sources for his inquiry may as well
have been limited to the letters that Jeremiah had sent to the exiles
in Babylon fifty-six years earlier (Jeremiah 29:1–32), the first of
which dealt with the seventy years “for Babylon.”28 No doubt,
these letters, at 1east, were available to him. The content of Daniel
9, in fact, and especially the prayer of Daniel recorded in verses 4–
19, is closely related to the content of Jeremiah’s 1etters, as has
been demonstrated in detail by Dr. Gerald H. Wilson.29
C-1: Did Daniel understand the seventy-year prophecy?
When Daniel states that he “discerned” (NW) in the writings of
Jeremiah the prophecy of the seventy years, does this mean that he
“understood” (KJV, RV, ASV) the sense of this prophecy and
realized that the period had now ended? Or is he merely saying that
he “noticed” (Moffatt) or “observed” (NASB) the seventy years
mentioned by Jeremiah and “tried to understand” (NAB) them?
The Hebrew verb used here, bîn, may contain all these various
shades of meaning. However, if Daniel had any difficulties in
28 The Hebrew word translated “books” at Dan. 9:2, s eparîm, the plural form of seper,
was used of writings of various kinds, including legal documents and letters. Thus
the word seper is also used of Jeremiah’s first “letter” to the exiles at Babylon
recorded in Jeremiah 29:1–23. Verses 24–32 of the same chapter quotes from a
second letter sent by Jeremiah to the Jewish exiles, probably later in the same
year or early next year.
29 Gerald H. Wilson, “The Prayer of Daniel 9: Reflection on Jeremiah 29,” Journal for
the Study of the Old Testament, Issue 48, October 1990, pp. 91–99.
understanding the meaning of this seventy-year period, one would

expect that the prayer he offered as a result of his reading would
contain a plea for understanding the prediction. But not once in his
lengthy prayer does Daniel mention the seventy years. Instead, the
whole emphasis of his prayer is on the Jewish exiles and the
conditions set forth in Jeremiah’s letter for their return to
Jerusalem.30
It seems logical to conclude, therefore, that Daniel had no
problems in understanding the seventy-year prophecy. As a
Hebrew-speaking Jew, he would have no difficulties in
understanding that the Hebrew text of Jeremiah 29:10 speaks of
seventy years “for Babylon,” and that this was a reference to the
period of Babylonian supremacy. From the fact that this supremacy
had just ended, Daniel could draw only one conclusion: The
seventy years had ended!
Of greater importance for Daniel, however, was what the end of
the seventy years could mean for his own people, the Jewish exiles
at Babylon, and for the devastated city of Jerusalem and its ruined
temple. And this was the subject that Daniel brought up in his
prayer.
C-2: The purpose of Daniel’s prayer
According to Jeremiah’s letter, Jehovah had promised that, “When
seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and
fulfill my good word to you, to bring you back to this place.” —Jeremiah
29:10, NASB.
As the seventy years “for Babylon” were now completed and
“the first year” of “Darius the Mede” was well in progress, why had
Jehovah still not fulfilled his promise to bring the exiles in Babylon
back to Jerusalem (the “place” from which they had once been
deported, Jeremiah 29:1, 20), thus ending the desolate state of their
city? Would not the end of the seventy years “for Babylon” be
followed by the end of the exile and the desolation of Jerusalem? Why the delay?
Judging from Daniel’s prayer this matter appears to have been his
prime concern and the actual cause for his prayer.
In his letter to the exiles Jeremiah also had explained that
Jehovah’s fulfilling of his promise to restore them to Jerusalem
after the end of the seventy years rested on certain conditions:
If you invoke me and pray to me, I will listen to you: when you
seek me, you shall find me; if you search with all your heart, I will
let you find me, says the LORD. I will restore your fortunes and
30 Compare the discussion of Gerald H. Wilson, op. cit., pp. 94, 95.
gather you again from all the places to which I have banished you,
says the LORD, and bring you back to the place from which I
have carried you into exile.―Jeremiah 29:12–14a, NEB.
The conditions to be fulfilled before the exiles could be returned
to Jerusalem, then, were that they had to return to Jehovah, by
seeking him with prayer, confessing their sins, and starting to listen
to his voice. And this was precisely what Daniel did:
”And I proceeded to set my face to Jehovah the [true] God, in
order to seek [him] with prayer and entreaties, with fasting and
sackcloth and ashes.”―Daniel 9:3, NW.
From Daniel’s prayer, recorded in the subsequent verses (4–19),
it is clear that his main interest was in seeking forgiveness for his
people in order that they might be returned to their homeland. He
knew that the “devastations of Jerusalem” and the desolation of
the land were the curse predicted “in the law of Moses” (Daniel
9:13; compare Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28), because of their
violating Jehovah’s law. (Daniel 9:11) He knew that Jehovah would
bring them back to their land only when they returned to him and
began to listen to his voice. Awareness of this condition, laid down
in the law (Deuteronomy 30:1–6) and repeated and emphasized in
the letter of Jeremiah, is reflected in Daniel’s prayer. Obviously, his
interest in Jeremiah’s prophecy of the seventy years was motivated
by the exciting discovery that the end of the desolation of
Jerusalem was close at hand, as the seventy years “for Babylon”
now had been completed.
C-3: The relation of the seventy years to “the devastations
of Jerusalem”
Daniel, then, in his examination of Jeremiah’s letter, evidently took
a great interest in the fact that the end of the seventy years “for
Babylon” was directly linked to the end of the desolation of
Jerusalem. The end of the latter period presupposed and was
dependent on the end of the former:
Only when Babylon’s seventy years are completed will I visit
you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this
place [Jerusalem] . — Jeremiah 29:10, NRSV.
This was evidently the reason why Daniel, in his reference to
Jeremiah’s prophecy, connected the seventy years “for Babylon”
with Jerusalem, speaking of them as “the number of years . . . for

fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem.” (Daniel 9:2, NW) It was clear
from Jeremiah’s letter that the completion of Babylon’s seventy
years would entail the “fulfilling of the desolations of Jerusalem”
(by the return of the exiles), and it is this consequence that Daniel lays
the stress on in his statement.31
Read in isolation from the wider context, however, these words
could easily be misinterpreted to mean that Daniel equated the
seventy-year period with the period of Jerusalem’s desolation.
Some Bible translators have understood the text that way. Thus
Tanakh, a translation published by the Jewish Publication Society in
1985, speaks of “the number of years that . . . were to be the term of
Jerusalem’s desolation—seventy years .” Similarly, The New International
Version (NIV) presents Daniel as saying that, “I understood from
the Scriptures . . . that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years.”
Both of these translations, however, are freely paraphrasing the
passage, which neither speaks of the “term” of Jerusalem’s
desolation, nor that it would “last” seventy years. None of these
words are found in the original text. They have been added in an
attempt to interpret the text. There is no compelling reason to accept
this interpretation, not only because it is arrived at by a
paraphrasing of the text, but also because it is in direct conflict
with Jeremiah’s own prophecy.32
It should be noted that Daniel himself does not equate the
seventy years with the period of Jerusalem’s desolation. It is only
the expiration of the seventy-year period―not the period as a whole
— that he relates to the “fulfilling of the desolations of Jerusalem.”
This focusing on the end of the period is totally absent in the two
translations quoted above (Tanakh and NIV), as they both fail to
31 Dr. C. F. Keil, one of the greatest Hebrew scholars of the 19th century, noticed in
his grammatical analysis how Daniel connected and yet distinguished the two
periods, concluding: “Consequently, in the first year of the reign of Darius the
Mede over the kingdom of the Chaldeans the seventy years prophesied of by
Jeremiah were now full, the period of the desolation of Jerusalem determined by
God was almost expired?’ —C. F. Keil, Biblical Commentary on the Book of Daniel
(Edinburgh: Clark, 1872), pp. 321, 322.
32 A number of critical scholars, who regard the book of Daniel as a late composition
from the end of the reign of Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 B.C.E.), have argued
that Jeremiah’s original prophecy of the seventy years was repeatedly reinterpreted
and reapplied by the later Bible writers Ezra, Zechariah, and Daniel. There is no
reason to discuss these theories here, especially as there is wide disagreement on
them among these scholars.
translate the Hebrew word lemal’ot, “fulfilling, to fulfill”. Most

translations (including The New World Translation) are more in
conformity with the original text in this respect.33
What Daniel discovered by reading Jeremiah’s letter, then, was
not that Jerusalem’s desolation would last for seventy years (for this
is nowhere stated in Jeremiah), but that the desolations of
Jerusalem would not cease until the seventy years “for Babylon”
had ceased. The focus of the “seventy years” was on Babylon, and
her period of dominance, rather than on Jerusalem.
The end of Babylon’s dominance would, of course, as a natural
consequence or byproduct, open up the prospect for a Jewish return to
Jerusalem. This is the simplest meaning of Daniel’s words in the
light of what was actually written in Jeremiah’s letter. As the
Babylonian supremacy suddenly had been replaced by the Medo-
Persian rule and the seventy years “for Babylon” and her
international domination had thus been completed, Daniel
understood—by the aid of Jeremiah’s letter—that the completion
of the devastations of Jerusalem was now due. This was the reason
for Daniel’s excitement and strong feelings, as expressed in his
prayer.
D: 2 CHRONICLES 36:20–23
The two books of Chronicles record the history of Israel up to the
end of the Jewish exile in Babylon. These books, therefore, must
have been finished some time after that event. The last verses of 2
Chronicles connect the fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy of the
seventy years with the Persian conquest of Babylon and the end of
the Jewish captivity, as follows:
2 Chronicles 36:20–23:
20 Furthermore, he [Nebuchadnezzar] carried off those
remaining from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be
servants to him and his sons until the royalty of Persia began to
reign; 21 to fulfill Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah, until
the land had paid off its Sabbaths. All the days of lying
desolated it kept sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.
33 A detailed grammatical analysis of the Hebrew text of Dan. 9:2 has been received
from the linguist mentioned in note 27 above, which step by step clarifies the exact
meaning of the verse. In conclusion, the following translation was offered, in close
accord with the original text: “In his [Darius’] first regnal year I, Daniel,
ascertained, in the writings, that the number of years, which according to the word
of JHWH to Jeremiah the prophet would be completely fulfilled, with respect to the
desolate state of Jerusalem, were seventy years.”
22 And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, that Jehovah’s
word by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Jehovah
roused the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia, so that he caused a
cry to pass through all his kingdom, and also in writing, saying: 23
“This is what Cyrus the king of Persia has said, ‘All the kingdoms
of the earth Jehovah the God of the heavens has given me, and he
himself has commissioned me to build him a house in Jerusalem,
which is in Judah. Whoever there is among YOU of all his people,
Jehovah his God be with him. So 1et him go up.’ “(NW)
It may be observed that the Chronicler repeatedly emphasizes
the agreement between the prophecies of Jeremiah and its fulfillment
in the events he records. Thus the statement in verse 20 is an
application of Jeremiah 27:7: “And all the nations shall serve him, and
his son, and his grandson, until the time of his own land comes”. This time
of Babylon came, the Chronicler explains, when “the royalty of
Persia began to reign [i.e., in 539 B.C.E.], to fulfill Jehovah’s word
by the mouth of Jeremiah, . .. to fulfill seventy years.” This, then,
would also fulfill the prediction at Jeremiah 25:12, that the time of
Babylon would come “when seventy years have been fulfilled.”
Thus the Chronicler seems clearly to be saying that the seventy
years were fulfilled at the Persian conquest of Babylon.
What complicates the matter in our text is the statement
(italicized in the quotation above) about the “sabbath rest” of the
land, which is inserted in the middle of the reference to Jeremiah’s
prophecy. This has caused a number of scholars to conclude that
the Chronicler reinterpreted the prophecy of Jeremiah by applying the
seventy years to the period of the desolation of Judah.34
Such an understanding, however, would not only conflict with
Jeremiah’s prophecy; it would also contradict the Chronicler’s own
emphasis on the agreement between the original prophecy and its
fulfillment. So what did the Chronicler mean by his insertion of the
statement about the sabbath rest of the land?
D-1: The sabbath rest of the land
A cursory reading of verse 21 could give the impression that the
Chronicler states that the land had enjoyed a sabbath rest of
seventy years, and that this had been predicted by Jeremiah. But
34 See, for example, Avigdor Orr in Vetus Testamentum, Vol. VI (1956), p. 306, and
Michael Fishbane in Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1985) pp. 480–81.
Jeremiah does not speak of the seventy years in terms of allowing

the land to pay off its sabbath years. In fact, there is no reference at
all to a sabbath rest for the land in his book.
Therefore Ezra’s words, “until the land had paid off its
sabbaths; all the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath,” could not
be a fulfillment of “Jehovah’s word by the mouth of Jeremiah.” The
two clauses about the sabbath rest are, as has been observed by
Bible commentators, a reference to another prediction, found at
Leviticus, chapter 26.
Among other things, this chapter forewarns that, if the people
did not obey the law of the sabbatical years (discussed in the preceding
chapter, Leviticus 25), they would be scattered among the nations
and their land would be desolated. 35 In this way the land would be
allowed to “pay off its sabbaths”:
At that time the land will pay off its sabbaths all the days of its lying
desolated, while YOU are in the land of YOUR enemies. At that
time the land will keep sabbath, as it must repay its sabbaths. All
the days of its lying desolated it will keep sabbath, for the reason that it
did not keep sabbath during YOUR sabbaths when YOU were
dwelling upon it.—Leviticus 26:34–35, NW.
Like Daniel earlier, the writer of the Chronicles understood the
desolation of Judah to be a fulfillment of this curse predicted in the
law of Moses. He therefore inserted this prediction from Leviticus
26 to show that it was fulfilled after the final deportation to
Babylon, exactly as was predicted through Moses, “while you are in
the land of your enemies.”36 By inserting the two clauses from
Leviticus 26, the Chronicler did not mean to say that the land
enjoyed a sabbath rest of seventy years, as this was not predicted,
either by Moses or by Jeremiah. He does not tell explicitly how long it
rested, only that “all the days of lying desolated it kept sabbath.”―2
Chronicles 36:20.37
As with Daniel, the main interest of the Chronicler was the
return of the exiles, and therefore he points out that they had to
remain in Babylonia until two prophecies had been fulfilled: (1)
35 According to the law of the sabbatical years the land would enjoy a sabbath rest
every seventh year, i.e., the land should lie fallow and not be cultivated. (Leviticus
25:1–7) This “served to reduce the quantity of alkalines, sodium and calcium,
deposited in the soil by irrigation waters.”—Baruch A. Levine, The JPS
Commentary: Leviticus (Philadelphia, New York, Jerusalem: The Jewish Publication
Society, 1989), p. 272. Violation of this ordinance would gradually destroy the soil
and drastically reduce the crop yields.
36 Some translators have put the Chronicler’s quotation from Leviticus 26 within
dashes or in parentheses (as does the Swedish translation of 1917), in order to
emphasize that they do not refer to Jeremiah.
37 The actual 1ength of the 1and’s sabbath rest was 49 years, from the final
desolation and depopulation in 587 B.C.E. until the return of the exiles in 538.
that of Jeremiah on the seventy years of supremacy “for Babylon,”

and (2) that in Leviticus on the desolation and sabbath rest for the
land of Judah. These prophecies should not be mixed up or
confused, as is often done. Not only do they refer to periods of
different character and different 1engths; they also refer to
different nations. But as the two periods were closely connected in
that the end of one period was contingent on the end of the other,
the Chronicler, like Daniel, brought them together.
D-2: Jeremiah’s prophecy on the return of the exiles
Many commentators hold that the Chronicler ended the seventy
years in the first year of Cyrus (538/37 B.C.E.), because of what he
says in the last two verses:
And in the first year of Cyrus the king of Persia, that Jehovah’s
word by the mouth of Jeremiah might be accomplished, Jehovah
roused the spirit of Cyrus the king of Persia, so that he caused a
cry to pass through all his kingdom, and also in writing, saying:
”This is what Cyrus the king of Persia has said, ‘All the
kingdoms of the earth Jehovah the God of the heavens has given
me, and he himself has commissioned me to build him a house in
Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever there is among YOU of all
his people, Jehovah his God be with him. So let him go up.’ “―2
Chronicles 36:22–23, NW.
If Jehovah’s word “by the mouth of Jeremiah” is here taken to
be another reference to the seventy years, it might prove that Ezra
ended that period in 538/37 B.C.E. But in view of the fact that
these verses actually deal with Cyrus’ decree allowing the Jews
Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but this was also the maximal period during
which a Hebrew could be deprived of the proprietorship of his ancestral
inheritance, according to the law of land tenure. If he became so poor that he had
to sell his land, it could not be sold beyond reclaim. If it could not be bought back,
the purchaser had to return it to him at the next jubilee.—Leviticus 25:8–28.
If the 49 years of sabbath rest corresponded to the exact number of sabbatical
years that had been neglected by the Israelites, the whole period of violation of the
law would be 49 x 7 = 343 years. If this period extended to 587 B.C.E., its
beginning would date from about 930 B.C.E. Interestingly, modern chronologers
who have carefully examined both the Biblical and extra-Biblical evidence, usually
date the division of the kingdom to 930 B.C.E. or thereabouts. (F. X. Kugler, for
example, has 930, E. R. Thiele and K. A. Kitchen 931/30, and W. H. Barnes 932
B.C.E.) As this national disaster resulted in a massive break away from the temple
cult in Jerusalem by a majority of the people, it is not unreasonable to think that
an extensive neglect of the sabbatical years also dates from this time.
to return to their homeland, it is more natural to understand his

reference to Jeremiah’s prophecy as a reference to what the
prophet said immediately after his prediction of the seventy years
“for Babylon” at Jeremiah 29:10:
For thus says the LORD, ‘When seventy years have been
completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill my good word to you, to
bring you back to this place.’ — Jeremiah 29:10, NASB.
Note that the prophet did not say that Jehovah first would visit
the exiles, causing them to return to Jerusalem, and that as a result of
that the seventy years would be accomplished. This is how the
Watch Tower Society applies this prophecy. To the contrary, the
prophet clearly states that the seventy years would be accomplished
first, and after their fulfillment Jehovah would visit the exiles and
cause them to return to Jerusalem. The seventy years, then, would be
fulfilled while the Jewish exiles were still in Babylon!
And so it happened: Babylon fell to Cyrus, the king of Persia, in
October, 539 B.C.E., thus fulfilling the prophecy of the seventy
years “for Babylon.” The next year Cyrus issued his decree,
allowing the Jewish exiles to return to Jerusalem.38 The end of the
seventy years at the fall of Babylon, and the return of the Jews one
year later are two separate events, and it is the last of these that
Ezra is speaking of at 2 Chronicles 36:22–23. His reference to the
word “by the mouth of Jeremiah” in these verses, then, must be a
reference to the second half of verse 10 in chapter 29 of the book
of Jeremiah.
Thus we find that 2 Chronicles 36:20–23, like Daniel 9:2, may be
brought into harmony with the prophecy of Jeremiah on the
seventy years. The Chronicler ends the period while the Jewish
exiles were stil1 living in Babylonia, when “the royalty of Persia
began to reign” in 539 B.C.E. He lays stress upon the fact that the
Jewish exiles could not return to Jerusalem until Babylon’s seventy
years had been fulfilled, and the land had paid off its sabbaths.
After that Jehovah caused them to return to their homeland, in
fulfillment of Jeremiah 29:10b, in the first year of Cyrus. The words
of the Chronicler, correctly understood, cannot be taken to mean
that the desolation of Judah after the destruction of Jerusalem and
its temple lasted for seventy years.
38 As argued earlier (chapter 3 above, note 2), the Jewish remnant most probably
returned from the exile in 538 B.C.E., not in 537 as the Watch Tower Society
insists.
The last two texts to be discussed, Zechariah 1:7–12 and 7:1–5,

are sometimes thought to be two additional references to
Jeremiah’s prophecy about the seventy years, and the Watch Tower
Society holds them to be so. But the evidence for this conclusion is
totally lacking.
None of the texts contains any reference to Jeremiah (as do
Daniel 9:1–2 and 2 Chronicles 36:20–23), and the context of these
texts strongly indicates that the seventy years mentioned there must
be given a different application. This is also the conclusion of many
commentators.39 This will also become apparent in the following
discussion.
E: ZECHARIAH 1:7–12
The first statement about a period of seventy years in the book of
Zechariah appears in a vision given to Zechariah on “the twenty-
fourth [day] of the eleventh month, that is, the month Shebat, in
the second year of Darius.”—Zechariah 1:7.
Darius’ second regnal year corresponded to 520/19 B.C.E., and
the twenty-fourth day of the eleventh month may be translated to
15 February 519 B.C.E. in the Julian calendar.40 Although the Jews
had resumed the work on the temple in Jerusalem five months
earlier (Haggai 1:1, 14–15), Jerusalem and the cities of Judah were
still in a sorry condition. That is why the angel in Zechariah’s vision
brings up a question that undoubtedly troubled many of the
repatriated Jews:
Zechariah 1:12:
So the angel of Jehovah answered and said: “O Jehovah of
armies, how long will you yourself not show mercy to Jerusalem
and to the cities of Judah, whom you have denounced these
seventy years?” (NW)
39 Dr. Otto Plöger, for example, notes that “the two texts in the book of Jeremiah are
not referred to here”—O. Plöger, Aus der Spätzeit des Alten Testaments (Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), p.69.
40 R. A. Parker & W. H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A.D. 75
(Providence, Rhode Island: Brown University Press, 1956), p. 30. This presupposes
that the date is given according to the Persian accession year system. If Zechariah
applies the Jewish nonaccession year system, the date would have fallen about
one year earlier, in February, 520 B.C.E. (See E. J. Bickerman’s discussion of this
problem in Revue Biblique, Vol. 88, 1981, pp. 19–28). The Watch Tower Society
accepts the secular dating of Darius’ reign, as may be seen, for example, on page
124 of the book Paradise Restored to Mankind—By Theocracy! (Brooklyn, N.Y.:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1972).
E-1: Denunciation for seventy years or ninety?

According to the angel, Jehovah had denounced Jerusalem and the
cities of Judah for seventy years. The Watch Tower Society applies
these seventy years of denouncement (”indignation,” KJV, ASV;
“wrath,” NEB) to the period 607–537 B.C.E., thus equating them
with the seventy years of Jeremiah 25:10–12 and 29:10.41 It seems
evident, though, that the reason why the angel put this question
about the denouncement was that Jehovah still, in Darius’ second
year (519 B.C.E.), had not shown mercy to the cities of Judah. Or
did the angel mean to say that Jehovah had denounced Jerusalem
and the cities of Judah for seventy years up to 537 B.C.E., and then
continued to be hostile against them for about eighteen more years
up to 519? This would make the period of hostility nearly ninety
years, not seventy.42
But the “indignation” or “wrath” clearly refers to the devastated
state of the cities of Judah, including Jerusalem and its temple,
which began after the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E. This
condition was still prevailing, as may be seen from Jehovah’s
answer to the angel’s question:
Therefore this is what Jehovah has said, “I shall certainly return
to Jerusalem with mercies. My own house will be built in her,” is
the utterance of Jehovah of armies, “and a measuring line itself will
be stretched out over Jerusalem.”
Call out further, saying, “This is what Jehovah of armies has
said: ‘My cities will yet overflow with goodness; and Jehovah will
yet certainly feel regrets over Zion and yet actually choose
Jerusalem.’ “ —Zechariah 1:16–17, NW.
41 Paradise Restored to Mankind—by Theocracy!, pp. 131–134.
42 The Watch Tower Society attempts to explain this contradiction by arguing that
Jehovah had denounced the cities of Judah for 70 years up to 537 B.C.E., but
allowed the Gentile nations to carry on the denunciation up to the time of
Zechariah, making it seem as if he was still denouncing the cities of Judah! —Ibid.,
pp. 131–34.
Also from a grammatical point of view it is difficult to uphold the idea that the
seventy years here refer to a period that had ended many years in the past. The
demonstrative pronoun “these” (Hebr. zeh) denotes something near in time or
space. Commenting on the expression “these seventy years” at Zech. 1:12, the
Swedish Hebraist Dr. Seth Erlandsson explains: “Literally it says ‘these 70 years,’
also at 7:5, which is tantamount to ‘now for 70 years.’ “ (Letter Erlandsson-
Jonsson, dated Dec. 23, 1990.) This is evidently the reason why Professor Hinckley
G. Mitchell renders the phrase as “now seventy years” in both texts.—H. G.
Mitchell in S. R. Driver, A. Plummer, & C. A. Briggs (eds.), The International Critical
Commentary. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi
and Jonah (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1912), pp. 123–24, 199–200.
Counted from 587 B.C.E. the indignation had now, in 519,

lasted for nearly seventy years, or sixty-eight years to be exact. And
if counted from the beginning of the siege on January 27, 589 B.C.E.
(2 Kings 25:1; Ezekiel 24:1–2; Jeremiah 52:4), the indignation had
lasted for almost exactly seventy years on February 15, 519. But
just two months earlier the work on the foundation of the temple
had been finished. (Haggai 2:18) From that time onward Jehovah
began to remove his indignation: “From this day I shall bestow
blessing.” ― Haggai 2:19, NW.
It seems clear, therefore, that the seventy years mentioned in
this text do not refer to the prophecy of Jeremiah, but simply to
the time that had elapsed by 519 B.C.E. since the siege and
destruction of Jerusalem and its temple in 589–587 B.C.E.43
That seventy years elapsed from the destruction of the temple in
587 B.C.E. to its rebuilding in the years 520–515 is also confirmed
by the next text in the book of Zechariah to be considered.
F: ZECHARIAH 7:1–5
Again, the event recorded in this passage is exactly dated, to “the
fourth year of Darius . . . on the fourth [day] of the ninth month.”
(Zech. 7: 1) This date corresponds to December 7, 518 B.C.E.
(Julian calendar).44
Zechariah 7:1–5:
Furthermore, it came about that in the fourth year of Darius the
king the word of Jehovah occurred to Zechariah, on the fourth
[day] of the ninth month, [that is,] in Chislev. And Bethel
proceeded to send Sharezer and Regem-melech and his men to
43 This is also the conclusion of many modern commentators. J.A. Thompson, for
example, says: “In Zech. 1:12 it seems to denote the interval between the
destruction of the temple in 587 B .C. and its rebuilding in 520–515 B.C.” (The
Book of Jeremiah. Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980, p. 514.)
Dr. Carroll Stuhlmueller observes that, “if we tabulate from the beginning of
Babylon’s plans for the first siege of Jerusalem (590/589; 2 Kgs. 24:10) to the time
of this vision (520), the seventy years show up in a remarkably accurate way!” —
Stuhlmueller, Rebuilding with Hope. A Commentary an the Books of Haggai and
Zechariah (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1988), p. 64.
44 Parker & Dubberstein, ap. cit. (note 40 above), p. 30.
soften the face of Jehovah, saying to the priests who belonged to

the house of Jehovah of armies, and to the prophets, even saying:
“Shall I weep in the fifth month, practicing an abstinence, the way
I have done these O how many years?” And the word of Jehovah
of armies continued to occur to me, saying: “Say to all the people
of the 1and and to the priests, ‘When YOU fasted and there was a
wailing in the fifth [month] and in the seventh [month] , and this for
seventy years [literally ‘these seventy years,’ as in 1:12], did you really
fast to me, even me?’ “ (NW)
F-1: Fasting and wailing—for seventy years or ninety?
Why did “all the people of the land” fast and wail in the fifth
month and in the seventh month? Speaking of the fast in the fifth
month the Watch Tower Society admits:
It was observed evidently on the tenth day of that month (Ab),
in order to commemorate how on that day Nebuzaradan, the chief
of Nebuchadnezzar’s bodyguard, after two days of inspection,
burned down the city of Jerusalem and its temple. (Jer. 52:12, 13; 2
Kings 25:8, 9)45
Further, the fast in the seventh month was “to commemorate
the assassination of Governor Gedaliah, who was of the royal
house of King David and whom Nebuchadnezzar made governor
of the land for the poor Jews who were allowed to remain after the
destruction of Jerusalem. (2 Kings 25:22–25; Jer. 40:13 to 41:l0)”46
For how long had the Jews been fasting in these months in
memory of the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple and the
assassination of Gedaliah? For “seventy years,” according to
Zecharaiah 7:5. The year 518/17 was the seventieth year since 587
B.C.E.!47
That the Jews still, in 518 B.C.E., held these fasts in the fifth and
seventh months is clear from the fact that the men from Bethel
had come to ask if they, “now that the faithful remnant of Jews
were rebuilding the temple of Jehovah at Jerusalem and were
45 Paradise Restored to Mankind—by Theocracy!, p. 235.
46 Ibid.—Zechariah 8:19 shows that days of fasting and mourning in memory of
various fateful events during the siege and destruction of Jerusalem were held in
four different months: (1) in the tenth month (because of the beginning of the siege
of Jerusalem in January, 589 B.C.E., 2 Kings 25:1–2); (2) in the fourth month
(because of the capture of Jerusalem in July, 587 B.C.E., 2 Kings 25:2–4; Jer.
52:67); (3) in the fifth month (because of the burning of the temple in August, 587
B.C.E., 2 Kings 25:8–9); and (4) in the seventh month (because of the assassination
of Gedaliah in October, 587 B.C.E., 2 Kings 25:22–25).
47 From the end of August 587 B.C.E., when the temple was burned down, to
December 518 it was sixty-nine years and about four months. From October 587,
when the remaining Jews fled to Egypt and left Judah desolated, to December 518
was sixty-nine years and about two months.
about half through, should . . . continue to hold such a fast.”48

If now the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple is dated in
607 B.C.E. instead of 587, once again this would make the time
these fasts had been observed ninety years rather than seventy. This
is actually conceded by the Watch Tower Society in the book
quoted above, but no satisfying explanation is given for this
discrepancy.49
Thus Zechariah 1:7–12 and 7:1–5 both give very strong support
for the year 587 B.C.E. as the correct date for the destruction of
Jerusalem. As in the case of Jeremiah 25:10–12; 29:10; Daniel 1:12
and 2:1, the easiest and the most direct reading of Zechariah 1:7–12
and 7:1–7, too, is seen to be in open conflict with the interpretation
the Watch Tower Society gives to the seventy years.
G: THE APPLICATION OF THE SEVENTY YEARS OF
SERVITUDE
From a close examination of the texts dealing with the seventy
years, certain facts have been established that cannot be ignored in
any attempt to find an application of the seventy-year period that is
in harmony with both the Bible and historical facts:
(1) The seventy years refer to many nations, not Judah only:
Jeremiah 25:11.
(2) The seventy years refer to a period of servitude for these
nations, that is, vassalage to Babylon: Jeremiah 25:11.
(3) The seventy years refer to the period of Babylonian supremacy,
“seventy years for Babylon”: Jeremiah 29:10.
(4) The seventy years were accomplished when the Babylonian
king and his nation were punished, that is, in 539 B.C.E.: Jeremiah
25:12.
48 Paradise Restored to Mankind—by Theocracy!, p. 235.
49 “When the exiled Jews fasted during the seventy years of desolation of the land of
Judah and also during all these years since the remnant of them returned to their
homeland, were they really fasting to Jehovah?”—Paradise Restored to Mankind—
by Theocracy!, p. 237. (Emphasis added.)
(5) The seventy years of servitude began many years before the
destruction of Jerusalem: Jeremiah chapters 27, 28, and 35; Daniel
1:1–4; 2:1; 2 Kings 24:1–7; the Babylonian chronicles, and
Berossus.
(6) Zechariah 1:7–12 and 7:1–5 are not references to Jeremiah’s prophecy,
but refer to the period from the siege and destruction of
Jerusalem in the years 589–587 to the rebuilding of the temple in
the years 520–515 B.C.E.
The application given by the Watch Tower Society to the
seventy-year prophecy, that it refers to Judah only, and to the
period of complete desolation of the land, “without an inhabitant,”
following the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, is seen to be
in direct conflict with each of the above established Biblical and
historical facts.
An application that is in clear conflict with both the Bible and
such historical facts cannot have anything to do with reality. In a
serious discussion of possible applications of the seventy years, this
alternative is the first which must be rejected. It is held to by the Watch
Tower Society, not because it can be supported by the Bible and
historical facts, but because it is a necessary prerequisite for their
calculation of the supposed 2,520 years of Gentile times, 607
B.C.E.–1914 C.E.
If their application of the seventy years is dropped, the Gentile
times calculation leading to 1914 C.E. immediately proves false,
together with all the prophetic claims and speculations that are tied
to it.
G-1: The use of “seventy” as a “round” number
The conclusion arrived at in the above discussion is that Judah
and a number of the surrounding nations became vassals to the
king of Babylon soon after the battle of Carchemish in 605 B.C.E.
Does this mean that the seventy-year period “for Babylon” must be
applied to the period 605–539 B.C.E.? To this suggestion it may
quite naturally be objected that the length of this period is not
seventy, but a little more than sixty-six years, which is, of course,
true.
Many scholars argue, however, that the numeral “70” in the
Bible often seems to be used as “a round number” It occurs fifty-
two times independently in the Old Testament, and is used with a
variety of different meanings—for weights, lengths of
measurements, numbers of people, periods of time, and so forth.50
In a discussion of the biblical use of the numeral “70,” which also
includes extra-biblical occurrences, Dr. F. C. Fensham concludes:
It is quite probably used as a kind of symbolic figure, just like

seven. With the usage of seven and seventy the ancient Semites
tried to make a difference between a smaller symbolic figure and a
larger one.51
When used of periods of time it might have been used as an
appropriate period of punishment. In a building inscription of the
Assyrian king Esarhaddon (680–667 B.C.E.), it is stated that the
desolation of Babylon after its destruction by Sennacherib in 689
B.C.E. should have lasted seventy years, but the god Marduk in his
mercy changed the period to eleven years.52 A few decades earlier
Isaiah predicted that “Tyre must be forgotten seventy years, the
same as the days of one king.” (Isaiah 23:15) The explanation that the
seventy years should be understood as “the same as the days of one
king” is often interpreted to mean a normal life-span of a king, or
“the full span of human life,” in accordance with Psalm 90:10,
where the number seventy clearly is not meant to be viewed as a
precise figure.
Thus it is quite possible and perhaps probable that the seventy
years of servitude predicted by Jeremiah were used as a round
number. Such an understanding could also be supported by the fact
that not all the nations surrounding Judah (some of which are
obviously enumerated in Jeremiah 25:19–26) seem to have been
made vassals to the king of Babylon at the same time, in 605 B.C.E.
Some of them seem to have been brought into subjection
somewhat later. The period of servitude, therefore, was not of
exactly the same duration for all these nations. Yet the prophet said
that all of them were to serve the king of Babylon “seventy years.”
G-2: The seventy years ‘for Babylon”: 609–539 B.C.E.
Although it is true that the servitude of a number of nations turned
out to be somewhat less than seventy years, the prophecy does not
50 Some examples are: 70 years (Gen. 5:12; 11:26; Ps. 90:10); 70 days (Gen. 50:3); 70
descendants of Jacob (Gen. 46; Ex. 1:5; Deut. 10:22); 70 palm trees (Ex. 15:27); 70
elders (Ex. 24:1; Num. 11:16; Ezek. 8:11); 70 submissive Canaanite kings (Judg.
1:7); 70 sons (Judg. 8:30; 12:14; 2 Kings 10:1).
51 F. C. Fensham, “The Numeral Seventy in the Old Testament and the Family of
Jerubbaal, Ahab, Panammuwa and Athirat,” Palestine Exploration Quarterly July–
December 1977, pp. 113–115. Cf. also Eric Burrows, “The Number Seventy in
Semitic” Orientalia, Vol. V,1936, pp. 389–92.
52 The inscription says: “Seventy years as the period of its desolation he wrote (down
in the Book of Fate). But the merciful Marduk—his anger 1asted but a moment—
turned (the Book of Fate) upside down and ordered its restoration in the eleventh
year.” — D. D. Luekenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia, Vol.II
(Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1927), p. 243. As pointed out by
Luckenbill, “the Babylonian numeral 70,’ turned upside down or reversed,
becomes ‘11,’ just as our printed ‘9,’ turned upside down, becomes ‘6.e “ (Ibid., p.
242. Cf. also R. Borger in Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. XVII, 1958, p.74.)
In this way Esarhaddon “explained” his decision to restore Babylon after the death
of his father Sennacherib in 681 B.C.E.
clearly imply that the seventy years “for Babylon” should be

reckoned from 605 B.C.E. It must be remembered that all nations
were predicted to become servants of Babylon: “all the nations must
serve him and his son and his grandson.”53 (Jeremiah 27:7, NW)
Some nations had become subject to Babylon even prior to the battle
of Carchemish in 605 B.C.E. If the seventy years “for Babylon” are
counted from the time when Babylon crushed the Assyrian empire,
thus beginning to step forward as the dominant political power
itself, even a more exact application of the seventy years is possible.
A short review of the last years of Assyria will make this clear.
Up to 627 B.C.E. Assyria held hegemony over many countries,

including Babylonia and the Hattu-area. But on the death of
Ashurbanipal in that year, Assyria’s power began to wane.
Nabopolassar, the governor of southern Babylonia, drove the
Assyrians from Babylon in 626 and occupied the throne. In the
following years he successfully established Babylonian
independence.
The most important source for the history of the final years of
the Assyrian empire is the Babylonian chronicle B.M. 21901, which
describes the events from the tenth year of Nabopolassar until the
beginning of his eighteenth regnal year, that is, from 616 to 608
B.C.E.
53 Nebuchanezzar’s son and successor was Evil-Merodach. His grandson was
evidently Belshazzar, the son of Nabonidus who, according to R. P. Dougherty was
married to Nitocris, a daughter of Nebuchadnezzar.—R. P. Dougherty, Nabonidus
and Belshazzar (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1929), pp. 30–32, 79. See also
the comments by D. J. Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1985), pp. 11–12.
In 616, Nabopolassar attacked the Assyrians and defeated them,

but an Egyptian army led by Psammetichus I came up to assist the
Assyrian king (Sin-shar-ishkun), and Nabopolassar chose to
withdraw to Babylon.
By this time the Medes, too, began to attack Assyria, and in 614
they took Ashur, the ancient Assyrian capital. After the city had
fallen, Nabopolassar, whose army arrived too late to help the
Medes, made a treaty with the Median ruler, Cyaxares.
In 612, the two allies attacked the Assyrian capital, Nineveh,
captured it and destroyed it. The Assyrian king, Sin-shar-ishkun,
perished in the flames. His successor, Ashur-uballit II, fled to the
provincial capital of Harran, where he established his government,
still claiming sovereignty over Assyria.
During the subsequent years Nabopolassar successfully
campaigned in Assyria, and by the end of 610, he marched against
Harran, joined by Median forces.54 Ashur-uballit fled, and the city
was captured and plundered either late in 610 or early in 609
B.C.E.55 Late in the summer of 609 Ashur-uballit, supported by a
large Egyptian force headed by Pharaoh Necho, made a last
attempt to recapture Harran, but failed. This definitely put an end
to the Assyrian empire.
That 609 B.C.E. marked the definite end of the Assyrian empire
is the prevailing view among leading authorities today. Some typical
statements are quoted in the following box:
THE FALL OF ASSYRIA — 609 B.C.E.

”In 610 the Babylonians and their allies took Harran, and
Ashur-uballit with the wreckage of his forces fell back across the
Euphrates into the arms of the Egyptians. An attempt (in 609) to
retake Harran failed miserably. Assyria was finished.”— Professor
John Bright, A History of Israel, 3rd ed. (Philadelphia: Westminster
Press, 1981), p. 316.
In 609 B.C.E. “Assyria ceased to exist and her territory was
taken over by the Babylonians.”— Professor D. J. Wiseman in The
54 The term used for the Medes in the chronicle, “Umman-manda,” has often been
taken to refer to, or at least include, the Scythian. This hypothesis appears to be
untenable in the light of recent research. See the extensive discussion by Stefan
Zawadzki in The Fall of Assyria and Median-Babylonian Relations in Light of the
Nabopolassar Chronicle (Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University Press, 1988), pp. 64–
98.
55 According to the Babylonian chronicle BM 21901 the two armies set out against
Harran in Arahsamnu, the eighth month, which in 610 B.C.E. roughly
corresponded to November in the Julian calendar. After the capture of the city they
returned home in Addaru, the twelfth month, which roughly corresponded to
March in the following year, 609 B.C.E. Most probably, therefore, the city was
captured early in 609 B.C.E.—A.K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles
(Locust Valley, N.Y.: JJ. Augustin Publisher, 1975), pp. 95–96.
New Bible Dictionary, J. D. Douglas (ed.), 2nd ed. (Leicester,

England: Inter-Varsity Press, 1982), p. 101.
”In 609, the Babylonians finally routed the Assyrians and began
the establishment of their control over Phoenicia, Syria and
Palestine.”—The Russian Assyriologist M. A. Dandamaev in History
of Humanity, Vol. III, ed. by J. Herrman & E. Zürcher (Paris,
London, New York: UNESCO, 1996), p. 117.
”In 609 Assyria was mentioned for the last time as a still existing
but marginal formation in northwestern Mesopotamia. After that
year Assyria ceased to exist.”—Stefan Zawadzki in The Fall of
Assyria (Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University Press, 1988), p. 16.
Thus, the seventy years “for Babylon” may also be reckoned

from 609 B.C.E. From that year the Babylonian king regarded
himself as the legitimate successor of the king of Assyria, and in the
following years he gradually took over the control of the latter’s
territories, beginning with a series of campaigns in the Armenian
mountains north of Assyria.
The Egyptian Pharaoh, Necho, after the failed attempt to
recapture Harran in 609, succeeded in taking over the areas in the
west, including Palestine, for about four years, although his control
of these areas seems to have been rather general and loose.56 But
the battle at Carchemish in 605 B.C.E. put an end to this brief
Egyptian presence in the west. (Jeremiah 46:2) After a series of
successful campaigns to “Hattu,” Nebuchadnezzar made it clear to
Necho that he was the real heir to the Assyrian Empire, and “never
again did the king of Egypt come out from his land, for the king of
Babylon had taken all that happened to belong to the king of Egypt
up to the river of Euphrates.”―2 Kings 24:7, NW.57
If the Babylonian supremacy is reckoned from 609 B.C.E., the
year that marked the definite end of the Assyrian Empire, exactly
seventy years elapsed up to the fall of Babylon in 539 B .C.E. This
period may be counted as the “seventy years for Babylon.”
(Jeremiah 29:10)58
As not all the nations previously ruled by Assyria were brought
under the Babylonian yoke in that same year, the “seventy years” of
servitude in reality came to mean a round number for individual
nations .59
56 Compare 2 Kings 23:29–34; 2 Chronicles 35:20–36:4. On Necho’s “general, but
1oose” control of the areas in the west, see the comments by T. G. H. James in The
Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. III:2 (see note 23 above), p. 716.
57 Ross E. Winkle, too, concludes that “the defeat of Assyria is the obvious choice for
the actua1 beginning of the seventy years. This is because of the fact that with
Assyria out of the way, Babylon was truly the dominant power in the North.”—R.
E. Winkle,
”Jeremiah’s seventy years for Babylon: a re-assessment,” Andrews University

Seminary Studies (AUSS),Vol.25:3 (1987), p. 296. Winkle’s discussion of the texts
dealing with the seventy years (in AUSS 25:2, pp. 201–213, and 25:3, pp. 289–299)
is remarkably similar to that published already in the first edition of the present
work in 1983. Winkle does not refer to it, however, and it is quite possible that it
was not known to him.
58 Several historians and biblical scholars have been amazed at the exactness with
which Jeremiah’s prediction was fulfilled. Some scholars have tried to explain this
by suggesting that the passages in Jer. 25:11 and 29:10 were added to the book of
Jeremiah after the Jewish exile. There is no evidence in support of this theory,
however. Professor John Bright, for example, commenting on Jer. 29:10, says:
“One cannot explain rationally why it was that Jeremiah was assured that
Babylon’s rule would be so relatively brief. But there is no reason to regard the
verse as a vaticinium ex eventu [a ‘prophecy’ made after the event]; we can only
record the fact that the prediction turned out to be approximately correct (which
may be why later writers made so much of it). From the fall of Nineveh (612) to the
fall of Babylon (539) was seventy-three years; from Nebuchadnezzar’s accession
(605) to the fall of Babylon was sixty-six years.” —John Bright, The Anchor Bible:
Jeremiah (Garden City, New York: Doubleday and Company, Inc., 2nd. ed. 1986),
pp. 208–09.
59 Interestingly, the Watch Tower writers, too, seem finally to have realized this.
Commenting on the 70 years that Tyre would be forgotten according to Isaiah
23:15–17—a period they equate with the 70 years for Babylon—their recent
commentary on Isaiah says: “True, the island-city of Tyre is not subject to Babylon
for a full 70 years, since the Babylonian Empire falls in 539 B.C.E. Evidently, the
70 years represent the period of Babylonia’s greatest domination . . . Different
nations come under that domination at different times. But at the end of 70 years,
that domination will crumble.” (Isaiah’s Prophecy. Light for All Mankind, Vol 1,
2000, p. 253) These remarkable statements are more or less a reversal of earlier
views.
6
THE “SEVEN TIMES” OF DANIEL 4
Iagreement
N THE PREVIOUS chapter it was shown that the prophecy of
the seventy years may be given an application that is in full
with a dating of the desolation of Jerusalem in 587
B.C.E. Would this mean , then , that a period of 2,520 years of
Gentile times started in 587 B.C.E. and ended—not in 1914―but
in 1934 C.E.? Or could it be that the 2,520-year calculation is not
founded on a sound biblical basis after all? If not, what meaning
should be attached to the outbreak of war in 1914―a year that had
been pointed forward to decades in advance?
These are the questions discussed in this chapter. We will first
take a look at the attempts made to end the Gentile times in 1934.
A. THE 1934 PROPHECY
Ending the times of the Gentiles in 1934 would not be a new idea.
As far back as 1886 the British expositor Dr. Henry Grattan
Guinness pointed to 1934 in his book Light for the Last Days.1 Dr.
Guinness made use of three different calendars in his calculations
and thus succeeded in giving the Gentile times three time periods
of different lengths: 2,520, 2,484, and 2,445 years respectively. In
addition, he also used several starting-points, the first in 747 and
the last in 587 B.C.E.2 This provided a series of terminal dates,
extending from 1774 CE. to 1934 CE., all of which were regarded
as important dates in God’s prophetic timetable.
With the 1934 date, however, the Gentile times would definitely
end, reckoned according to Dr. Guinness’ longest scale and from
his last starting-point. The four most important dates in his scheme
were 1915, 1917, 1923 and 1934.
1. H. Grattan Guinness, Light for the Last Days (London, 1886).
2. The others were 741, 738, 727, 713, 676, 650–647, and 598.
236
The “Seven Times” of Daniel 237
Dr. Guinness had predicted that the year 1917 would be perhaps
the most important year in the termination of the trampling of
Jerusalem. When the British general Edmund Allenby on
December 9 that year captured Jerusalem and freed Palestine from
the Turkish domination, this was seen by many as a confirmation
of his chronology. Quite a number of people interested in the
prophecies began to look forward to 1934 with great expectations.3
Among these were also some of the followers of Pastor Charles
Taze Russell.
A-1: Pastor Russell’s chronology emended
At the climax of the organizational crisis in the Watch Tower
Society following the death of Russell in 1916, many Bible students
left the parent movement and formed the Associated Bible Students, in
1918 chartered as The Pastoral Bible Institute.4
In the same year Paul S. L. Johnson broke away from this group
and formed The Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement, today one of
the strongest groups to grow out of the Bible Student movement
aside from the parent organization.
Early in the 1920s the Pastoral Bible Institute changed Russell’s
application of the Gentile times, which caused an interesting debate
between that movement, the Laymen’s Home Missionary
Movement, and the Watch Tower Society.
An article entitled “Watchman, What of the Night?” published in
the Pastoral Bible Institute’s periodical The Herald of Christ’s
Kingdom, April 15, 1921, marked a significant break with Pastor
Russell’s chronological system. Mainly responsible for this
reevaluation was R. E. Streeter, one of the five editors of the
Herald. His views, accepted by the other editors, reflected a
growing concern on the part of many Bible Students (as evidenced
from letters received from nearly every part of the earth) who had
experienced deep perplexity “as to the seeming failure of much that
was hoped for and expected would be realized by the Lord’s people
by this time.”5 Some of the questions which had arisen were:
3 Most of these expositors seemed to be unaware of the fact that Guinness himself
back in 1909, in his book On the Rock, had revised his chronology and “had
calculated that the end would occur in 1945 instead of 1934.”—Dwight Wilson,
Armageddon Now! (Tyler, Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991), pp. 90–
91.
4 The Pastoral Bible Institute (P.B.I.) was headed by former board members of the
Watch Tower Society who were illegally dismissed by J. F. Rutherford in 1917
together with other prominent members.
5. The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, April 15, 1921, p. 115.
Why has not the Church realized her final deliverance and
reward by this time? . . . Why is not the time of trouble over with
by now — why has not the old order of things passed away, and
why has not the Kingdom been established in power before this?
Is it not possible that there may be an error in the chronology?6
Calling attention to the fact that Pastor Russell’s predictions for
1914 had not been fulfilled, it was concluded that there was
evidently an error in the former reckoning. This error was
explained to be found in the calculation of the times of the
Gentiles:
Careful investigation has resulted in our locating the point of
difficulty or discrepancy in what we have considered our great
chain of chronology. It is found to be in connection with the
commencement of the ‘Times of the Gentiles’.7
First, it was argued, the seventy years, formerly referred to as a
period of desolation, more properly should be called “the seventy
years of servitude.” (Jeremiah 25:11) Then, referring to Daniel 2:1,
37–38, it was pointed out that Nebuchadnezzar was the “head of
gold” already in his second regnal year, and actually dominated the
other nations including Judah, beginning from his very first year,
according to Daniel 1:1. Consequently, the era of seventy years
commenced eighteen to nineteen years before the destruction of
Jerusalem. This destruction, therefore, had to be moved forward
about nineteen years, from 606 to 587 B.C.E.
But the 606 B.C.E. date could still be retained as a starting-point
for the times of the Gentiles, as it was held that the lease of power to
the Gentiles started with Nebuchadnezzar’s rise to world
dominion. Thus 1914 marked the end of the lease of power, but not
necessarily the full end of the exercise of power, nor the complete fall
of the Gentile governments, even as the kingdom of Judah did not
fall and was not overthrown in the final and absolute sense until
Zedekiah, a vassal king under Nebuchadnezzar, was taken captive
nineteen years after the period of servitude began. The Herald
editors concluded:
Accordingly it was 587 B.C. when Zedekiah was taken captive,
and not 606 B.C., and hence while the 2520 years’ 1ease of
Gentile power starting in Nebuchadnezzar’s first year, 606 B.C.,
would run out in 1914; yet the full end of the Gentile Times and
6 Ibid., pp. 115, 116.
7 Ibid., p. 118.
the complete fall of Gentile governments is not indicated as taking

place till nineteen years later, or in about 1934.8
So what could be expected to take place in 1934? The Herald of

Christ’s Kingdom indicated:
The reasonable deduction is that the great changes and events
which we have heretofore expected to take place in 1914 would, in
view of the foregoing, be logically expected to be in evidence
somewhere around 1934.9
Other articles followed in the issues of May 15 and June 1 of

the Herald, giving additional evidence for the necessity of these
changes and answering questions from the readers. The changes
evoked much interest among the Bible Students:
Many have freely written us that they have heartily accepted the
conclusions reached. . . .
It has been of special interest to us to receive advice from
brethren in several different quarters telling of how for some
months or years before receiving our recent treatment of the
subject, they had been led to make an exhaustive examination of
the chronology and had arrived at exactly the same conclusions as
those presented in the HERALD with regard to the 19 years
difference in the starting of the Gentile Times , and found that all
the evidences showed that Nebuchadnezzar’s universal kingdom
began in his first year instead of his nineteenth.10
A-2: The Bible Student controversy on the Gentile times
chronology
However, most Bible Student groups rejected the conclusions of

the Pastoral Bible Institute. The first counterattack came from P. S.
L. Johnson, the founder of the Laymen’s Home Missionary
Movement and editor of its periodical The Present Truth.
8 Ibid., p. 120.
9 Ibid.
10 The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, June 1, 1921, p. 163. Interestingly, the November
1, 1921 issue of the Herald published an article prepared by another Bible Student
in 1915, in which he presented evidence and conclusions practically identical to
those of R. E. Streeter, although he dated the destruction of Jerusalem in 588
instead of 587 B.C.E. The 588 date was adopted by P.B.I. in subsequent issues of
the Herald. As this man had no connection with P.B.I., he preferred to be
anonymous, signing the article with the initials J.A.D. The Beraean Bible Institute,
a Bible Student group with headquarters in Melbourne, Australia, also accepted
the conclusions of the P.B.I. editors, as seen from their People’s Paper of July 1
and September 1, 1921, pp. 52, 68.
Periodicals published by the three principal Bible Student groups

involved in the controversy in the early 1920’s about the
application of the Gentile times.
In the issue of June 1, 1921, he published a critical article entitled

“‘Watchman, What of the Night?’ —Examined” (pages 87–93), in
which he defended Pastor Russell’s understanding of Daniel 1:1
and 2:1 and the seventy years of desolation, also adding some
arguments of his own. This was followed by other articles in the
issues of July 1 and September 1.11
In 1922, the Watch Tower Society, too, plunged into the debate.
Evidently the chronological changes in the Herald rapidly came to
the knowledge of many Bible Students from different quarters, and
seem to have caused no little agitation among the readers of The
Watch Tower magazine, too. This was openly admitted in the first
article on the subject, “The Gentile Times,” published in the May
1, 1922, issue of The Watch Tower:
About a year ago there began some agitation concerning
chronology, the crux of the argument being that Brother Russell
was wrong concerning chronology and particularly in error with
reference to the Gentile times. . . .
Agitation concerning the error in chronology has continued to
increase throughout the year, and some have turned into positive
opposition to that which has been written. This has resulted in
some of the Lord’s dear sheep becoming disturbed in mind and
causing them to inquire, Why does not THE WATCH TOWER
say something?12
Consequently, beginning with this article, the Watch Tower
Society started a series in defense of Pastor Russell’s chronology.
The second article, entitled “Chronology,” published in The Watch
Tower of May 15, 1922, opened with a reaffirmation of belief in
Russell’s dates, and added the date 1925:
We have no doubt whatever in regard to the chronology relating
to the dates of 1874, 1914, 1918, and 1925. Some claim to have
found new light in connection with the period of “seventy years of
desolation” and Israel’s captivity in Babylon, and are zealously
seeking to make others believe that Brother Russell was in error.
11 “‘Ancient Israel’s Jubilee Year’ Examined” in the July 1, 1921 issue Of The Present
Truth, pp. 100–104, and “Further P.B.I. Chronology Examined” in the September 1
issue, pp. 134–136.
12 The Watch Tower, May 1, 1922, pp. 131–132. Other articles published during 1922
were “Chronology” (May 15, pp. 147–150), “Seventy Years’ Desolation (Part I)”
(June 1, pp. 163–168), “Seventy Years’ Desolation (Part II)” (June 15, pp. 183–187),
“The Strong Cable Of Chronology” (July 15, pp. 217–219), “Interesting Letters:
Mistakes of Ptolemy, the Pagan Historian” (August 15, pp. 253–254; this was
written by Morton Edgar), and “Divinely-given Chronological Parallelisms (Part I)”
(November 15, pp. 355–360).
The arguments put forth in this and subsequent articles were much
the same as those earlier published by Paul S. L. Johnson. Johnson,
who involuntarily had to side with the Watch Tower Society in this
“battle,” supported The Watch Tower with a series of new articles in
the Present Truth, running parallel with the articles in The Watch
Tower.13
These responses were not long left unanswered. The Herald of
June 15, 1922, contained the article “The Validity of Our
Chronological Deductions,” which was a refutation of the
arguments put forth in support of Pastor Russell’s interpretation of
Daniel 1:1 and 2:1. In the July 1 issue, a second article “Another
Chronological Testimony” considered the evidence from Zechariah
7:5, and the July 15 issue contained a third on the desolation
period, again signed by J.A.D. (See note 10.)
Gradually the debate subsided. The Pastoral Bible Institute
editors summarized their arguments and published them in a
special double number of the Herald, August 1–15, 1925, and,
again, in the May 15, 1926 issue. Then they waited to see what the
1934 date would bring.
As 1934 approached the Institute’s editors assumed a very
cautious attitude:
If the nineteen years was intended to indicate the exact length
of time of the running out of the Gentile Times from 1915
onward, then that would carry us to approximately 1933–1934; but
we do not know that this was so intended, nor do we have positive
evidence as to the exact length of the closing out of the Gentile
Times beyond 1915.14
This cautiousness proved to be wise, and when the 1934 date
had passed, they could assert:
Brethren who have perused carefully the pages of this journal,
are well aware that much cautiousness and conservatism have been
urged upon all in the direction of setting dates and fixing the time
for various occurrences and events; and this continues to be the
editorial policy of the ‘Herald’.15
As to the question of why 1934 did not see the passing away of
the Gentile nations, it was explained that 1934 should be looked
13 The Present Truth, June 1, 1922: “Some Recent P.B.I. Teachings Examined” (pp.
84–87); July 1: “Some Recent P.B.I. Teachings Examined” (pp. 102–108); August 1:
“Further P.B.I. Chronology Examined” (pp.117–122); November 1: “Some Mistakes
in Ptolemy’s Canon” (pp. 166–168).
14 The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, May I, 1930, p. 137.
15 The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, May, 1935, p. 68.
upon as an approximate date, and that “we believe the progress of

events and all the facts as we see them unfolding before us in this
day of the Lord, lead us to look for the running out of the present
order more by degrees or stages rather than that of the sudden
crash and passing away of everything at one point of time, as the
Apostle Paul suggests — ‘As travail upon a woman’.”16 The
worsening situation in the world leading to The Second World War
seemed to give support to this way of looking at the matter.17
The years 1914 and 1934 have come and gone, and the Gentile
nations still rule the earth. In fact, the number of independent
nations has tripled since 1914, from 66 in that year to about 200 at
present. Thus, instead of ending in 1914, the times for the majority
of nations on earth today have begun after that year!
Some proper questions to ask now surely are: Is the 2,520-year
period really a well-founded biblical calculation? Was Jesus’
mention of the “Gentile times” at Luke 21:24 a reference to
Nebuchadnezzar’s “seven times” of madness? And should these
“seven times” be converted into 2,520 years?
B. ARE THE GENTILE TIMES “SEVEN TIMES” OF 2,520
YEARS?
When Jesus, at Luke 21:24, referred to the “times of the Gentiles,”
or, according to the New World Translation, “the appointed times of
the nations,” did he then have in mind the “seven times” of
madness that fell upon the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar in
fulfillment of his dream about the chopped-down tree, as recorded
in the book of Daniel, chapter four? And were these “seven times”
of madness meant to have a greater fulfillment beyond that upon
Nebuchadnezzar, representing a period of 2,520 years of Gentile
dominion?
In spite of the fanciful arguments put forth in support of these
conjectures, positive proof is missing, and serious objections may
be raised against them. A critical examination of the Watch Tower
Society’s chief arguments, as presented in its Bible dictionary Insight
on the Scriptures, will make this abundantly clear.18
16 Ibid., p. 69.
17 The year 1934 was still held to be an important date, occupying “a prominent place
in chronological prophecy.” In support of this conclusion, the P.B.I. editors referred
to a statement by Edwin C. Hill, a press reporter of international reputation, to the
effect that “the year 1934 had been a most remarkable one. There had been many
important occurrences and developments, he said, affecting the destinies of all the
nations of the earth and marking the year as one of the most significant of
history.”—The Herald of Christ’s Kingdom, May, 1935, pp. 71–72. (Emphasis
added)
18 See the article “Appointed times of the nations,” in Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1
(Brooklyn, New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1988), pp. 132–135.
B-1: The supposed connection between Luke 21:24 and

Daniel 4
It is true that in his last great prophecy (Matthew 24–25; Luke
21, and Mark 13), Jesus “at least twice” referred to the book of
Daniel.19
Thus, when mentioning the “disgusting thing that causes
desolation” (NW) he directly states that this was “spoken of
through Daniel the prophet.” (Matthew 24:15; Daniel 9:27; 11:31,
and 12:11) And when speaking of the “great tribulation [Greek
thlipsis] such as has not occurred since the world’s beginning until
now” (Matthew 24:21, NW), he clearly quotes from Daniel 12:1:
“And there will certainly occur a time of distress [the early Greek
translations―the Septuagint version and Theodotion’s version―use
the word thlipsis, in the same way as in Matthew 24:21] such as has
not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that
time.” (NW)
However, no such clear reference to chapter four of Daniel may be found
at Luke 21:24. The word “times” (Greek kairoí, the plural form of
kairós) in this text is no clear reference to the “seven times” of
Daniel 4 as the Watch Tower Society maintains.20
This common word occurs many times in both its singular and
plural forms in the Greek Scriptures, and about 300 times in the
Greek Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures. In Daniel 4
and Luke 21 the word “times” is explicitly applied to two quite
different periods—the “seven times” to the period of
Nebuchadnezzar’s madness, and the “times of the Gentiles” to the
period of the trampling down of Jerusalem―and the two periods
may be equalized only by giving them a greater application beyond
that given in the texts themselves. Therefore, the supposed
connection between the “times of the Gentiles” at Luke 21:24 and
the “seven times” at Daniel 4:16, 23, 25, and 32 appears to be no
more than a conjecture.
B-2: The greater application of the “seven times”
Several arguments are proposed by the Watch Tower Society to
support the conclusion that Nebuchadnezzar’s “seven times” of
madness prefigured the period of Gentile dominion up to the
establishment of Christ’s Kingdom, viz., a) the prominent element of
time in the book of Daniel; b) the time at which the vision of the
chopped-down tree was given; c) the person to whom it was given,
19 Ibid., p. 133.
20 Ibid.
and d) the theme of the vision. Let us have a closer look at these
arguments.
a) The element of time in the book of Daniel
To prove that the “seven times” of Daniel 4 are related to the
“times of the Gentiles,” the Watch Tower Society argues that “an
examination of the entire book of Daniel reveals that the element
of time is everywhere prominent in the visions and prophecies it
presents,” and that “the book repeatedly points toward the
conclusion that forms the theme of its prophecies: the
establishment of a universal and eternal Kingdom of God exercised
through the rulership of the ‘son of man’.’’21
Although this is true of some of the visions in the book of
Daniel, it is not true of all of them. And as far as can be seen, no
other vision or prophecy therein has more than one fulfillment.22
There is nothing to indicate, either in the book of Daniel or
elsewhere in the Bible, that Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the
chopped-down tree in Daniel 4 has more than one fulfillment.
Daniel clearly says that the prophecy was fulfilled upon
Nebuchadnezzar: “All this befell Nebuchadnezzar the king”
(Daniel 4:28, NW). And further, in verse 33: “At that moment the
word itself was fulfilled upon Nebuchadnezzar.” (NW) Dr. Edward
J. Young comments:
lit., was ended, i.e., it came to an end in that it was completed or
fulfilled with respect to Neb.”23
21 Ibid., pp. 133–34.
22 When Jesus, in his prophecy on the desolation of Jerusalem, twice referred to the
prophecies of Daniel (Matthew 24:15, 21), he did not give these prophecies a
second and “greater” fulfillment. His first reference was to the “disgusting thing
that is causing desolation,” a phrase found in Daniel 9:27; 11:31, and 12:11. The
original text is that of Daniel 9:27, which contextually (verse 26) seems to point
forward to the crisis culminating with the desolation of Jerusalem in 70 C.E. The
same holds true of his reference to the “great tribulation” of Daniel 12:1. Jesus
applied, not reapplied, both of these prophecies to the tribulation on the Jewish
nation in 67–70 C.E. Phrases and expressions used by earlier prophets are often
also used, or alluded to, by later prophets, not because they gave a second and
greater application to an earlier, fulfilled prophecy, but because they readily
reused the “prophetic language” of earlier prophets, using similar phrases,
expressions, ideas, symbols, metaphors, etc. in their prophecies of events to come.
Thus, for example, it has often been pointed out that the apostle Paul, in his
description of the coming “man of lawlessness” (2 Thessalonians 2:35), borrows
some of the expressions used by Daniel in his prophecies about the activities of
Antiochus IV Epiphanes (cf. Daniel 8:10–11; 11:36–37).
23 Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ.
Co., 1949), p. 110.
Actually, most of the chapters in the book of Daniel do not

contain material that could be said to point forward toward “the
establishment of a universal eternal kingdom of God through the
rulership of the ‘son of man’ “: chapter 1 deals with Daniel and his
companions at the court of Babylon; chapter 3 tells the story about
the three Hebrews in the fiery furnace; chapter 5 deals with
Belshazzar’s feast, which ended with the fall of Babylon; chapter 6
tells the story of Daniel in the den of lions, and chapter 8 contains
the vision of the ram and the he-goat, which culminates with the
end of the tyrannical rule of Antiochus IV, in the second century
before Christ’s coming.24
And although the prophecy of the “seventy weeks” in chapter 9
points forward to the coming of Messiah, it does not say anything
about the establishment of his kingdom. Not even the lengthy
prophecy in the fina1 chapters, Daniel 10–12, which end with the
“great tribulation” and the resurrection of “many of those asleep in
the ground” (Daniel 12:1–3), explicitly connects this with the
establishment of the kingdom of Christ.
The fact is that the only clear and direct references to the
establishment of the kingdom of God are found in chapters 2 and
7 (Daniel 2:44–45 and 7:13–14, 18, 22, 27).25
Thus any precedent which would call upon us to give a greater
application to Nebuchadnezzar’s “seven times” of madness simply
does not exist.
b) The time of the vision
If, as claimed, the time at which this vision was given should
indicate a greater fulfillment, pointing to a 2,520-year break in the
royal dynasty of David, it should have been given close to, or
24 This is how the vision is understood by most commentators. The statements at
Daniel 8:17 and 19 that “the vision pertains to the time of the end” should not
automatically be understood as a reference to a final, eschatological “End of Time”
In the Old Testament words and phrases such as “the day of the Lord,” the “end”
(Hebrew qetz) and the “time of the end” (compare Amos 5:18–20, Ezekiel 7:1–6;
21:25, 29; Daniel 11:13, 27,35, 40) “do not refer to an End of Time but rather to a
divinely appointed crisis, a turning point in history, i.e., a point within historical
time and not a post- or supra-historical date.” (Shemaryahu Talmon, Literaty
Studies in the Hebrew Bible, Jerusalem-Leiden: The Magnes Press, 1993, p. 171)
The attempt of Antiochus IV to destroy the Jewish religion, as predicted in Daniel
8:9–14, 23–26, was certainly such a “crisis” and has often been described as a
“turning point in history” See, for example, the comments by Al Walters in The
Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Vol. 55:4, 1993, pp. 688–89.
25 Compare the careful study of this question by Dr. Reinhard Gregor Kratz, “Reich
Gottes und Gesetz im Danielbuch und im werdenden Judendom,” in A. S. van der
Woude (ed.), The Book of Daniel in the Light of New Findings (Leuven, Belgien:
Leuven University Press, 1993), pp. 433–479. (See especially pp. 441–442, and
448.)
preferably in the same year as the dethronement of Zedekiah.

Often, when the time a prophecy is given is important and has a
connection with its fulfillment, the prophecy is dated. This is, for
example, the case of the prophecy of the seventy years. (Jeremiah
25:1)26 The visions and prophecies in the book of Daniel are
usually dated: the dream of the image in the second year of
Nebuchadnezzar (Daniel 2:1), the vision of the four beasts in the
first year of Belshazzar (Daniel 7:1), the vision of the ram and the
he-goat in the third year of Belshazzar (Daniel 8:1), the prophecy of
the seventy weeks in the first year of Darius the Mede (Daniel 9:1),
and the last prophecy in the third year of Cyrus (Daniel 10:1). 27
But no such date is given for the vision of the chopped-down tree in Daniel
4, which should logically have been done if this was important. The
only information concerning time is given in verse 29, where the
fulfillment of the dream is stated to have occurred twelve months
later. Although no regnal year is given, it seems probable that
Nebuchadnezzar’s “seven times” of madness took place
somewhere near the close of his long reign. The reason for this
conclusion is the boastful statement that triggered off the
fulfillment of his dream:
Is not this Babylon the Great, that I myself have built for the
royal house with the strength of my might and for the dignity of
my majesty? —Daniel 4:30, NW.
When could Nebuchadnezzar possibly have uttered these words?
Throughout most of his long reign he engaged in numerous
building projects at Babylon and many other cities in Babylonia.
The cuneiform inscriptions demonstrate that Nebuchadnezzar was
26 See chapter 5 above, section A-3.

27 That at least some dates given for the visions of Daniel are closely related to their
contents may be seen from chapters 7 and 8, dated to the 1st and 3rd years of
Belshazzar, respectively. According to the “Verse Account of Nabonidus” (B .M.
38299), Nabonidus “entrusted the kingship” to his son Belshazzar “when the third
year was about to begin.” (J. B. Pritchard, Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to
the Old Testament, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1950, pp.
312–13) As the 1st year of Nabonidus was 555/54 BCE, his 3rd year—and thus
the 1st year of Belshazzar—was 553/52 BCE. Now, according to the Sippar
Cylinder, it was in this very year, the 3rd year of Nabonidus, that the god Marduk
“aroused” Cyrus in a rebellion against his Median overlord, king Astyages. As
stated in the Nabonidus Chronicle, Astyages was finally defeated three years later,
in the 6th year of Nabonidus, that is, in 550/49 BCE. It can hardly be a
coincidence that Daniel shortly before this, in Belshazzar’s 3rd year(Daniel 8:1),
that is, in 551/50 BCE, was transferred in a vision to Susa, the future
administrative capital of Persia, to be shown the emergence of the Medo-Persian
empire in the form of a two-horned ram “making thrusts to the west and to the
north and to the south?’ (Daniel 8:1–4, 20) His vision, then, began to be fulfilled
probably just a few months after it was given!
Nebuchadnezzar’s madness
as depicted in the book “The Truth Shall Make You Free,” (New
York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Inc., 1943), page 237.
primarily a builder, not a warrior. He renovated and restored

sixteen temples in Babylon including the two temples of Marduk,
completed the two great walls of the city, built a network of canals
across the city, embellished the streets of Babylon, rebuilt the
palace of Nabopolassar, his father, and constructed another palace
for his own use that was finished about 570 B.C.E., in addition to
many other architectural achievements.28
It was evidently at the close of this building activity that the
vision of the chopped-down tree was given, as is indicated by
Nebuchadnezzar’s proud words in Daniel 4:30. This points
towards the close of his forty-three-year-long reign, and
consequently many years after the destruction of Jerusalem in his
eighteenth regnal year.
A prophecy is, by definition, forward looking. How then could
the time at which the vision was given indicate anything about a
greater fulfillment, one beginning with the dethronement of
Zedekiah many years earlier? Should not the fulfillment of a prophecy
start, not before, but subsequent to the time at which the prophecy is
given? The time of this particular dream, therefore, does not only
seem to be unimportant, as the prophecy is not dated, but can
actually be used as an argument against an application to a period
starting with the destruction of Jerusalem, as the dream evidently
was given many years after that event.
c) The person to whom the vision was given
Does the person to whom this vision was given, that is
Nebuchadnezzar, indicate it has to be applied to a supposed 2,520-
year break in the royal dynasty of David?
It is true that Nebuchadnezzar was instrumental in causing the
break in this dynasty. But is it not improbable that
Nebuchadnezzar’s oppressive exercise of sovereignty would be a
symbol of Jehovah’s sovereignty expressed through the Davidic
dynasty, while contemporaneously during the “seven times” of
madness his total powerlessness was a symbol of world dominion
exercised by Gentile nations? Or did he play two roles during his
“seven times” of madness—(1) his powerlessness, representing the
break in the dynasty of David during the 2,520-year period; and (2)
his beastlike state, picturing the Gentile rule of the earth?
28 D. J. Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1985), pp. 42–80.
As may be seen, the parallels between the literal fulfillment and the
claimed greater application are strained, and the greater application,
therefore, becomes quite complicated and confusing. Would not
this application have been far more probable if the vision had been
given to one of the last kings of Judah instead of to
Nebuchadnezzar? Would not a king of the royal dynasty of David
be a more natural figure of that dynasty, and the “seven times” of
loss of power experienced by such a king a more natural figure of
the loss of sovereignty in the Davidic line?
Evidently, then, the person to whom the vision was given is no clear
indication of another application beyond that one given directly
through Daniel the prophet.
d) The theme of the vision
The theme of the vision of the chopped-down tree is expressed in
Daniel 4:17, namely, “that people living may know that the Most High is
Ruler in the kingdom of mankind and that to the one he wants to, he gives it
and he sets up over it even the lowliest one of mankind.”
Does this stated intent of the vision indicate it pointed forward
to the time for the establishment of God’s kingdom by his
Christ?29
To draw such a conclusion would be to read more into this
statement than it actually says. Jehovah has always been the
supreme ruler in the kingdom of mankind, although his supremacy
has not always been recognized by everyone. But David did realize
this, saying:
Jehovah himself has firmly established his throne in the very
heavens; and over everything his own kingship has held dominion. —
Psalms 103:19, NW.
Your kingship is a kingship for all times indefinite, And your
dominion is throughout all successive generations.― Psalms
145:13, NW.
Thus Jehovah has always exercised control over the history of
mankind and maneuvered the events according to his own will:
And he is changing times and seasons, removing kings and
setting up kings, giving wisdom to the wise ones and knowledge to
those knowing discernment. —Daniel 2:21, NW.
This was a lesson that Nebuchadnezzar―as well as kings before
and after him—had to learn. The period that followed upon
Nebuchadnezzar’s desolation of Judah and Jerusalem represented
no exception or interruption to Jehovah’s supreme rule, in spite of
29 Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1 (1988), p. 134.
the break in the royal dynasty of David. The Gentile nations during
this period did not rule supremely. Jehovah took action against the
Babylonian empire by raising up Cyrus to capture Babylon in 539
B.C.E. (Isaiah 45:1), and later Alexander the Great destroyed the
Persian empire.
Further, the expression “lowliest one of mankind” at Daniel
4:17 is no clear indication that Jesus Christ is intended, as Jehovah
in his dealings with mankind many times has overthrown mighty
and haughty kings and exalted lowly ones.30 This was stressed
centuries later by Mary, the mother of Jesus:
He [God] has performed mightily with his arm, he has scattered
abroad those who are haughty in the intention of their hearts. He
has brought down men of power from thrones and exalted lowly
ones. ― Luke 1:51–52, NW.
Therefore, when the holy watcher in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream
announced that “the Most High is Ruler in the kingdom of
mankind and that to the one he wants to, he gives it and he sets up
over it the lowliest one of mankind,” he simply seems to be stating
a universal principle in Jehovah’s dealing with mankind. There is no
indication that he is giving a prophecy concerning the establishment
of the Messianic kingdom with Jesus Christ on the throne. The
theme of this vision―that the Most High is ruler in the kingdom of
mankind―is demonstrated by Jehovah’s dealing with the haughty
Nebuchadnezzar who through his experience came to realize this
universal principle. (Daniel 4:3, 34–37) By reading about
Nebuchadnezzar’s humiliating experience, people living in every
generation may come to realize this same truth.
B-3: The collapsed foundation of the 2,520-year
calculation
As was shown in Chapter 1, the calculation that the “seven times”
represented a period of 2,520 years is founded upon the so-called
“year-day concept.”
This concept is no longer accepted as a general principle by the
Watch Tower Society. It was taken over by Pastor Russell from the
Second Adventists, but was abandoned by the Society’s second
30 Commenting on the statement at Daniel 4:17 that God gives the kingdom “to the
one whom he wants to,” the Watch Tower Society states: “We know that this ‘one’
to whom the Most High chooses to give the ‘kingdom’ is Christ Jesus.”—True Peace
and Security—From What Source? (Brooklyn, N.Y.: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society, 1973), p. 74.
president, J. F. Rutherford, in the 1920’s and early 1930’s.31 The

2,300 evenings and mornings (Dan. 8:14), and the 1,260, 1,290, and
1,335 days (Daniel 12:7,11, 12; Revelation 11:2, 3; 12:6, 14), earlier
held to be as many years, have since then been interpreted to mean
days only.
The two texts in the Bible which earlier were quoted in proof of
the year-day principle (Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6) are no
longer understood as stating a universal principle of interpretation,
although they are still cited in support of this particular 2,520-year
calculation. As was shown in Chapter 1, note 2, it is not even likely
that the year-day rule should be applied to the “seventy weeks” of
Daniel 9:24–27. That prophecy does not speak of days, but
“weeks” or, literally, “sevens.” So, rather than calling for a
conversion of the “weeks” into days and then applying a “year-day
principle,” the contextual connection with the “seventy years” at
verse 2 strongly supports the prevalent conclusion that the angel
was simply multiplying those seventy years by seven: “Seven times
[or: sevenfold] seventy [years] are decreed.”
Even the adherents of the year-day theory themselves find it
impossible to be consistent in their application of the supposed
“principle” that in biblical time-related prophecies days always mean
years. For example, when God told Noah that “after seven more
days, I will send rain on the earth forty days and forty nights”
(Genesis 7:4, NASB), they do not interpret this to mean that “after
seven more years, I wil1 send rain on the earth forty years” Or when
Jonah told the inhabitants of Nineveh that “yet forty days and
Nineveh will be overthrown” (Jonah 3:4), they do not understand
this to mean that Nineveh should be overthrown after forty years.
Many other examples could be given.32
To apply the year-day principle to the “seven times” of Daniel 4,
then, is evidently quite arbitrary, and this is especially true if those
doing the applying no longer apply that principle to other
prophetic time periods.
Like other adherents of the 2,520-year calculation, the Watch
Tower Society argues that the “seven times” (the period of
Nebuchadnezzar’s madness) are 2,520 days, because at Revelation
12:6, 14 “a time and times and half a time” (3 1/2 times) are
equated with 1,260 days. (The validity of this reasoning will be
discussed in the section below.) But while the 2,520 days are
interpreted to mean a period of 2,520 years, the 1,260 days are
31 For a thorough refutation of the year-day concept, see pp. 111–126 of Samuel P.
Tregelles , Remarks on the Prophetic Visions in the Book of Daniel, originally
published in 1852. Reference here is to the seventh edition (London: The Sovereign
Grace Advent Testimony, 1965).
32 For additional examples, see Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics (Grand Rapids:
Academic Books, 1974; reprint of the 1883 edition), pp. 386–90.
understood to mean just 1260 literal days. As the interpretation of

the “seven times” is derived from the three-and-a-half times (1260
days), why is not a consistent interpretation given to both periods?
How do we know that the supposed 2520 days mean years, but that
this is not the case with the 1,260 days?33
Obviously there is no real basis for the conclusion that “seven
times” mean 2,520 years.
B-4: Were the “seven times” really seven years?
Nebuchadnezzar’s “seven times” of madness are often understood
as a period of seven years. However, anyone acquainted with the
reign of Nebuchadnezzar knows there are great problems with this
understanding. It is difficult to find a period of seven years within
his reign of 43 years when he was absent from his throne or
inactive as ruler.
Where, then, during Nebuchadnezzar’s 43 years of rule, can we
find a period of seven years when he was absent from the throne
and not involved in royal activities of any kind? The accompanying
table on the following page lists the years when the Biblical and
extra-Biblical sources show Nebuchadnezzar still actively ruling on
his throne.
As can be seen, the documented activities of Nebuchadnezzar
appear to exclude an absence from the throne for any period of
seven years. The longest period for which we have no evidence of
his activity is from his thirty-seventh to his forty-third and last year,
a period of about six years. This period ended with his death. It
should be remembered, however, that Nebuchadnezzar, after his
“seven times” of madness, was re-established on his throne and
evidently ruled for some time afterward.―Daniel 4:26, 36.
So what about the “seven times”? Do they necessarily refer to
years, as is often held?
Actually, the word for “times” in the original Aramaic text of
Daniel (sing. ‘iddan) commonly means “time, period, season” and
may refer to any fixed and definite period of time.34 Admittedly,
the view that at Daniel chapter four, verses 16, 23, 25, 32 it refers
33 C. T. Russell was at least consistent in claiming that both periods were years, “for
if three and a half times are 1260 days (years), seven times will be a period just
twice as long, 2520 years.”— Studies in the Scriptures, Vol. II (originally published
in 1889), p. 91.
34 Compare the use of the same word in Daniel 2:8 (”time is what you men are trying
to gain”), 2:9 (”until the time itself is changed”), 2:21 (”he is changing times and
seasons”), 3:5,15 (”at the time that you hear the sound”), 7:12 (”there was a
lengthening in life given to them for a time and a season”), and 7:25 (”they will be
given into his hands for a time, and times and half a time”).
Documented activity of Nebuchadnezzar’s rule

Events References N, on the throne Years B.C.E.
Battle at Carchemish. Invasion Jer. 46:2; Jer. 25:1; Dan. 1:1f., accession-year 605
of Judah and first deportation BM 21946 accession-year 605/04
Campaign to Hattu BM 21946 1st year 604/03
N’s dream of the image Dan. 2:1f. 2nd year 603/02
Campaigns to Hattu BM 21946 2nd–6th years 603–599/98
Building activity of N. Royal inscription 7th year 598/97
(Berger, AOAT 4:1, p. 108)*
Second deportation. Jehoiachin 2 Ki. 24:11–12; 2 Chron. 36:10; 7th year 597
brought to Babylon Jer. 52:28; BM 21946
Campaigns to Hattu and Tigris BM 21946 8th–9th years 597–596/95
Rebellion in N’s army. Revolt BM 21946; Jer. 28:1f.; 10th year 595/94
plans among exiles spread Jer. 29:1–3, 4–30
to Judah. Jeremiah’s letters
to exiles. N. marches to Hattu
Campaign to Hattu BM 21946 11th year 594/93
Building activity of N. Royal inscription 12th year 593/92
(Berger, AOAT 4:1, p. 108)*
Jerusalem besieged for 2.5 years, 2 Ki. 25:1f., Jer. 32:1–2; 52:4–16 15th–18th years 589–87
desolated. Third deportation
Ezekiel predicts siege of Tyre Ez. 26:1, 7 18th year 587
N. besieges Tyre for 13 years Josephus’ Ant. X:xi,1; Ap. 1:21 19th–32nd years 586–573/72
Ezekiel confirms siege ended Ez. 29:17-18 33rd year 572/71
N. attacks Egypt as predicted BM 33041 (Jer. 43:10f.; 37th year 568/67
Ez. 29:1–16, 19–20)
N. dies. Evil-merodach’s Jer. 52:31–34; 2 Ki. 25:27–30 43rd year 562/61
accession-year
*AOAT 4:1 = Alter Orient and Altes Testament, Vol. 4:1 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1973.)
to years is not restricted to the Watch Tower Society. This

understanding can be found in ancient sources.
Thus, the Septuagint (LXX) version of Daniel translated the word
as “years,” and so does Josephus in Antiquities X:x,6. But the LXX
text of Daniel was rejected by early Christians in preference of the
Greek version of Theodotion (usually dated to about 180 C.E.)
which says “times” (Greek kairoi), not “years” in Daniel chapter
four.35
That some Jews at an early stage interpreted the “times” of
Daniel chapter four as “years” can also be seen in the so-called
“Prayer of Nabonidus,” a fragmentary Aramaic document found
among the Dead Sea scrolls at Qumran, Cave 4, and dating from
ca. 75–50 B.C.E. This document says that Nabonidus was stricken
with a “pernicious inflammation ... for seven years” in the Teman
oasis.36
What are the other alternatives? Realizing that the literal
meaning of the Aramaic word iddan is not “year” but “period” or
“season,” Hippolytus of the third century says that some viewed a
“time” as one of the four seasons of the year. Hence “seven
seasons” would be less than two years. Bishop Theodoret of the
fifth century, however, noted that people of ancient times, such as
the Babylonians and Persians, spoke of only two seasons a year,
summer and winter, the rainless and the rainy seasons.37 This was
also the custom among the Hebrews. In the Bible there are no
references to spring and autumn, only to the summer and winter
seasons. According to this line of reasoning, the “seven seasons” of
Nebuchadnezzar’s madness meant three and one-half years.
35 As a number of citations from Daniel in the New Testament agree with Theodotion’s
Greek text of Daniel against LXX, Theodotion’s translation is thought to have been
based on an earlier, pre-Christian textual tradition, which may have been either
independent of or a revision of LXX.—John J. Collins, Daniel (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 1993), pp. 2–11. See also Peter W. Coxon, “Another look at
Nebuchadnezzar’s madness,” in A. S. van der Woude, op. cit. (see note 25 above),
pp. 213–14.
36 For a recent reconstruction and translation of the text, see Baruch A. Levine and
Anne Robertson in William W. Hallo (ed.), The Context of Scripture, Vol. I (Leiden:
Brill, 1997), pp. 285–86. Most scholars suppose that the story about the “seven
times” of madness originally dealt with Nabonidus and that the “Prayer of
Nabonidus” reflects an earlier state of the tradition. The book of Daniel, it is held,
attributes the experience to Nebuchadnezzar because he was better known to the
Jews. However, there is no evidence in support of this theory, and it is quite as
likely that the “Prayer of Nabonidus” is a late, distorted version of Daniel’s
narrative.—Compare the comments by D. J. Wiseman, op. cit. (see note 28 above),
pp. 103–105.
37 E, J. Young, op. cit. (see note 23 above), p. 105. Dr. H. Neumann confirms that in
Mesopotamia there are only two seasons: “a cloudless and dry summer from May
to October, and a cloudy and rainy winter from November to April.” —Heinz
Neumann in Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Vol. 85 (Wien
1995), p. 242.
Some of the most highly regarded conservative Bible scholars of

recent times, such as Carl F. Keil and Edward J. Young, either
reject or feel strong doubts about the theory that the “seven times”
of Daniel chapter four refer to seven years. The Assyriologist
Donald J. Wiseman even suggests that the “seven times” should be
understood as “seven months.”38 Any of these last-mentioned
viewpoints would be in acceptable agreement with the information
we have on the rule of Nebuchadnezzar.
Some, of course, will point to Revelation chapter twelve, arguing
that since the 3 1/2 “times” in verse 14 correspond to the 1260
days (= 3 1/2 years) of verse 6, seven times must mean 2520 days,
or seven years.
There is, however, no reason to conclude that the way “times” is
used in Revelation chapter twelve must automatically apply also in
other contexts. The fact remains that, since the Aramaic word
‘iddan simply means “time, period, season,” it could refer to periods
of different lengths. It does not refer to the same, fixed period
everywhere it is used. The context must always decide its meaning.
And even if it could be shown that the “time, and times and half a
time” at Daniel chapter seven, verse 25, mean three and a half
years, this still would not prove that the “seven times” or “periods”
(New American Standard Bible), or “seasons” (Rotherham, Tanakh), at
Daniel chapter four, verses 16, 23, 25 and 32, mean “seven years.”
The two chapters deal with two very different events and periods
and therefore should not be confused.
In the discussion above it has been shown that the Gentile times
of Luke 21:24 cannot be proved to be an allusion to the “seven
times” of Daniel 4. Nor is there any evidence to show that
Nebuchadnezzar’s “seven times” of madness prefigured another
period, amounting to 2,520 years of Gentile dominion. Finally, it
was demonstrated that the “seven times” cannot even be proved to
mean seven years. These identifications are obviously no more than
a guesswork without solid foundation in the Bible itself.
38 Donald J. Wiseman in J. D. Douglas (ed.), New Bible Dictionary, 2nd edition
(Leicester, England: Intervarsity Press, 1982), p. 821. Dr. Wiseman explains that
this understanding of ‘iddan at Daniel 4 “arose from my view that a ‘month’ might
be an appropriate ‘period’ since the nature of Nebuchadrezzar’s illness . . . is
unlikely to have been a recurrent one.”—Letter Wiseman-Jonsson, dated May 28,
1987. Compare Wiseman’s discussion of Nebuchadnezzar’s illness in B. Palmer
(ed.), Medicine and the Bible (Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1986), pp. 26–27.
C. THE SETTING UP OF CHRIST’S KINGDOM

As was pointed out in Chapter 1 of this work, Pastor Russell’s
predictions for 1914 were not fulfilled. When the First World War
ended, the Gentile nations still ruled the earth instead of Christ’s
Kingdom, and Jerusalem in Palestine was still occupied by a
Gentile nation. Evidently, the time for the events expected could
not be right. But to draw this simple conclusion was not an easy
thing. Additionally, something had happened: the World War. So it
was felt that the time was right after all. Russell’s followers,
therefore, concluded that they had been expecting the “wrong
thing at the right time.”39
C-1: Failed expectations—wrong things at the right time?
Gradually a new apocalyptic pattern emerged. The World War with
the many crises following it came to be regarded merely as a
beginning of the overthrow of the Gentile nations. In 1922 J. F.
Rutherford, the new president of the Society, explained:
God granted to the Gentiles a lease of dominion for a term of
2520 years, which term or lease ended about August, 1914. Then
came forward the Landlord, the rightful Ruler (Ezekiel 21:27), and
began ouster proceedings. It is not to be expected that he would suddenly
wipe everything out of existence, for that is not the way the Lord does
things; but that he would overrule the contending elements,
causing these to destroy the present order; and that while this is
going on he would have his faithful followers give a tremendous
witness in the world.40
This reminds us of later explanations of the 1934 failure by the
Pastoral Bible Institute editors discussed above. The setting up of
Christ’s kingdom had earlier been seen as a process which began in
1878 and which would culminate in 1914 with the destruction of
the Gentile nations.41 But in 1922 the starting-point of this process
was moved forward to 1914 and the overthrow of the Gentile
nations was expected to take place in the near future. This new
view was presented by J. F. Rutherford at the Cedar Point
Convention of September 5–13, 1922 in his address, “The
Kingdom of Heaven is at Hand”.
39 A. H. Macmillan, Faith on the March (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1957), pp. 48–49.
40 The Watch Tower, May 1, 1922, p. 139; also published in the booklet The Bible on
Our Lord’s Return (Brooklyn, N.Y.: International Bible Students Association, 1922),
pp. 93–94. Emphasis added.
41 See the article “The Setting Up of Christ’s Kingdom” in The Watch Tower of June 1,
1922, which still has the 1878 date.
Three years later, in the article “Birth of the Nation” in The Watch
Tower, March 1, 1925, a new interpretation of Revelation 12:1–6
was presented in accordance with the new understanding of the
setting up of Christ’s kingdom, to the effect that the kingdom had
been “born” in heaven in 1914. That year Jesus Christ “took unto
himself his great power and began his reign: the nations were
angry, and the day of God’s wrath began. —Ezekiel 21:27;
Revelation 11:17, 18.”42
C-2: The “downtrodden” city of Jerusalem relocated
But what about the trampling of Jerusalem by the Gentiles? At the
end of 1914 the city of Jerusalem was still occupied by a Gentile
nation, the Turkish Empire. In an attempt to “explain” this
embarrassing fact, Pastor Russell argued that the persecution of the
Jews at that time seemed to have practically stopped all around the
world, and he saw in this a confirmation of his belief that the
Gentile times had expired.43
However, in December, 1917, more than one year after Russell’s
death, an interesting thing happened. On December 9, 1917, the
British under General Allenby in alliance with the Arabs captured
Jerusalem and thus made an end of the nearly seven-centuries-long
Turkish occupation. This event was looked upon by many
Christians as a very important sign of the times.44
The deliverance of Jerusalem from the Turks in 1917, together
with the so-called Balfour declaration of November 2, 1917 which
proclaimed that the British Government supported the
42 The Bible on Our Lord’s Return (1922), p. 93.
43 The Watch Tower, November 1, 1914, pp. 329–30; Reprints, p. 55–68.
44 Christian commentators of several different denominations regarded this event as a
sign of the times. It will be remembered that as early as 1823, John A. Brown, in
his The Even-Tide, ended the “seven times” in 1917. In his opinion 1917 would see
“the full glory of the kingdom of Israel . . . perfected” (Vol. 1, pp. xliii f.) Later in the
same century the British expositor Dr. Henry Grattan Guinness, too, pointed
forward to 1917 as a very important date: “There can be no question that those
who live to see this year 1917 will have reached one of the most important,
perhaps the most momentous, of these terminal years of crisis”—Light for the Last
Days, London, 1886, pp. 342–46.
Aware of these predictions, eight well-known English clergymen, among whom
were Dr. G. Campbell Morgan and Dr. G. B. Meyer, issued a manifesto which
among other things declared: “FIRST. That the present crisis points towards the
close of the times of the Gentiles. . . . FIFTH. That all human schemes of
reconstruction must be subsidiary to the second coming of our Lord, because all
nations will be subject to his rule.” The manifesto was published in the London
magazine Current Opinion of February 1918 and subsequently republished by
other papers throughout the world.
Although this manifesto has been cited several times in Watchtower publications
in support of the 1914 date, it was actually issued in support of the 1917 date and
resulted from Allenby’s “liberation” of Jerusalem in the latter year.
establishment of a Jewish National Home in Palestine, drastically

accelerated Jewish immigration to Palestine. Thus, from October,
1922, to the spring of 1929 the Jewish population of Palestine
doubled from 83,794 to about 165,000.
At that time Palestine was still administered by a non-Jewish or
Gentile nation (England) and the Jews still constituted only a
minority (about twenty percent) of the population in Palestine. To
all appearances, Palestine and the city of Jerusalem were still
controlled by the Gentiles. Yet the Watch Tower Society’s
president, J. F. Rutherford, in his book Life, published in 1929,
insisted that the Gentile times spoken of by Jesus at Luke 21:24
had expired in 1914, arguing that the accelerating Jewish
immigration to Palestine was the tangible proof of the conclusion
that this prophecy had been fulfilled.
But shortly after the publication of Life, this whole idea was
abandoned; the return of the Jews to the Promised Land was no
longer seen as a fulfillment of Bible prophecies. Since 1931 such
prophecies have been applied to spiritual Israel.45 The logical
consequence of this change could only be that the end of the
treading down of Jerusalem was no longer applicable to the literal
city of Jerusalem:
The present-day city of Jerusalem over in Palestine is not the
city of the Great King Jehovah God, even though Christendom
calls certain places over there “holy”. That city is doomed to
destruction at the end of this world. But the true Jerusalem will
live forever as the capital of Jehovah’s universal organization. We
mean the New Jerusalem, of which Jesus Christ gave a symbolic
vision to the apostle John on the isle of Patmos. . . .
Jesus Christ is the “King of kings and Lord of lords” over that
true Jerusalem. At the close of the Gentile times in 1914 he was
enthroned as acting Ruler in the “city of the great King”, Jehovah.
Thus, after an interruption of 2,520 years by Gentile powers,
Theocratic Government over earth rose again to power in the
New Jerusalem, never to be trodden down by the Gentiles.46
What, exactly, was this “New Jerusalem”? The Watchtower
book Your Will Be Done On Earth (1958) explains on page 94:
Back in 607 B.C. the Jerusalem that was overthrown stood for
the kingdom of God because it had the typical throne of Jehovah
on which the anointed one of Jehovah sat as his king. Likewise,
45 The Watch Tower, 1931, pp. 253–54; J. F. Rutherford, Vindication, Vol. II (Brooklyn,
N.Y.: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1932), pp. 258, 267–69.
46 The Watchtower, November 1, 1949, pp. 330–31.
the Jerusalem that is trampled upon by worldly nations stands for

the kingdom of God. . . . So the end of the trampling down of
Jerusalem at the complete fulfillment of the “appointed times of
the nations” would mean the rising again of the symbolic
Jerusalem, namely, the kingdom of God.
Thus the end of the trampling down of Jerusalem was
interpreted to mean the installation of Jesus Christ on Jehovah’s
throne in the heavenly Jerusalem in 1914.47 But this relocation of the
“downtrodden Jerusalem” from earth to heaven created other
questions, discussed below, which never have been satisfactorily
answered.
C-3: Have two “kingdoms of Christ” been set up?
In the publications of the Watch Tower Society it is constantly
stressed that Jesus Christ was “enthroned” and his kingdom “set
up” or “established” in heaven at the end of the Gentile times in
1914. At that time, it is held, he began to rule “in the midst of his
enemies” in fulfillment of Psalm 110:1–2. Thereafter, as an initial
action against these enemies, Jesus Christ is thought to have
thrown Satan and his demon angels out of heaven and down to the
earthly realm, in fulfillment of Revelation 12:1–10.48
One problem with this scenario is that a number of texts in the
Bible clearly show that Jesus Christ was enthroned in heaven
already at the time of his resurrection and exaltation. For example,
in his revelation to the apostle John, Jesus said:
To the one that conquers I will grant to sit down with me on
my throne, even as I conquered and sat down with my Father on his
throne.—Revelation 3:21, NW.
That the kingdom of Christ existed already back in the first
century is also confirmed by the apostle Paul, who in his letter to
the Christians in Colossae stated:
He [the Father] delivered us from the authority of the darkness
and transferred us into the kingdom of the Son of his love, by means of
whom we have our release by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins.
—Colossians 1:13–14, NW.
47 See “Babylon the Great Has Fallen!” God’s Kingdom Rules! (Brooklyn, N.Y.:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1963), pp. 452–53; “The Nations Shall Know
that I Am Jehovah”—How? (1971), pp. 232–35; Insight on the Scriptures, Vo1. 1
(1988), pp. 132–33.
48 Recent presentations of these views may be found, for example, in the books You
Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth (1982), pp. 134–41, and Knowledge That
Leads to Everlasting Life (1995), pp. 90–97. Both books are published by the
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc.
If Jesus Christ was enthroned at his resurrection and exaltation

and has been reigning in his heavenly kingdom since then, how can
it be claimed that he was enthroned and his kingdom set up in
1914?
In order to resolve this problem the Watch Tower Society has
been forced to conclude that two kingdoms of Christ have been set
up: 1) the “Kingdom of the Son of His Love” (Colossians 1:13),
which was set up at Christ’s resurrection and exaltation, and 2) the
“Kingdom of Our Lord and of His Christ” (Revelation 11:15),
which is held to have been set up in 1914.
Note how the Watch Tower Society, in its Bible dictionary
Insight on the Scriptures, attempts to tell the difference between these
two “kingdoms of Christ.” Commenting on Paul’s statement at
Colossians 1:13–14 quoted above, this dictionary states:
Christ’s kingdom from Pentecost of 33 CE. onward has been a
spiritual one ruling over spiritual Israel, Christians who have been
begotten by God’s spirit to become the spiritual children of God.
(Joh 3:3, 5, 6)49
This first kingdom of Christ, then, is explained to have been a
limited kingdom, with Jesus Christ ruling only over his congregation
of followers from Pentecost onward.
The second kingdom of Christ, on the other hand, is much greater in
scope and was not set up unti1 1914. In support of this view the
above-cited dictionary refers to Revelation 11:15, where the apostle
John heard loud voices in heaven proclaiming that, “The kingdom
of the world did become the kingdom of our Lord and of his
Christ, and he will rule as king forever and ever.” (NW) In
explanation of this vision, the Society’s dictionary states:
This Kingdom is of greater proportions and bigger dimensions
than “the kingdom of the Son of his love,” spoken of at Colossians
1:13. “The kingdom of the Son of his love” began at Pentecost 33
C.E. and has been over Christ’s anointed disciples; “the kingdom of
our Lord and of his Christ” is brought forth at the end of “the
appointed times of the nations” and is over all mankind on earth.50
But even on the supposition that Christ’s rule from Pentecost
onward was limited to his rule over his anointed disciples
50 Ibid., p. 169. Similarly, on page 136 of the book You Can Live Forever in Paradise
on Earth (1982), the Watch Tower Society refers to “the kingdom of the Son of
[God’s) love” mentioned at Colossians 1:13 and states: “But this rule, or ‘kingdom,’
over Christians with the hope of heavenly life is not the Kingdom government for
which Jesus taught his followers to pray.” (Emphasis added.)
(”spiritual Israel”), as the Watch Tower Society holds, the

consequence of this view is that Christ, as the legal heir to the
throne of David, since Pentecost onward has been sitting on the
throne of Jehovah (Revelation 3:21) in heavenly Jerusalem and ruling
over spiritual Israel, just as David and his son Solomon were said to
be sitting upon the “throne of Jehovah” in earthly Jerusalem,
reigning over fleshly Israel.51
In view of this first-century restoration of the “kingdom of
David,” how can it be held that ‘Jerusalem”, understood as being the Kingdom
of God, went onto be trodden down by the Gentile nations on earth during the
whole subsequent period, from Pentecost onward right up to 1914?
The Gentile nations, of course, could not “ascend into heaven”
(John 3:13) in order to interfere with Christ’s rule during this
period. Nor can the treading down of “Jerusalem” refer to the
persecution of “spiritual Israel” (Christ’s followers), as such
persecution did not stop in 1914. So what did the treading down of
“Jerusalem” really mean, and how did it stop in 1914? In spite of
the theory of the two kingdoms of Christ, this question still calls
for an answer.
C-4: The universal power of the resurrected Christ
Does the Bible really support the view that there are two kingdoms
of Christ entrusted him at two different occasions? Was Christ’s
“first” kingdom limited to a rule over his anointed disciples from
Pentecost onward?
This idea seems clearly to be contradicted by a number of Bible
passages which emphasize the universal scope of the authority given
to Jesus Christ at his resurrection and exaltation. Even some time
before his ascension Jesus stated to his disciples:
All authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth. —
Matthew 28:18, NW.
The past tense, “has been given,” shows that Jesus Christ already
at that time was in possession of all authority or power in heaven and
51 The angel Gabriel told Mary that the son she was to bear “will be called the Son of
the Most High; and the Lord will give him the throne of His father David.” (Luke
1:32, NASB) That Christ was given “the throne of his father David” at his
resurrection and exaltation was later confirmed by James, the half brother of
Jesus, when he at Acts 15:1318 explained to his fellow believers that “the
tabernacle of David which has fallen” had been erected again, in fulfillment of the
prophecy of Amos 9:11f. As pointed out by Dr. F. F. Bruce, “James’ application of
the prophecy finds the fulfillment of its first part (the rebuilding of the tabernacle
of David) in the resurrection and exaltation of Christ, the Son of David, and the
reconstitution of His disciples as the new Israel, and the fulfillment of its second
part in the presence of believing Gentiles as well as believing Jews in the Church.”
— F. F. Bruce, Commentary an the Book of the Acts (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1980 reprint), p. 310.
on the earth. What additional power, then, could possibly have

remained to be given him in 1914?
Jesus’ position of power after his resurrection was also
accentuated by the apostle Paul at Ephesians 1:20–23:
He [God] raised him up from the dead and seated him at his
right hand in the heavenly places, far above every government and
authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this
system of things, but also in that to come. He also subjected all things under
his feet, and made him head over all things to the congregation,
which is his body, the fullness of him who fills up all things in all.
(NW)
Notice that Paul in this passage declares that Christ’s dominion
at that time was not limited to a rule over his congregation only,
but embraced “all things,” “every government and authority and
lordship and every name named.” Similarly, at Colossians 2:10 Paul
states that Christ “is the head of all government and authority”
(NW). And at Revelation 1:5 the apostle John sent greetings to
“the seven congregations that are in the [district of] Asia” from
Jesus Christ, “The Ruler of the kings of the earth” (NW).
Strangely enough, the Watch Tower Society, in the article on
“Jesus Christ” in its Bible dictionary Insight on the Scriptures, seems to
contradict its idea of a limited kingdom of Christ from Pentecost
onward by stating that he since his resurrection “heads a government of
universal domain.” Notice the following remarkable statements on
page 61 of Volume 2:
Following his resurrection, Jesus informed his disciples, “All
authority has been given me in heaven and on the earth,” thereby
showing that he heads a government of universal domain. (Mt 28:18) The
apostle Paul made clear that Jesus’ Father has “left nothing that is
not subject to him [Jesus] ,” with the evident exception of “the one
who subjected all things to him,” that is, Jehovah, the Sovereign
God. (1 Co. 15:27; Heb 1:1–14; 2:8) Jesus Christ’s “name,”
therefore, is more excellent than that of God’s angels, in that his
name embraces or stands for the vast executive authority that Jehovah
has placed in him. (Heb 1:3,4) [Emphasis added.]
If Jesus Christ already at his resurrection and exaltation was
given “all authority ... in heaven and on the earth,” and if he since
then has been “the head of all government and authority” and “the
Ruler of the kings of the earth” and therefore, from then on,
“heads a government of universal domain” as even the Watch
Tower Society admits, how, then, can it be claimed that Christ’s
kingdom from Pentecost onward was limited to a rule over his
congregation of followers, and that the “kingdom of the world” did

not become “the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ” until the
year 1914?
C-5: Waiting “at the right hand of God” for what?
On the last day of his earthly life Jesus explained to the members
of the Sanhedrin, the Jewish high court, that his kingdom rule was
now due to begin, stating that, ‘from now on the Son of man will be
sitting at the powerful right hand of God.”—Luke 22:69, NW.52
That Christ after his resurrection was elevated to “the right hand
of God” is repeatedly emphasized by the New Testament writers.
The phrase “sitting at the powerful right hand of God” is a
reference to Psalm 110:1, a text quoted or alluded to in the New
Testament more often than any other passage of the Old
Testament.53 This psalm is consistently interpreted by the New
Testament writers as depicting Christ’s exaltation to the throne of
God after his resurrection.54 The first two verses say:
The utterance of Jehovah to my Lord is: “Sit at my right hand
until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.” The rod of
your strength Jehovah will send out from Zion, [saying:] “Go
subduing in the midst of your enemies”—Psalm 110:1–2, NW.
52 The parallel passage at Matthew 26:64 adds another feature to Jesus’ statement:
“From henceforth you will see the Son of man sitting at the right hand of power
and coming on the clouds of heaven” (Compare Mark 14:62) The last part of the
statement is an allusion to Daniel 7:13–14, where Daniel in his vision saw “with
the clouds of the heavens someone like a son of man happened to be coming; and
to the Ancient of Days he gained access, and they brought him up close even
before that One. And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom”.
It should be noticed that in this vision the “son of man” did not come from heaven
to earth. Rather, his “coming” is in the opposite direction, to the “Ancient of Days”
on the heavenly throne, to be given rulership, dignity, and kingdom. This passage,
therefore, does not seem to be dealing with Christ’s second coming, but rather with
his enthronement at his resurrection and exaltation.
53 Professor Martin Hengel finds that Psalm 110:1 is used in twenty-one passages in
the New Testament, seven of which are direct quotations. The passages are: Matt.
22:44; 26:64; Mark 12:36; 14:62; 16:19; Luke 20:42f.; 22:69; Acts 2:33; 2:34f.;
5:31; 7:55f.; Rom. 8:34; 1 Cor. 15:25; Eph. 1:20; Co1.3:1; Heb. 1:3,13; 8:1;
10:12f.; 12:2; and 1 Pet. 3:22. —M. Hengel, Studies in Early Christology
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark Ltd, 1995), p. 133.
54 To sit “at the right hand of God” obviously means to sit with God on his throne, in
view of Jesus’ statement at Rev. 3:21. This enthronement of Christ is not nullified
by the fact that the letter to the Hebrews twice presents him as being seated “at
the right hand of the throne of God.” (Heb. 8:1; 12:2) The language here, of course,
is figurative. God is not sitting on a literal throne. At Matthew 5:34 Jesus says that
“heaven . . . is God’s throne.” A “throne” is a symbol of rulership. Whether Christ is
pictured as being seated on God’s throne or on a separate throne to the right of it,
the meaning is the same, viz., that he is ruling. Besides, as Professor Hengel
argues, the sense of the text at Heb. 8:1 and 12:2 is “at the right hand of God on
his throne,’ rather than “at the right hand of the throne of God.”—M. Hengel, op.
cit., pp. 142, 148–49. Compare also Revelation 22:1, 3, which speaks of “the throne
of God and of the Lamb” as one common throne only.
The image of the king as sitting on the throne of his god was also
used in the Biblical world outside the Bible, as was also the image
of subjugated enemies being placed as a footstool under his feet. ―
R. Lepsius, Denkmäler aus Aegypten und Aetiophien (Berlin 1849―58),
Vol. 5, Bl. 62 and 69a; L. Borchardt, Statuen und Statuetten von
Königen und Privatleuten (Berlin, 1925), Bl. 93:554; O. Keel, The
Symbolism of the Biblical World (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1997),
pp. 255, 263.
To overcome the problem created by the Scriptural evidence for

Christ’s universal rule “in the midst of his enemies” to have begun
at the time of his resurrection and exaltation, the Watch Tower
Society explains that Christ’s sitting “at the right hand of God”
means, not that he has been ruling from then on, but rather that he
has been sitting there waiting for his rulership to begin. Support for this
view is found in the way Psalm 110:1–2 is referred to at Hebrews
10:12–13:
When Christ returned to heaven after his resurrection, he did
not start ruling then as King of God’s government. Rather, there
was to be a time of waiting, as the apostle Paul explains: “This man
[Jesus Christ] offered one sacrifice for sins perpetually and sat
down at the right hand of God, from then on awaiting until his
enemies should be placed as a stool for his feet.” (Hebrews 10:12,
13) When the time came for Christ to begin to rule, Jehovah told
him: “Go subduing [or, conquering] in the midst of your
enemies.”55
This explanation of the word “awaiting” at Hebrews 10:12–13,
however, creates other problems. In his outline of the reign of
Christ at 1 Corinthians 15:24–28, the apostle Paul concludes by
stating that “when all things will have been subjected to him
[Christ], then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One
who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to
everyone.” This statement gives rise to the following question:
1. If Christ would have to wait until God had put all enemies
under his feet before his rulership could begin, and if he then, “when all
things will have been subjected to him,” would hand over the
kingdom to God, what becomes of his reign? When the time has come
for him to start ruling, it is time for him to hand over the kingdom
to God!
Another question occasioned by the Watch Tower Society’s
explanation is this:
2. If Christ could not start ruling until God had placed all his
enemies as a stool for his feet, and if Christ’s rule began in 1914,
how can it be held that all enemies―including “the last enemy,
death” (1 Corinthians 15:25)―had been put under his feet at that
time?
55 You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth (1982), pp. 136–37. The more recent
book Knowledge That Leads to Everlasting Life (Brooklyn, N.Y.: Watchtower Bible
and Tract Society of New York, Inc., 1995), similarly explains that Christ’s sitting
at the right hand of God “indicates that Jesus’ rulership would not begin
immediately after his ascension to heaven. Rather, he would wait” for this rulership
to begin, that is, until 1914. (Pages 96–97. Emphasis added.)
Strangely, the Watch Tower Society admits that these enemies

were still active at the time of Christ’s enthronement in 1914, so that
his rule began “in the midst of his enemies.” In fact, his very first
action as king is stated to have been an attack on his chief enemies,
Satan and his angels, whom he is supposed to have thrown out of
heaven in 1914!56
A third question to ask, therefore, is:
3. If Christ could not start ruling until God had put all his
enemies under his feet, how can his rule have begun “in the midst of
his enemies,” and why did he have to start his reign with a war
against them?
Obviously, an interpretation that is so patently inconsistent
cannot be correct. Christ’s “awaiting” at the right hand of God
cannot have been a waiting for his rulership to begin. Instead, as
shown by other parallel passages, it has been a waiting for his rule
“in the midst of his enemies” to end, to reach its conclusive stage.
Christ’s sitting at the right hand of God cannot have been a
period of passively waiting for God to put his enemies under his
feet. To be sure, God is repeatedly pictured as the one who puts
the enemies under the feet of Christ. But as shown already at Psalm
110:12, it is Christ himself who takes action against these enemies,
though in the power given him by God. Jehovah’s inviting him to
sit down at his right hand is followed by the words:
The rod of your strength Jehovah will send out from
Zion,[saying:] ‘Go subduing in the midst of your enemies.’
The text clearly indicates that this active ruling in the midst of
the enemies would begin as soon as Christ had sat down at the
right hand of God, not after a waiting period of some 1900 years.
Christ’s “waiting,” therefore, is best explained as his looking forward
with expectation to the end result of his own active exercise of rule, the final
and complete victory over his enemies.57
This is evidently also how the apostle Paul understood Christ’s
sitting at the right hand of God, namely, as a period of active
reigning on his part until he has put all enemies under his feet. In
his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul explains:
Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God
the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power.
56 You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth (1982), pp. 136–38, 141.
57 The Greek word for “awaiting” at Hebrews 10:13, ekdechomai, means to “await,
wait for, expect.”—Colin Brown (ed.), The New International Dictionary of New
Testament Theology, Vol. 2 (Exeter: The Paternoster Press, 1976), pp. 244–245.
For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. —1
Corinthians 15:24–25, NRSV.
Notice that Paul is saying that Christ must reign until―not from the
time when—the enemies have been put under his feet. According to
Paul, Christ has been ruling as king ever since his resurrection and
exaltation. Christ’s enemies, of course, existed also at that time. His
reign from that time onward, therefore, of necessity has been a
ruling “in the midst of his enemies.”
Paul’s statement indicates that the very purpose of Christ’s reign
is to conquer and subjugate these enemies. When this purpose has
been accomplished, he is to hand over the kingdom to God. As
Bible commentator T. C. Edwards aptly remarks in his comment
on this passage:
This verse means that Christ reigns until He has put, after long
protracted warfare, all enemies under His feet. The reign of Christ,
therefore, is not a millennium of peace, but a perpetual conflict
ending in a final triumph.58
Thus, invested with “all authority in heaven and on the earth,”
Christ has been ruling, even “subduing in the midst of his enemies,”
ever since his resurrection and exaltation to the throne of God.
Who are these “enemies” and in what way has Christ been
“subduing” them since then?
C-6: Ruling “in the midst of his enemies”
At Psalm 110:5–6 the enemies to be subjugated are portrayed as
earthly kings and nations:
Jehovah himself at your right hand will certainly break kings to
pieces on the day of his anger. He will execute judgement among
the nations; he will cause a fullness of dead bodies. He will
certainly break to pieces the head one over a populous land.59
58 T. C. Edwards, Commentary on the First Corinthians (Minneapolis: Klock and Klock,
1979; reprint of the 1885 edition), p. 417.
59 Daniel, too, in explaining Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the image, pictures the
enemies of God’s kingdom as earthly kingdoms. The four metals of the image are
explained to mean four successive kingdoms or empires, starting with
Nebuchadnezzar’s own kingdom. (Dan. 2:36–43) Then in verse 44 Daniel states
that God’s kingdom would be set up “in the days of those kings.” Contextually,
“those kings” can only be a reference to the kings existing at the time of the fourth
kingdom described in the preceding verses (40–43). This supports the identification
of the fourth kingdom with Rogme, which held power at the time of the setting up
of Christ’s kingdom. As Daniel further explains, God’s kingdom would then “crush
and put an end to all these kingdoms.” As this evidently is a parallel to Christ’s
“subduing in amidst his enemies” following his enthronement at the right hand of
God, as described in Psalm 110 and the New Testament, the “crushing” of the
kingdoms should be understood as a protracted warfare.
In the New Testament, however, the attention is turned from

the visible enemies to the hostile powers of the spiritual world.
Undoubtedly, the reason for this is that destruction of earthly kings
and nations hostile to Christ’s kingdom will not free the universe
from the real enemies―the spiritual powers, who by means of sin
and its consequence, death, keep men in slavery. As Paul explains,
our wrestling is “not against blood and flesh, but against the
governments, against the authorities, against the world rulers of this darkness,
against the wicked spirit forces in the heavenly places.”―Ephesians 6:12,
NW.
It is these spiritual powers that the New Testament writers, at 1
Corinthians 15:24–26 and elsewhere, identify as Christ’s primary
enemies, which he has been combatting and finally will bring “to
nothing.”60
Empowered with “all authority in heaven and on earth” it
would, of course, have been an easy matter for Christ to instantly
bring to nothing all these hostile powers. Some Bible passages
actually present the warfare as already won at Christ’s resurrection
and exaltation, and the powers as already conquered and subjected.
(Colossians 2:15; 1 Peter 3:22) Such language, however, is evidently
used to describe Christ’s all-embracing power and elevated position
since his resurrection, “far above every government and authority
and power.” (Ephesians 1:21–22) As the author of the letter to the
Hebrews clarifies, there is more involved, as “we do not yet see all
things in subjection to him.”―Hebrews 2:8, NW.
If Christ’s principal enemies are the hostile spiritual powers, his
“subduing” in amidst them can hardly mean that he is subjugating
them in a protracted physical or literal warfare. As explained by the
apostle Paul, Satan, “the ruler of the authority of the air, the spirit
that now operates in the sons of disobedience,” is able to hold men
in slavery only because of their trespasses and sins. (Ephesians 2:1–
2, NW) Through Christ’s death, however, God provided a “release
by ransom, the forgiveness of our sins,” by which it was made
possible for man to be “delivered . . . from the authority of the
darkness and transferred . . . into the kingdom of the Son of his
love.”―Colossians 1:13–14, NW.
Throughout the centuries, millions upon millions of people, by
their faith in Christ have been delivered from the “authority of
60 According to Colossians 1:15–16, the spiritual powers were originally created by
means of Christ. Later a number of them, headed by Satan, “the ruler of the
authority of the air,” “did not keep their original position” but became enemies of
God. (Judea, verse 6)—Compare Dr. G. Delling’s discussion of these powers in G.
Kittel (ed.), Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Vol. 1 (Grand Rapids: Wm.
B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1964), pp. 482–84.
darkness”. By such conquests “in amidst his enemies” Christ’s

kingdom has been increasing and truly been proved to be
victorious. The Bible, therefore, presents Christ’s death for our sins
as a turning-point for mankind and as a decisive victory over Satan,
the head of the hostile powers in the spiritual world. (Hebrews
2:14–15) Though still active, their power and influence since then
are restricted and curbed. They have not been able to prevent the
good news about Jesus Christ to reach growing numbers of people
around the world, making it possible for them to be delivered from
the “authority of darkness” and brought under the authority of
Christ.
C-7: The “casting out” of Satan
In the metaphorical language of the Bible, someone’s elevation to a
high position may be spoken of as his being “exalted to heaven” or
“to the skies,” where he may be likened to a shining star.61
Correspondingly, someone’s humiliation, defeat or fall from a high
position may be likened to a throwing down or falling “from
heaven.”62 In his prediction of the fall of the proud and arrogant
king of Babylon, Isaiah the prophet used this imagery:
O how you have fallen from heaven, you shining one, son of
the dawn! . . . As for you, you have said in your heart, “To the
heavens I shall go up. Above the stars of God I shall lift up my
throne, and I shall sit down upon the mountain of meeting, in the
remotest parts of the north. I shall go up above the high places of
the clouds; I shall make myself resemble the Most High”
However, down to Sheol you will be brought, to the remotest
parts of the pit. —Isaiah 14:12–15 , NW.63
Jesus, too, used similar language in speaking of the town of
Capernaum, which he had chosen as his dwelling-place and where
he had performed many of his miracles. (Matthew 4:13–16) This,
however, would not become a reason for the town to boast:
And you, Capernaum, will you perhaps be exalted to heaven?
Down to Hades you will come! —Luke 10:15, NW.
61 Similarly, in the English language we may speak of someone being “praised to the
skies.”
62 The same metaphors are also found in extra-Biblical sources from ancient times.
For example, Cicero and Horace (1st century B.C.E.) both likened a fall from a
great political height to a “fall from heaven.”—See Edward J. Young, The Book of
Isaiah (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 2nd ed. 1972), p. 440, note 77.
63 Compare Daniel 8:9–12, which uses the same figurative language in describing the
presumptuous actions of the “little horn,” usually understood as referring to the
attempt of the Seleucid king Antiochus IV Epiphanes (175–164 B.C.E.) to root out
the worship of Jehovah at the temple of the Jews.
Another example of this manner of speech is found in the

subsequent verses, which tell of the seventy disciples sent out by
Jesus, who now returned with joy, saying: “Lord, even the demons
are made subject to us by the use of your name.” Their joyful
report was evidently owing to their success in expelling demons,
thanks to the power bestowed upon them by Jesus at his sending
them out. (Luke 10:1, 19) In answer, Jesus said: “I began to behold
Satan already fallen like a lightning from heaven”—Luke 10:17–18,
NW.
It does not seem likely that Jesus meant he saw Satan literally
falling from heaven. Rather, his statement vividly expressed the
excitement he felt at the disciples’ report, as he knew that their
successful ministry (as well as his own) portended the imminent fall
of Satan from his position of power.
That the death, resurrection and exaltation of Jesus Christ would
mean a decisive defeat for Satan is also indicated by what he said to
the Jews at his arrival in Jerusalem a few days before his death:
Now there is a judging of this world; now the ruler of this world
will be cast out.—John 12:31, NW.
It is evidently this victory over Satan and his angels that is
depicted in symbolic scenes at Revelation 12:1–12. In a vision the
The woman arrayed with the sun, the seven-headed dragon, and
the child caught away to the throne of God as pictured in The
Watchtower magazine of May 1, 1981, page 20. According to the
present Watch Tower teaching, this prophetic scene was fulfilled in
1914, when Christ’s kingdom (the child) is said to have been
established (born) in heaven by “God’s heavenly organization”
(the woman), despite the effort of Satan (the dragon) to prevent
Christ’s enthronement.
apostle John saw “in heaven” a pregnant woman, “arrayed with the
sun, and the moon was under her feet, and on her head was a
crown of twelve stars.” A great seven-headed dragon, later
identified as “the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan,”
was seen standing before the woman ready to devour her child.
The woman “gave birth to a son, a male, who is to shepherd all the
nations with an iron rod. And her child was caught away to God and to
his throne.”—Revelation 12:1–5, NW.
This cannot possibly picture the setting up of Christ’s kingdom
in heaven in 1914, as the Watch Tower Society holds. How could
Christ’s kingdom have been so weak in 1914 that it ran the risk of
being devoured by Satan and therefore had to be “caught away”
from his gaping jaws to God’s throne? Such a view is in the most
pointed contrast to the New Testament teaching that Christ ever
since his resurrection is in possession of “all authority in heaven
and on earth” and is exalted “far above every government and
authority and power and lordship.”—Matthew 28:18; Ephesians
1:21, NW.
There was only one time when Jesus Christ apparently was in
such a vulnerable situation that Satan felt he could “devour” him,
and that was during his earthly life. It was during this period that
Satan attempted to thwart the “birth” of Christ as the ruler of the
world. From the child-murders in Bethlehem to Jesus’ final
execution under Pontius Pilate, Jesus was his chief target. Satan did
not succeed, however, as Christ was resurrected and “caught away
to God and to his throne.”
As has often been noticed, the presentation of Christ’s
enthronement as a “birth” at Revelation 12:5 is an allusion to
Psalm 2:6–9:
”I, even I, have installed my king upon Zion, my holy
mountain.” Let me refer to the decree of Jehovah; He has said to
me: “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father. Ask of
me, that I may give nations as your inheritance and the end of the
earth as your own possession. You will break them with an iron
scepter, as though a potter’s vessel you will dash them to pieces.”
(NW)
The New Testament writers repeatedly apply this psalm to
Christ’s exaltation to the right hand of God. (Acts 13:32–33;
64 Notice also how the “wrath” of “the kings of the earth” against “Jehovah and
against his anointed one” at Psalm 2:1–3 is directly applied by the apostle Peter at
Acts 4:25–28 to the actions taken against Jesus by the Jewish and Roman
authorities. The same passage is also alluded to at Revelation 11:15–18, which
first refers to the beginning of Christ’s universal reign in the midst of his wrathful
enemies and then about God’s “wrath” upon these enemies.
Romans 1:4; Hebrews 1:5; 5:5)64 This Messianic psalm also, like
Revelation 12:5, speaks of Christ as been given the power to crush
the nations “with an iron scepter.”65
At Revelation 12:7–12 another scene “in heaven” is presented to
John, a war scene: “Michael and his angels battled with the dragon,
and the dragon and its angels battled” with them. The battle ended
in a complete defeat for Satan and his angels:
So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the
one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited
earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled
down with him. And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: “Now
have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom
of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of
our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and
night before our God.”—Revelation 12:9–10, NW.
The exclamation following the “casting out” of Satan and his
angels, that “now has come to pass the salvation and the power
and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ,”
clearly points to the time of the death, resurrection and exaltation
of Christ, who at that time was given all authority in heaven and on
earth.
That the “war in heaven” hardly is meant to be taken as a literal
war is indicated by the subsequent verses. When Satan had been
hurled down to the earth, he persecuted the heavenly “woman”
and then “went off to wage war with the remaining ones of her
seed” who “have the work of bearing witness to Jesus” (Revelation
12:13–17). Verse 11 states that followers of Christ who became
martyrs in this war “conquered him [Satan] because of the blood of
the Lamb and because of the word of their witnessing”.
This explains the nature of the “war”: Through his death as a
sacrificial lamb, Christ conquered Satan and brought about his “fall
from heaven”. Christian martyrs are shown to be partakers in this
victory, being enabled to conquer Satan “because of the blood of
the Lamb.” Satan, the “accuser,” is no longer able to accuse them
“day and night before our God” because, through the death of
Christ, their sins are forgiven. To all appearances, then, the “war in
heaven” is a figurative presentation of Christ’s victory over Satan
through his sacrificial death as a Lamb. Obviously, this “war” has
nothing to do with the year 1914.
65 As Christ explained to the congregation in Thyatira, he was already at that time in
possession of this “iron rod” and could, therefore, promise to share his “authority
over the nations” with the one “that conquers and observes my deeds down to the
end,” —Revelation 2:26–27, NW.
As was shown above, the failed prediction that the trampling down
of Jerusalem would end in 1914 necessitated a reinterpretation of
this idea. When the year 1914 had passed and the city of Jerusalem
continued to be controlled by Gentile nations, the Watch Tower
Society finally changed the location to heavenly Jerusalem, arguing
that the trampling down ended by the setting up of Christ’s
kingdom in heaven in 1914.
This idea, however, was shown to be contradicted by several
texts in the Bible, which unequivocally establish that Christ’s
universal kingdom was set up at his resurrection and exaltation,
when he also began to rule “in the midst of his enemies.”
Finally, the claim that Satan was hurled down from heaven in
1914 was examined and found to be biblically untenable. The Bible
brings it out clearly that the “fall of Satan” was occasioned by
Christ’s death and resurrection.
Thus, a number of events that the Watch Tower Society claims
to have taken place in 1914 are actually shown by the Bible to have
occurred at Christ’s death, resurrection, and exaltation.
What, then, about 1914? Does this year have any prophetic
meaning at all?
D. 1914 IN PERSPECTIVE
As discussed in Chapter 1, the upheavals in Europe and other
parts of the world brought about by the French Revolution and the
Napoleonic Wars impelled many to believe that the “time of the
end” had begun in 1798 or thereabouts, and that Christ would
return before the end of that generation. Numerous schedules for
the end-time events were worked out, which later on either had to
be scrapped or revised.
When, finally, the nineteenth century was gone and the chaotic
events that inaugurated that century became increasingly remote,
the prophetic significance attached to the period faded away and
was soon forgotten by most people.
The chaotic events of 1914–18, too, now belong to the early
part of a past century. Is it possible that the interpretations
attached to the 1914 date will also fade away and finally be
abandoned and forgottten? There are reasons to believe that this
date will not so easily be done away with.
It is not just a question of an erroneous chronology that has to
be corrected. The unique claims of the Watch Tower movement
are closely connected with the year 1914.
If the leaders of the Watch Tower organization would admit

that Christ’s kingdom was not set up in 1914 and that Christ did not
come invisibly that year, they would also have to admit that Christ
did not make any specific inspection of the Christian denominations
at that time and did not appoint the members of the Russellite
movement “over his domestics” in 1919. Then they would have to
admit that their claim of being God’s sole “channel” and
“mouthpiece” on earth is false, and that they for almost a whole
century have appeared on the world scene in a false role with a false
message.
So much of the movement’s identity is invested in the 1914 date
that it would be an unthinkable step to admit that the sophisticated
system of prophetic explanations infused into that date is nothing
but a pipe dream. To openly confess this would amount to
theological suicide. It’s hardly likely that the present leaders of the
organization are prepared to undercut their own power base by a
frank admission of abject human failure.
Besides, the Watch Tower Society insists that not only its
chronology, but also the events since 1914 prove that this date marked
the beginning of the “time of the end.”66 Referring to Jesus’
prophecy at Matthew 24, it is held that wars, famines, pestilences,
earthquakes, lawlessness, and other calamities since 1914 constitute
the “sign” of Christ’s “invisible presence” since that year. Although
it is admitted that earlier generations, too, have had their share of
such calamities, the Watch Tower Society claims that they have
been increasing on an unprecedented scale since 1914. Is this true?
To be able to check if this claim is correct, it is necessary to
examine the extent of these calamities in earlier centuries,
something that so far has never been done in the Watchtower
publications. As most people to a great extent are strangers to the
past, they are usually easy to convince that the period since 1914
has been more disastrous than earlier periods. Most people may
find it difficult to believe that this conclusion is disproved by a careful
examination of the extent of the calamities in the past.
An examination of history shows that most of the calamities
mentioned by Jesus at Matthew 24 have not increased since 1914,
and that some of them, such as famines and pestilences, even have
66 On p. 95 of the book Reasoning from the Scriptures (1985) the Watch Tower Society
summarizes these “two lines of evidence” as follows: “Why do Jehovah’s Witnesses
say that God’s Kingdom was established in 1914? Two lines of evidence point to
that year: (1) Bible chronology and (2) the events since 1914 in fulfillment of
prophecy.”
decreased markedly since that year! The historical evidence of this is

discussed in the work The Sign of the Last Days—When? 67
If 1914 did not mark the end of the Gentile times, nor the
beginning of Christ’s invisible presence, why did the First World
War break out at a date predicted thirty-nine years in advance? This
may seem very remarkable. But it must first be remembered that
none of the things predicted to occur on that date actually
happened. Secondly, an endless number of dates have been set for
the second coming of Christ, and also for the end of the Gentile
times. A predicted date sometimes accidentally happens to coincide
with some important historical event, although the event itself was
not predicted. Such a coincidence may be almost unavoidable if
nearly every year during a certain period have been pointed to in
advance by various expositors!
Of the many dates fixed for the expiration of the Gentile times,
some were put very near to the 1914 date: 1915 (Guinness, 1886),
1917 (J. A. Brown, 1823), 1918 (Bickersteth, 1850), 1919
(Habershon, 1844), 1922 (The Prophetic Times, December 1870), and
1923 (Guinness, 1886).68
The Watch Tower Society made many predictions regarding
1914, but the outbreak of a major war in Europe was not one of
them. It did not lead to the “universal anarchy” that had been
predicted. That a major event happened to take place in that year is
not remarkable. Somewhat more remarkable is when a predicted
date produces an event that does have some apparent relation to the
events foretold for the date in question. This, too, has happened.
For example, 1917 would, according to John Aquila Brown in
1823, see “the full glory of the kingdom of Israel . . . perfected.”69
Although this did not happen in 1917, an important step was taken
that year toward the establishment of the state of Israel.70
67 C. O. Jonsson & W. Herbst, The Sign of the Last Days—When? (Atlanta:
Commentary Press, 1987). xv+271 pages. Available from Commentary Press, P.O.
Box 43532, Atlanta, Georgia 30336, USA.
68 See Table 2 of Chapter 1.
69 See Chapter 1, note 24.
70 See note 44 above. Another example is the predictions that pointed forward to 1941
as the culmination of the “time of trouble.” A number of expositors of the
prophecies, including John Bacon (in 1799), George Stanley Faber (in 1811),
Edward D. Griffin (in 1813), Joseph Emerson (in 1818), George Duffield (in 1842),
and E. B. Elliott (in 1862), ended the 1260 year-days in 1866 and the 1335 year-
days in 1941, arguing that the “time of the end” was a period of 75 years (the
difference between 1335 and 1260). This “time of trouble” would culminate in 1941
and be followed by the millennium. 1941 was certainly a “time of trouble” as it was
in this year that the United States joined the war that had started in 1939 and it
was turned into a world war. The millennium, however, did not follow. — See
LeRoy Edwin Froom, The Prophetic Faith of Our Fathers, Vol. III (Washington, D.C.:
Review and Herald, 1946), pp. 721–22; Vol. IV (1954), pp. 73, 105–06, 174, 262,
337.
More remarkable still was Robert Fleming’s prediction that the

French monarchy would fall towards the end of the eighteenth
century, a prediction made nearly a hundred years prior to that event!
Fleming’s book The Rise and Fall of Papacy was first published in
1701. Commenting upon the fourth vial at Revelation 16:8–9, he
identifies the “sun” as the Papacy, and France as instrumental in
pouring out the fourth vial. After that, France itself will be
humbled:
We may justly suppose that the French monarchy, after it has
scorched others, will itself consume by doing so—its fire, and that
which is the fuel that maintains it, wasting insensibly, till it be
exhausted at last towards the end of this century.71
I cannot but hope that some new mortification of the chief
supporters of Antichrist will then happen; and perhaps the French
monarchy may begin to be considerably humbled about that time;
that whereas the present French king takes the sun for his emblem,
and this for his motto, “Nec pluribus impar,” he may at length, or
rather his successors, and the monarchy itself (at least before the year
1794) be forced to acknowledge that, in respect to neighbouring
potentates, he is even “Singulis impar.” But as to the expiration of
this vial, I do fear it will not be until the year 1794.72
Shortly after the Republic had been proclaimed in 1792, when
the horrors of the French Revolution were at their most extreme
and Louis XVI was about to die on the scaffold, Fleming’s
remarkable “predictions” were recalled to memory. Thus his book
began to be reprinted both in England and America. The sensation
his predictions produced was great and caused much excitement;
and their (partial) fulfillment was a strong incentive to increased
study of biblical prophecies after the French Revolution.
Fleming’s calculation of the 1,260 year-days (552–1794) was
taken over by many others, although the termination date for them
was soon changed by many from 1794 to 1798, the year when the
Pope was deposed as ruler of the Papal States and banished by
French troops. Thus the 1798 date came to be regarded as marking
the beginning of the “time of the end” by Adventist groups. The
calculation was later adopted also by C. T. Russell and his followers
71 Robert Fleming, Jr., The Rise and Fall of Papacy (London, 1849; reprint of the 1701
edition), p.68. Emphasis added.
72 1bid., p. 64. Emphasis added.
but changed slightly (in the 1880’s) to the following year, 1799. The
Seventh-Day Adventists still believe that the “time of the end”
began in 1798.
Should not “fulfilled” predictions of this kind help us to take a
more sober view of the 1914 date?
In Chapters 3 and 4 of this work much strong evidence was
presented against the 607 B.C.E. date as the year of the destruction
of Jerusalem and the starting-point of the 2,520 year Gentile times
calculation.
In Chapter 5 it was demonstrated that the seventy-year
prophecy is in good agreement with the 587 B.C.E. date for the fall
of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar. Thus, the 2,520 years could not
have ended in 1914.
Then, in this chapter, it has been shown that a change of the
expiration date of those times from 1914 to 1934 resulted in just
another failed prophecy. Next, the question was raised, “Is the
2,520-year calculation really founded on a sound biblical basis?”
The examination that followed demonstrated it is not. Finally, the
reevaluation of the meaning of the 1914 date in the Watch Tower
publications since 1922 was examined and found to be deficient.
For all these reasons, should not the 1914 date be wholly and
entirely discarded as the pivotal point in the application of Bible
prophecies to our time? The answer is a resounding “YES!”
E. SOME NOTES ON THE “GENTILE TIMES” OF LUKE
21:24
What, then, about the period called “times of the Gentiles”? If it
does not refer to a period of 2,520 years , to what period may this
expression refer?
The phrase “times of the Gentiles” (”appointed times of the
nations,” NW) occurs in the lengthy prophecy of Jesus known as
the Olivet discourse. This discourse is recorded by all the three
Synoptics (Matthew 24, Mark 13, and Luke 21). Only Luke,
however, uses the expression “times of Gentiles” (kairoí ethnôn).
The phrase is used in connection with Jesus’ prediction of the
coming judgment upon Jerusalem and the Jewish nation. Stating
that there would be “great distress in the land and wrath against
this people,” Jesus went on to explain how this “wrath” would be
vented on the people:
They will fall by the sword and will be taken as prisoners to all
the nations. Jerusalem will be trampled on by the Gentiles until the
times of the Gentiles (kairoí ethnôn) are fulfilled. — Luke 21:24, NIV.
Following normal English usage, translators have usually

employed the definite article when rendering the words kairoí ethnôn
as, “the times of the Gentiles.” In Greek, the use of the definite
article would point to a definite and well-known period. Since,
however, the definite article is not found in the Greek text, the
phrase “times of Gentiles” can refer to an imprecise period rather
than one specific period already known to the readers (or listeners).
The words kairoí ethnôn have been variously interpreted
throughout the centuries. Bible commentator Dr. Alfred Plummer
observed:
The “seasons of the Gentiles” or “opportunities of the Gen-
tiles” cannot be interpreted with certainty. Either (1) Seasons for
executing the Divine judgements; or (2) for lording it over Israel;
or (3) for existing as Gentiles; or (4) for themselves becoming
subject to Divine judgements; or (5) Opportunities of turning to
God; or (6) of possessing the privileges which the Jews had
forfeited. The first and last are best, and they are not mutually
exclusive.73
A few comments may be necessary to clarify what may be
implied in each of these alternatives:
(1) Seasons for executing the divine judgments
A number of expositors understand the “times of Gentiles” as the
period allotted to the Gentile armies of Rome for executing the
divine judgment upon the Jewish nation and its capital. As the
period required for crushing the Jewish rebellion and recapturing
Jerusalem lasted for about three and a half years—from the arrival
of Vespasian’s armies in Galilee in the spring of 67 until the
desolation of Jerusalem by Titus’ armies in the autumn of 70
C.E.―these expositors usually also equate the “times of Gentiles”
with the “42 months” of Revelation 11:2, during which period the
Gentiles would “trample on the holy city.”74
(2) Seasons for lording it over Israel
In this view the “times of Gentiles” are understood as referring to
the period of Gentile domination of Jerusalem, dating either from
70 C.E. or from an earlier point of time.
73 Alfred Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S.
Luke. International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896), p. 483.
74 Dr. Milton S. Terry, for example, who adopted this view, states: “These ‘times of the
Gentiles’ are obviously the period allotted to the Gentiles to tread down Jerusalem,
and those times are fulfilled as soon as the nations shall have accomplished their
work of treading down the holy city.”—M. S. Terry, Biblical Apocalyptics (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1988. Reprint of the 1898 edition), p. 367.
It is certainly true that Jerusalem, after the destruction of the city

in the year 70 C.E., was controlled by a successive number of non-
Jewish nations: Rome (up to 614 C.E.), Persia (up to 628 C.E.), the
Byzantine Empire (up to 638 C.E.), the Saracen Empire (up to
1073 C.E.), the Seljuks (up to 1099), the Christian Crusader
Kingdom (up to 1291 C.E., interrupted by brief periods of
Egyptian control), Egypt (up to 1517 C.E.), Turkey (up to 1917
C.E.), Great Britain (up to 1948 C.E.), and Jordan (up to 1967,
when Israel gained control of the old walled city of Jerusalem).75
Many expositors regard this long period of Gentile domination
as the “times of Gentiles,” or at least as a part of this period,
arguing that the restoration of the state of Israel marks the end of
the “times of Gentiles.” For this reason, many of these expositors
believe that the “times of Gentiles” ended either in 1948 or in
1967.76
(3) Seasons for existing as Gentiles
According to this view, Jesus was saying that Jerusalem would be
trampled upon by Gentile nations as long as there are any Gentile
nations on earth. The “times of Gentiles” are simply regarded as
referring to the whole period of human history during which there
have been and will be nations on earth.
If the Jews can be said to have resumed full control of Jerusalem
in 1967, it has to be concluded that the Gentile nations have
continued to exist on earth after the end of the “Gentile times.”
This, of course, would invalidate the view under discussion.
However, it may also be argued that, although the Jews have
been in control of Jerusalem since 1967, the most central part of
the city, the old temple site, is still in the hands of the Arabs, and
this site is still occupied by the Muslim “Dome of the Rock”
edifice. For this reason it may be held that Jerusalem is still being
“trampled on” or desecrated by “Gentiles.”
75 A detailed history of the long period of foreign control of Jerusalem is included in
Karen Armstrong, Jerusalem. One City, Three Faiths (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,
Inc., 1996).
76 An excellent overview of the applications of Luke 21:24 and other Biblical
prophecies given by various expositors to Israel’s conquest of Jerusalem in 1967
and the subsequent events is found in Dwight Wilson, Armageddon Now! (Tyler,
Texas: Institute for Christian Economics, 1991; reprint of the 1977 edition), pp.
188–214. An update since 1977 is included in the Foreword on pp. xxv–xlii. A very
thorough discussion of the various aspects of the significance of Jerusalem in
Jesus’ prophecy can be found in the book Jesus and the Holy City, by P. W. L.
Walker (Grand Rapids: Eerdmann’s, 1996).
(4) seasons for the Gentiles becoming subject to divine

judgments
Advocates of this view argue that the “times of Gentiles” refer to
the period for a judgment of the Gentile nations. This period,
therefore, is still future. As the Roman war against the Jews in the
period 67–70 C.E. was a time for the judgment of the Jewish
nation, so there will also be a time for the judgment of the Gentile
nations. Until these “times of Gentiles” arrive, the Gentiles will
continue to trample on Jerusalem.77
(5) Opportunities of turning to God
Those holding this view connect the “times of Gentiles” with
Paul’s statement at Romans 11:25 that “a partial hardening has
happened to Israel until the fullness of Gentiles has come in” (NASB).
It is argued that the “times of Gentiles” are related to this “fullness
of Gentiles” and refer to the times of Gentile mission. This
understanding evidently implies that the “times of Gentiles” began
with the conversion of Cornelius. (Acts 10:1–48) These times of
Gentile mission, as well as the times of trampling on Jerusalem by
Gentile nations, wil1 continue “until the fullness of Gentiles has
come in.”78
(6) Opportunities of possessing the privileges which the
Jews had forfeited
This view is related to the previous one. Due to unfaithfulness
the Jewish nation was judged and the privileges were taken away
from the Jews and offered to the Gentiles. (Matthew 21:43) The
period during which these privileges are made available to the
Gentiles is regarded as the “times of Gentiles.”
As may be seen, there are various possible interpretations of the
phrase “times of Gentiles,” even without the application of the
“year- day principle” to the period. It must be recognized that the
phrase itself is stated in Scripture without any specific
accompanying qualification. To determine which view or views
give greater evidence of validity would require a detailed and
77 For a recent exposition of this view, see Dr. John Nolland, Luke 18:35–24:53. Word
Biblical Commentary 35c (Dallas: Word Books, 1993), pp. 1002–1003.
78 The note to Luke 21:24 in The NIV Study Bible reflects this view: “The Gentiles
would have both spiritual opportunities (Mk 13:10; cf. Lk 20:16; Ro 11:25) and
domination of Jerusalem, but these times will end when God’s purpose for the
Gentiles has been fulfilled.” Compare also Darrell L. Bock, Luke, Vol. 2 (Grand
Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1996), pp. 1680–1681.
extensive discussion of each of the various alternatives. Such an

analysis is beyond the scope of this work, the main purpose of
which has been to examine the Watch Tower Society’s
interpretation of the “times of Gentiles” and to demonstrate why
that interpretation is both historically and Biblically untenable. Any
further discussion of the factors involved in the meaning of the
phrase “times of Gentiles,” therefore, will have to be reserved for
another occasion.
7
ATTEMPTS TO OVERCOME THE

EVIDENCE
A S RELATED in the Introduction, the original manuscript of this

work was first presented to the Watch Tower Society in 1977.
During the subsequent correspondence with the headquarters of
that organization, additional lines of evidence were presented
which were later included in the published edition of the work in
1983.
In possession of all this information, it might be expected that
the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses at the Brooklyn
headquarters would have been prepared to reevaluate their Gentile
times calculation in accord with their stated interest in biblical truth
and historical facts. On the contrary, they chose to retain and
defend the 607 B.C.E. date and the interpretations founded upon
it.1
1 Several years before the treatise was sent to the Brooklyn headquarters, some
members on the writing staff had begun to see the weakness of the prophetic
interpretations attached to the 1914 date. These included Edward Dunlap, former
Registrar of Gilead School, and Governing Body member Raymond Franz. These
researchers, therefore, could agree with the conclusion that the 607 B.C.E. date
for the destruction of Jerusalem is chronologically insupportable. Some others on
the writing staff, too, who read the treatise, came to realize that the 607 B.C.E.
date lacked support in history and began to feel serious doubts about the date.
(The writing staff at that time included about 18 members.) Even Governing Body
member Lyman Swingle expressed himself before the other Body members to the
effect that the Watch Tower organization got their 1914 date (which depends on
the 607 B.C.E. date) from the Second Adventists “lock, stock and barrel.” However,
the attempts by Raymond Franz and Lyman Swingle to bring up the evidence for
discussion on the Governing Body met unfavorable response. The other members
on the Body did not see fit to discuss the subject, but decided to continue to
advocate the 1914 date.—See Raymond Franz, Crisis of Conscience (Atlanta:
Commentary Press, 1983 and later editions), pp. 140–143, 214–216.
283
A. THE WATCH TOWER SOCIETY’S

APPENDIX TO “LET YOUR KINGDOM COME”
The new defense of the 607 B.C.E. date appeared in a book

published in 1981 entitled “Let Your Kingdom Come”. In chapter 14
(pages 127–140) of the book another discussion of the Gentile
times calculation is presented, which does not differ materially
from previous discussions of the subject in the Watch Tower
publications. But in a separate “Appendix to Chapter 14” at the
end of the book, some of the lines of evidence weighing against the
607 B.C.E. date are now briefly discussed―and rejected.2 The
discussion, though, is seriously lacking in objectivity and proves to
be nothing more than a weak attempt to conceal facts.
In the area of historical research an event is generally regarded
as a “historical fact” if it is testified to by at least two independent
witnesses. We recognize this rule from the Bible: “At the mouth of
two or three witnesses every matter may be established.” (Matthew
18:16) In Chapter 2 of the first edition of the present work seven
historical “witnesses” against the 607 B.C.E. date were presented,
at least four of which clearly qualify as independent witnesses.
Most of the records giving this seven-fold testimony are found on
documents preserved from the Neo-Babylonian era itself. These
include royal inscriptions, business documents and the Apis stelae
from the contemporary Egyptian Saite dynasty. Only the
astronomical diaries, Berossus’ Neo-Babylonian chronology and
the king list of the Royal Canon (”Ptolemy’s Canon”) are found on
later documents, but those records, too, were seen to be copied
from earlier ones that―directly or indirectly―went back to the
Neo-Babylonian era.
In Chapters 3 and 4 of the present updated edition of the work,
the original seven lines of evidence are increased to seventeen. The
added lines of evidence include prosopographical evidence,
chronological interlocking joints, and an additional number of
astronomical texts (three planetary tablets and five lunar eclipse
texts). The evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date, therefore, is
overwhelming, and very few reigns in ancient history may be
(continued on page 289)
2 ”Let Your Kingdom Come” (New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1981),
pp. 186–189. The book was written by Governing Body member Lloyd Barry. The
“Appendix to Chapter 14,” however, was written by someone else, possibly Gene
Smalley, a member of the writing staff. The “spadework” was probably done by
John Albu, a scholarly Witness in New York. According to Raymond Franz, Albu
has specialized in Neo-Babylonian chronology on behalf of the Watch Tower
Society and did some research in connection with my treatise at the request of the
Writing Department.
Attempts to Overcome the Evidence 285
The Watch Tower Society’s “Appendix to Chapter 14” in the book

“Let your Kingdom Come” (1981), pages 186–189:
APPENDIX TO CHAPTER 14
Historians hold that Babylon fell to Cyrus’ army in October 539
B.C.E. Nabonidus was then king, but his son Belshazzar was co-ruler
of Babylon. Some scholars have worked out a list of the Neo-
Babylonian kings and the length of their reigns, from the last year of
Nabonidus back to Nebuchadnezzar’s father Nabopolassar.
According to that Neo-Babylonian chronology, Crown-prince
Nebuchadnezzar defeated the Egyptians at the battle of Carchemish in
605 B.C.E. (Jeremiah 46:1, 2) After Nabopolassar died
Nebuchadnezzar returned to Babylon to assume the throne. His first
regnal year began the following spring (604 B.C.E.).
The Bible reports that the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar
destroyed Jerusalem in his 18th regnal year (19th when accession
year is included). (Jeremiah 52:5, 12, 13, 29) Thus if one accepted the
above Neo-Babylonian chronology, the desolation of Jerusalem would
have been in the year 587/6 B.C.E. But on what is this secular
chronology based and how does it compare with the chronology of the
Bible?
Some major lines of evidence for this secular chronology are:
Ptolemy’s Canon: Claudius Ptolemy was a Greek astronomer
who lived in the second century C.E. His Canon, or list of kings, was
connected with a work on astronomy that he produced. Most modern
historians accept Ptolemy’s information about the Neo-Babylonian
kings and the length of their reigns (though Ptolemy does omit the
reign of Labashi-Marduk). Evidently Ptolemy based his historical
information on sources dating from the Seleucid period, which began
more than 250 years after Cyrus captured Babylon. It thus is not
surprising that Ptolemy’s figures agree with those of Berossus, a
Babylonian priest of the Seleucid period.
Nabonidus Harran Stele (NABON H 1, B): This contemporary
stele, or pillar with an inscription, was discovered in 1956. It mentions
the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-
Merodach, Neriglissar. The figures given for these three agree with
those from Ptolemy’s Canon.
VAT 4956: This is a cuneiform tablet that provides astronomical
information datable to 568 B.C.E. It says that the observations were
from Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year. This would correspond to the
chronology that places his 18th regnal year in 587/6 B.C.E. However,
this tablet is admittedly a copy made in the third century B.C.E. so it is
possible that its historical information is simply that which was
accepted in the Seleucid period.
186
APPENDIX 187
Business tablets: Thousands of contemporary Neo-Babylonian
cuneiform tablets have been found that record simple business
transactions, stating the year of the Babylonian king when the
transaction occurred. Tablets of this sort have been found for all the
years of reign for the known Neo-Babylonian kings in the accepted
From a secular viewpoint, such lines of evidence might seem to
establish the Neo-Babylonian chronology with Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th
year (and the destruction of Jerusalem) in 587/6 B.C.E. However, no
historian can deny the possibility that the present picture of Babylonian
history might be misleading or in error. It is known, for example, that
ancient priests and kings sometimes altered records for their own
purposes. Or, even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be
misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet
undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the
period.
Evidently realizing such facts, Professor Edward F. Campbell, Jr.,
introduced a chart, which included Neo-Babylonian chronology, with the
caution: "It goes without saying that these lists are provisional. The more
one studies the intricacies of the chronological problems in the ancient
Near East, the less he is inclined to think of any presentation as final.
For this reason, the term circa ]about] could be used even more liberally
than it is."—The Bible and the Ancient Near East (1965 ed.), p. 281.
Christians who believe the Bible have time and again found that its
words stand the test of much criticism and have been proved accurate
and reliable. They recognize that as the inspired Word of God it can be
used as a measuring rod in evaluating secular history and views. (2
Timothy 3:16, 17) For instance, though the Bible spoke of Belshazzar as
ruler of Babylon, for centuries scholars were confused about him
because no secular documents were available as to his existence,
identity or position. Finally, however, archaeologists discovered secular
records that confirmed the Bible. Yes, the Bible’s internal harmony and
the care exercised by its writers, even in matters of chronology,
recommends it so strongly to the Christian that he places its authority
above that of the ever-changing opinions of secular historians.
But how does the Bible help us to determine when Jerusalem was
destroyed, and how does this compare to secular chronology?
The prophet Jeremiah predicted that the Babylonians would destroy
Jerusalem and make the city and land a desolation. (Jeremiah 25:8, 9)
He added: "And all this land must become a devastated place, an object
of astonishment, and these nations
188 "LET YOUR KINGDOM COME"

will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years." (Jeremiah 25:11)
The 70 years expired when Cyrus the Great, in his first year, released
the Jews and they returned to their homeland. (2 Chronicles 36:17-23)
We believe that the most direct reading of Jeremiah 25:11 and other
texts is that the 70 years would date from when the Babylonians
destroyed Jerusalem and left the land of Judah desolate.—Jeremiah
52:12-15, 24-27; 36:29-31.
Yet those who rely primarily on secular information for the chronology
of that period realize that if Jerusalem were destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E.
certainly it was not 70 years until Babylon was conquered and Cyrus let
the Jews return to their homeland. In an attempt to harmonize matters,
they claim that Jeremiah’s prophecy began to be fulfilled in 605 B.C.E.
Later writers quote Berossus as saying that after the battle of
Carchemish Nebuchadnezzar extended Babylonian influence into all
Syria-Palestine and, when returning to Babylon (in his accession year,
605 B.C.E.), he took Jewish captives into exile. Thus they figure the 70
years as a period of servitude to Babylon beginning in 605 B.C.E. That
would mean that the 70-year period would expire in 535 B.C.E.
But there are a number of major problems with this interpretation:
Though Berossus claims that Nebuchadnezzar took Jewish captives
in his accession year, there are no cuneiform documents supporting this.
More significantly, Jeremiah 52:28-30 carefully reports that
Nebuchadnezzar took Jews captive in his seventh year, his 18th year
and his 23rd year, not his accession year. Also, Jewish historian
Josephus states that in the year of the battle of Carchemish
Nebuchadnezzar conquered all of Syria-Palestine "excepting Judea,"
thus contradicting Berossus and conflicting with the claim that 70 years
of Jewish servitude began in Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year.—
Antiquities of the Jews X, vi, 1.
Furthermore, Josephus elsewhere describes the destruction of
Jerusalem by the Babylonians and then says that "all Judea and
Jerusalem, and the temple, continued to be a desert for seventy years."
(Antiquities of the Jews X, ix, 7) He pointedly states that "our city was
desolate during the interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus."
(Against Apion I, 19) This agrees with 2 Chronicles 36:21 and Daniel 9:2
that the foretold 70 years were 70 years of full desolation for the land.
Second-century (C.E.) writer Theophilus of Antioch also shows that the
70 years commenced with the destruction of the temple after Zedekiah
had reigned 11 years.—See also 2 Kings 24:18-25:21.
But the Bible itself provides even more telling evidence against the
claim that the 70 years began in 605 B.C.E. and that Jerusa-
APPENDIX 189
lem was destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E. As mentioned, if we were to count
from 605 B.C.E., the 70 years would reach down to 535 B.C.E. However,
the inspired Bible writer Ezra reported that the 70 years ran until "the first
year of Cyrus the king of Persia," who issued a decree allowing the Jews
to return to their homeland. (Ezra 1:1-4; 2 Chronicles 36:21-23)
Historians accept that Cyrus conquered Babylon in October 539 B.C.E.
and that Cyrus’ first regnal year began in the spring of 538 B.C.E. If
Cyrus’ decree came late in his first regnal year, the Jews could easily be
back in their homeland by the seventh month (Tishri) as Ezra 3:1 says;
this would be October 537 B.C.E.
However, there is no reasonable way of stretching Cyrus’ first year
from 538 down to 535 B.C.E. Some who have tried to explain away the
problem have in a strained manner claimed that in speaking of "the first
year of Cyrus" Ezra and Daniel were using some peculiar Jewish
viewpoint that differed from the official count of Cyrus’ reign. But that
cannot be sustained, for both a non-Jewish governor and a document
from the Persian archives agree that the decree occurred in Cyrus’ first
year, even as the Bible writers carefully and specifically reported.—Ezra
5:6, 13; 6:1-3; Daniel 1:21; 9:1-3.
Jehovah’s "good word" is bound up with the foretold 70-year period,
for God said:
"This is what Jehovah has said, ‘In accord with the fulfilling of
seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to you people,
and I will establish toward you my good word in bringing you back
to this place.’ " (Jeremiah 29:10)
Daniel relied on that word, trusting that the 70 years were not a ‘round
number’ but an exact figure that could be counted on. (Daniel 9:1, 2) And
that proved to be so.
Similarly, we are willing to be guided primarily by God’s Word rather
than by a chronology that is based principally on secular evidence or that
disagrees with the Scriptures. It seems evident that the easiest and most
direct understanding of the various Biblical statements is that the 70
years began with the complete desolation of Judah after Jerusalem was
destroyed. (Jeremiah 25:8-11; 2 Chronicles 36:20-23; Daniel 9:2) Hence,
counting back 70 years from when the Jews returned to their homeland
in 537 B.C.E., we arrive at 607 B.C.E. for the date when Nebuchad-
nezzar, in his 18th regnal year, destroyed Jerusalem, removed Zedekiah
from the throne and brought to an end the Judean line of kings on a
throne in earthly Jerusalem.—Ezekiel 21:19-27.
established with such conclusiveness as the reign of

Nebuchadnezzar II (604–562 B.C.E.).
A-1: Misrepresentations of historical evidence
The Watch Tower Society in its “Appendix to Chapter 14” briefly
mentions some of the lines of evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date,
including “Ptolemy’s Canon” and the king list of Berossus, but fails
to mention that both of these king lists are based on sources that
originated in the Neo-Babylonian period itself. Instead, the Watch
Tower publication alleges that the origin of their dates is to be
found in the Seleucid era, that is, some three centuries later. 3
Further, for the first time the Watch Tower Society mentions
the Nabonidus Harran Stele (Nabon. H 1, B), a contemporary document
establishing the length of the whole Neo-Babylonian era up to the
ninth year of Nabonidus. But it fails to mention another contemporary
stele from the reign of Nabonidus, the Hillah stele, that also
establishes the length of the whole Neo-Babylonian era, including
the reign of Nabonidus!
Thirdly, the astronomical diary VAT 4956 is mentioned.
Referring to the fact that it is a copy of an original text from the
reign of Nebuchadnezzar, claimed to be made during the Seleucid
era, the Society repeats the theory that “it is possible that its
historical information is simply that which was accepted in the
Seleucid period.”4 This reasoning is completely fallacious, however,
as it has been proven false by another astronomical diary, B.M.
32312, a fact the Society passes over in silence, although it is very
well aware of it.5
Finally, the Society mentions the business tablets, admitting that
these thousands of contemporary documents give the reigns of all the
Neo-Babylonian kings, and that the lengths of reign given by these
documents agree with all the other lines of evidence referred to―the
Royal Canon, Berossus’ chronology, Nabonidus’ royal inscriptions,
and the astronomical diaries.6 It fails to mention, though, that such
agreement refutes the notion that the information on VAT 4956
could have been concocted during the Seleucid period. Apart from
the above-mentioned lines of evidence, another strong one against
3 ”Let Your Kingdom Came” (New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1981), p.
186.
4 Ibid., p. 186.
5 The astronomical diary B.M. 32312 is discussed in Chapter 4, section A-2, of the
present volume. In the first (1983) edition, the discussion is found on pp. 83–86.
6 ”Let Your Kingdom Come,” p. 187.
the 607 B.C.E. date is completely ignored, too, namely, the

synchronisms to the contemporary and independently established Egyptian
chronology.
By omitting nearly half of the seven lines of evidence discussed
in the first edition of the present work (the Hillah stele, the diary
B.M. 32312, and the contemporary Egyptian documents) and
misrepresenting some of the others, the real facts about the
strength and validity of the established Neo-Babylonian chronology
are concealed. From this basis Watch Tower scholars proceed to a
critical appraisal of the limited evidence presented. They state:
However, no historian can deny the possibility that the present
picture of Babylonian history might be misleading or in error. It is
known, for example, that ancient priests and kings sometimes
altered records for their own purposes.7
Again, the facts are concealed. Though it is true that ancient
scribes sometimes distorted history in order to glorify their kings
and gods, scholars agree that, although such distortion is found in
Assyrian royal inscriptions and other documents, Neo-Babylonian
scribes did not distort history in this way. This was also pointed out in
Chapter 3 (section B-1-b) of the present work, where A. K.
Grayson, a well-known authority on Babylonian historical records,
was quoted as saying:
Unlike the Assyrian scribes the Babylonians neither fail to
mention Babylonian defeats nor do they attempt to change them
into victories.8
Of the Neo-Babylonian chronicles Grayson says that they
“contain a reasonably reliable and representative record of
important events in the period with which they are concerned,”
and “within the boundaries of their interest, the writers are quite
objective and impartial.”9 Of the Babylonian royal inscriptions (such
as the Nabonidus’ stelae) Grayson remarks that they are “primarily
records of building activity and on the whole seem to be reliable.”10
The scribal distortion of history, then, refers to Assyrian, but
not to Neo-Babylonian history, a fact which is concealed in the
Watch Tower Society’s “Appendix” to “Let Your Kingdom Come”.
7 Ibid., p. 187.
8 A. K. Grayson, “Assyria and Babylonia,” Orientalia, Vol. 49:2, 1980, p. 171.
9 Ibid., pp. 170, 171.
10 Ibid., p. 175.
The next argument advanced by the Society in the “Appendix”

is that, “even if the discovered evidence is accurate, it might be
misinterpreted by modern scholars or be incomplete so that yet
undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of the period.”11
Evidently the Watch Tower scholars realize that as of now all
the evidence discovered since the middle of the 19th century
unanimously points to 587 B.C.E. instead of 607 as the eighteenth
year of Nebuchadnezzar. Among the tens of thousands of
discovered documents from the Neo-Babylonian era they have not
been able to find the slightest support for their 607 B.C.E.
date―hence, the reference to “yet undiscovered material.” A
chronology that has to be based on “yet undiscovered material,”
because it is demolished by the discovered material, is resting on a
weak foundation indeed. If an idea, refuted by an overwhelming
mass of discovered evidence, is to be retained because it is hoped that
“yet undiscovered material” will support it, all ideas, however false,
could be retained on the same principle. But it should be
remembered that such a faith is not founded upon “the evident
demonstration of realities though not beheld” (Hebrews 11:1); it is
founded solely upon wishful thinking.
If it really were true that (1) “no historian can deny the
possibility that the present picture of Babylonian history might be
misleading or in error,” that (2) “priests and kings sometimes
altered” the Neo-Babylonian historical records, that (3) “even if the
discovered evidence is accurate, it might be misinterpreted by
modern scholars or be incomplete,” and that (4) “yet undiscovered
material could drastically alter the chronology of the period,” what
reason do we have for accepting any date from the Neo-Babylonian
era established by historians―for example 539 B.C.E. as the date
for the fall of Babylon? This date, too, has been established solely by
the aid of secular documents of the same type as those which have
established 587 B.C.E. as the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar.
And of the two dates, 587 has much better support than 539
B.C.E.!12
If 587 B.C.E. is to be rejected for the above―mentioned
reasons, the 539 B.C.E. date should also be rejected for the same, if
not stronger, reasons. Yet the Watch Tower Society not only
accepts the 539 B.C.E. date as reliable, but even puts so much trust
11 “Let Your Kingdom Come,” p. 187.
12 This was thoroughly demonstrated earlier in Chapter 2.
in it that it has made it the very basis of its Bible chronology!13 If its
reasons for rejecting the 587 B.C.E. date are valid, they are equally
valid for the 539 B.C.E. date, too. To reject one date and retain the
other is not only inconsistent; it is a sad example of scholastic
dishonesty.
A-2: Misrepresentation of scholars
In support of their reasons for rejecting the Neo-Babylonian
chronology established by historians, a well-known authority on
ancient Near Eastern history is referred to.
”Evidently realizing such facts,”―that the present picture of
Babylonian history might be in error, that ancient priests and kings
might have altered the ancient Neo-Babylonian records, and that
yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the chronology of
the period:
Professor Edward F. Campbell, Jr., introduced a chart, which
included Neo-Babylonian chronology, with the caution: “It goes
without saying that these lists are provisional. The more one
studies the intricacies of the chronological problems in the ancient
Near East, the less he is inclined to think of any presentation as
final. For this reason, the term circa [about] could be used even
more liberally than it is.”14
This quotation is taken from a chapter written by Edward F.
Campbell, Jr., which first appeared in The Bible and the Ancient Near
East (BANE), a work edited by G. Ernest Wright and published by
Routledge and Kegan Paul of London, in 1961. The Watch Tower
Society did not mention, however, that the chart referred to in this
work covers the chronologies of Egypt, Palestine, Syria, Asia
Minor, Assyria and Babylon from c. 3800 B.C.E. to the death of
Alexander the Great in 323 B.C.E., and although the term circa is
placed before many of the reigns given in the lists for this long
period, no circas are placed before any of the reigns given for the kings of the
Neo-Babylonian period!
13 As was pointed out above in Chapter 2, from 1955 up to about 1971 the date 539
was termed an “absolute date” in Watch Tower publications. When it was
discovered that this date did not have the support that Watch Tower scholars
imagined, they dropped this term. In Aid to Bible Understanding, page 333 (=
Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1, p.459), 539 is called “a pivotal point.” And in ‘Let
Your Kingdom Come” it is stated only that “historians calculate,” “hold,” or “accept”
that Babylon fell in October 539 B.C.E. (pp. 136, 186, 189). Yet the Society still
anchors its whole “Bible chronology” to this date.
The question is: When Professor Campbell, in cooperation with

Professor David N. Freedman, prepared the chronological lists in
The Bible and the Ancient Near East, did he then feel that “the present
picture of Babylonian history might be misleading or in error”
when it comes to the Neo-Babylonian era? Did he think there was
any possibility that “ancient priests and kings sometimes altered”
the Neo-Babylonian records “for their own purposes”? Was he, for
whatever reason, prepared to put the term circa before any of the
reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings? In other words, did the Watch
Tower Society give a correct presentation of the views of Campbell
and Freedman?
When these questions were put to Dr. Campbell, he wrote in
reply:
As perhaps you will have concluded, I am dismayed at the use
made of Noel Freedman’s and my chronological lists by the Watch
Tower Society. I fear that some earnest folk will reach for any
straw to support their already-arrived-at conclusions. This is most
certainly a case of doing just that.
Let me first explain that the division of responsibility for the
chronological charts in BANE assigned the larger Near Eastern
chronology to me and the Biblical dates to Professor David Noel
Freedman, now of the University of Michigan. We did indeed talk
about the caveats we placed before our charts, but there was
absolutely no intent to suggest that there was leeway of as much as
twenty years for the dates relating [to] Babylonia and Judah. I am
fairly confident that Dr. Freedman makes explicit somewhere in
the apparatus of the BANE chapter that the 587/6 date can be off
by no more than one year, while the 597 date is one of the very
few secure dates in our whole chronological repertoire. I know that
he remains convinced of this, as do I. There is not a shred of
evidence that I know of to suggest even the possibility that the
dates in The Babylonian Chronicle have been altered by priests or
kings for pious reasons. I am in hearty agreement with Grayson!15
15 Letter received from Dr. Edward F. Campbell, Jr., dated August 9, 1981. The
reason for uncertainty among scholars as to whether Jerusalem was desolated in
587 or 586 B.C.E. stems from the Bible, not extra-biblical sources. All scholars
agree in dating Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth regnal year to 587/86 B.C.E. (Nisan
to Nisan). The Bible dates the desolation to Nebuchadnezzar’s nineteenth regnal
year at 2 Kings 25:8 and Jeremiah 52:12 (the latter passage being an almost literal
repetition of the former), but to his eighteenth year at Jeremiah 52:29. This
discrepancy may be solved if a nonaccession year system is postulated for the
kings of Judah. (See the section, “Methods of reckoning regnal years,” in the
Appendix for Chapter 2 below). The 597 B.C.E. date for the earlier capture of
Jerusalem and the deportation of Jehoiachin, says Dr. Campbell, is one of the very
few secure historical dates recognized by scholars. The reason is the exact
synchronism between the Bible and the Babylonian Chronicle at this point.—See
the two sections, “The ‘third year of Jehoiakim’ (Daniel 1:1–2)” and “Chronological
tables covering the seventy years,” in the Appendix for Chapter 5 that follows.
Dr. Campbell forwarded the questions put to him to Dr.

Freedman, to give the latter an opportunity to express his views.
Freedman had the following to say on the matter:
. . . I agree entirely with everything that Dr. Campbell has
written to you. It is true that there are some uncertainties about
biblical chronology for this period, but those uncertainties stem
from confusing and perhaps conflicting data in the Bible, and have
nothing to do with the chronological information and evidence for
the Neo-Babylonian period from cuneiform inscriptions and other
non-biblical sources. This is one of the best-known periods of the
ancient world, and we can be very sure that the dates are correct to
within a year or so, and many of the dates are accurate to the day
and month. There is therefore absolutely no warrant for the
comments or judgments made by the Watchtower Society based
on a statement about our uncertainty. What I had specifically in
mind was the disagreement among scholars as to whether the fall
of Jerusalem should be dated in 587 or 586. Eminent scholars
disagree on this point, and unfortunately we do not have the
Babylonian chronicle for this episode as we do for the capture of
Jerusalem in 597 (that date is now fixed exactly). But it is only a
debate about one year at most (587 or 586), so it would have no
bearing upon the views of the Jehovah’s Witnesses who apparently
want to rewrite the whole history of the time and change the dates
rather dramatically. There is no warrant whatever for that.16
Thus the Watch Tower Society, in its attempt to find support
for the 607 B.C.E. date, misrepresented the views of Dr. Campbell
and Dr. Freedman. Neither of them believes that ancient priests or
kings might have “altered records” from the Neo-Babylonian
period, or that “yet undiscovered material could drastically alter the
chronology of the period.” And neither of them is prepared to put
the term circa before any of the reigns given in their lists for the
kings of the Neo-Babylonian era.
The only uncertainty they point to is whether the date for the
desolation of Jerusalem should be set at 587 or 586 B.C.E., and this
uncertainty does not come from any errors or obscurities in the
extra-biblical sources, but from the seemingly conflicting figures
given in the Bible, evidently its references to Jerusalem’s
destruction as taking place, in one case, in Nebuchadnezzar’s
eighteenth year, and, in another, in his nineteenth year.―Jeremiah
52:28, 29; 2 Kings 25:8.
16 Letter received from Dr. David N. Freedman, dated August 16, 1981.
A-3: Misrepresentation of ancient writers

The last two pages of the “Appendix” to “Let Your Kingdom Come”
are devoted to a discussion of Jeremiah’s prophecy of the seventy
years.17 All arguments in this section have been thoroughly refuted
in Chapter 5 of the present work, “The Seventy Years for Babylon”
(which corresponds to chapter 3 of the first edition), to which the
reader is directed. Only a few points will be made here.
Against Berossus’ statement that Nebuchadnezzar took Jewish
captives in his accession year, shortly after the battle at Carchemish
(see Chapter 5 above, section A-4), it is argued that “there are no
cuneiform documents supporting this .”18 But the Watch Tower
Society fails to mention that Berossus’ statement is clearly supported by the
most direct reading of Daniel 1:1–6.19
Daniel reports that “in the third year of the kingship of
Jehoiakim” (corresponding to the accession year of
Nebuchadnezzar; see Jeremiah 25:1) Nebuchadnezzar took a
tribute from Judah, consisting of utensils from the temple and also
“some of the sons of Israel and of the royal offspring and of the
nobles,” and brought them to Babylonia. (Daniel 1:1–3, NW) It is
true that the Babylonian Chronicle does not specifically mention
these Jewish captives. It does mention, however, that
Nebuchadnezzar, in his accession year, “marched about
victoriously in Hattu,” and that “he took the vast booty of Hattu to
Babylon.”20 Most probably captives from the Hattu territory were
included in this “vast booty,” as is also pointed out by Professor
Gerhard Larsson:
It is certain that this “heavy tribute” consisted not only of
treasure but also of prisoners from the conquered countries. To refrain from
doing so would have been altogether too alien from the customs
of the kings of Babylon and Assyria.21
Thus, although the Babylonian Chronicle does not specifically
mention the (probably very small) Jewish deportation in the
17 “Let Your Kingdom Come,” pp. 188, 189.
18 Ibid., p. 188.
19 See the section, “The ‘third year of Jehoiakim’ (Daniel 1:1–2)” in the Appendix for
Chapter 5 below.
20 A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (Locust Valley, New York: J. J.
Augustin Publisher, 1975), p. 100.
21 Gerhard Larsson, “When did the Babylonian Captivity Begin?,” Journal of
Theological Studies, Vol. 18 (1967), p. 420.
accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, it strongly indicates this to have

taken place, in agreement with the direct statements of Daniel and
Berossus.
Further, it is to be noticed that the same Babylonian chronicle
(BM 21946) speaks of the vast booty taken to Babylon in the seventh
year of Nebuchadnezzar in similar laconic terms. Although it is
known from the Bible (2 Kings 24:10–17; Jeremiah 52:28) that this
booty included thousands of Jewish captives, the chronicle does not
mention anything about this but just says:
A king of his own choice he [Nebuchadnezzar] appointed in the
city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it into Babylon.22
If, therefore, the silence of the cuneiform documents about the
deportation of Jewish captives in the accession year of
Nebuchadnezzar indicates, as the “Appendix” of “Let Your Kingdom
Come” implies, that it did not take place, the silence about the
deportation in his seventh year would indicate that this one did not
take place either. However, since the Bible mentions both
deportations, the Babylonian chronicle evidently includes them in
the “vast booty” or tribute taken to Babylon at both occasions.
The Society finds another argument against a deportation in the
accession year of Nebuchadnezzar in Jeremiah 52:28–30:
More significantly, Jeremiah 52:28–30 carefully reports that
Nebuchadnezzar took Jews captive in his seventh year, in his 18th
year and his 23rd year, not his accession year.23
This argument, however, presupposes that Jeremiah 52:28–30
contains a complete record of the deportations, which it clearly does
not. The sum total of Jewish captives taken in the three
deportations referred to in the passage is given in verse 30 as “four
thousand and six hundred.” However, 2 Kings 24:14 gives the
number of those deported during only one of these deportations as “ten
thousand” (and perhaps 8,000 more in verse 16, if these are not
included in the first number)!
Different theories have been proposed to explain this
discrepancy, none of which may be regarded as more than a guess.
22 A. K. Grayson, op. cit., p. 102. (Emphasis added.)
The Watch Tower Society’s Bible dictionary Insight on the Scriptures,

for instance, states that the figures at Jeremiah 52:28–30
“apparently refers to those of a certain rank, or to those who were
family heads.”24 The New Bible Dictionary holds that “the difference
in figures is doubtless due to different categories of captives being
envisaged.”25 All agree that Jeremiah 52:28–30 does not give a
complete number of those deported, and some commentators also
suggest that not all deportations are mentioned in the text.26
At least the deportation in the accession year of
Nebuchadnezzar described by Daniel is not mentioned by
Jeremiah―which does not prove that it did not take place. The
reason why it is not included among the deportations enumerated
in Jeremiah 52:28–30 most probably is that it was a small
deportation only, consisting of Jews chosen from among “the royal
offspring and of the nobles” with the intention of using them as
servants at the royal palace. (Daniel 1:3–4) The important thing is
that Daniel, independently of Berossus, mentions this deportation in the
accession year of Nebuchadnezzar.
Against the clear statements of both Daniel and Berossus, the
Watch Tower Society refers to the Jewish historian Josephus, who
claims that, in the year of the battle of Carchemish (during
Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year), Nebuchadnezzar conquered all
of Syria-Palestine “excepting Judea.”27 The Watch Tower
publication argues that this conflicts with the claim that the 70-year
servitude began in that accession year Josephus wrote this more
than 600 years after Daniel and almost 400 years after Berossus.
Even if he were right, this would not contradict the conclusion that
the servitude of the nations surrounding Judah began in the
accession year of Nebuchadnezzar. Jeremiah’s prophecy clearly
applies the servitude, not to the Jews, but to “these nations”
(Jeremiah 25:11), that is, the nations surrounding Judah. (See
Chapter 5 above, section A-1.) In fact, Josephus even supports the
conclusion that these nations became subservient to
Nebuchadnezzar in his accession year, as he states that the king of
25 New Bible Dictionary, 2nd edition, ed. by J. D. Douglas et al (Leicester, England:
Inter-Varsity Press, 1982), p. 630.
26 See Albertus Pieters’ discussion in From the Pyramids to Paul (New York: Thomas
Nelson and Sons, 1935), pp. 184–189.
27 “Let Your Kingdom Come,” p. 188, quoting from Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews X,
vi,1.
Babylon at that time “took all Syria, as far as Pelusium, excepting

Judea.” Pelusium lay on the border of Egypt.
There is no reason, however, to believe that Josephus’ statement
is more trustworthy than the information given by Daniel and
Berossus. Josephus here evidently presented a conclusion of his
own, based on a misunderstanding of 2 Kings 24:1. Dr. E. W.
Hengstenberg, in his thorough discussion of Daniel 1:1ff., gives the
following comment on the expression “excepting Judea” in
Josephus’ Antiquities X, vi, 1:
It should not be thought that Josephus got the parex tes Ioudaias
[excepting Judea] from a source no longer available to us. What
follows shows clearly that he just derived it from a
misunderstanding of the passage at 2 Kings 24:1. As he
erroneously understood the three years mentioned there as the
interval between the two invasions, he thought that no invasion
could be presumed before the 8th year of Jehoiakim.28
Josephus’ statement thus carries little weight against the
testimony of Berossus, who evidently, unlike Josephus, got his
information from sources preserved from the Neo-Babylonian
period itself, and the testimony of Daniel, as one personally
involved in the deportation he himself describes.
The Watch Tower Society next quotes two passages from
Josephus’ works in which the seventy years are described as
seventy years of desolation (Antiquities X, ix, 7, and Against Apion, I,
19).29 But they conceal the fact that Josephus, in his last reference
to the period of Jerusalem’s desolation, states that the desolation lasted
for fifty years, not seventy! The statement is found in Against Apion I,
21, where Josephus quotes Berossus’ statement on the Neo-
Babylonian reigns, and says:
This statement is both correct and in accordance with our
books [that is, the Holy Scriptures]. For in the latter it is recorded
that Nabochodonosor in the eighteenth year of his reign
devastated our temple, that for fifty years it ceased to exist, that in the
28 Ernst Wilhelm Hengstenberg, Die Authentie des Daniels und die Integrität des
Sacharjah (Berlin, 1831), p. 57. Translated from the German.
29 Josephus mentions the seventy years five times in his works, viz., at Antiquities X,
7, 3; X, 9, 7; XI, 1, 1; XX, 10, 2; and Against Apion I, 19. In these passages the
seventy years are alternatingly referred to as a period of slavery, captivity, or
desolation, extending from the destruction of Jerusalem until the first year of
Cyrus.
second year of Cyrus the foundations were laid, and lastly that in
the second year of the reign of Darius it was completed.30
In support of this statement Josephus quotes, not only the
figures of Berossus, but also the records of the Phoenicians, which
give the same length for this period. Thus in this passage Josephus
contradicts and refutes his earlier statements on the length of the
period of desolation. Is it really honest to quote Josephus in
support of the idea that the desolation lasted for seventy years, but
conceal the fact that he in his latest statement on the length of the
period argues that it lasted for fifty years? It is quite possible, even
probable, that in this last passage he corrected his earlier statements
about the length of the period.
The translator of Josephus, William Whiston, wrote a special
dissertation on Josephus’ chronology, entitled “Upon the
Chronology of Josephus,” which he included in his publication of
30 Josephus’ Against Apion I, 21 is here quoted from the translation of H. St. J.
Thackeray, published in the Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Massachusetts,
and London, England: Harvard University Press, 1993 reprint of the 1926 edition),
pp. 224–225. Some defenders of the watch Tower Society’s chronology claim that
there is a textual problem with the “fifty years,” pointing out that some
manuscripts have “seven years” instead of “fifty” at I, 21, which some earlier
scholars felt could be a corruption for “seventy” Modern textual critics, however,
have demonstrated that this conclusion is wrong. It has been shown that all extant
Greek manuscripts of Against Apion are later copies of a Greek manuscript from
the twelfth century CE., Laurentianus 69, 22. That the figure “seven” in these
manuscripts is corrupt is agreed upon by all modern scholars. Further, it is
universally held by all modem textual critics that the best and most reliable
witnesses to the original text of Against Apion are found in the quotations by the
church fathers, especially by Eusebius, who quotes extensively and usually
literally and faithfully from Josephus’ works. Against Apion I, 21 is quoted in two
of Eusebius’ works: (1) in his Preparation for the Gospel, I, 550, 18–22, and (2) in
his Chronicle (preserved only in an Armenian version), 24, 29–25, 5. Both of these
works have “50 years” at I, 21. The most important of the two works is the first, of
which a number of manuscripts have been preserved from the tenth century C.E.
onwards.
All modern critical editions of the Greek text of Against Apion have “fifty” (Greek,
pentêkonta) at Against Apion 1, 21, including those of B. Niese (1889), S. A. Naber
(1896), H. St. J. Thackeray (1926), and T. Reinach & L. Blum (1930). Niese’ s
critical edition of the Greek text of Against Apion is still regarded as the standard
edition, and all later editions are based on—and improvements of—his text. A new
critical textual edition of all the works of Josephus is presently being prepared by
Dr. Heintz Schreckenberg, but it will probably take many years still before it is
ready for publication.
Finally, it should be observed that Josephus’ statement about the “fifty years” at
Against Apion I, 21 is preceded by his presentation of Berossus’ figures for the
reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings, and these figures show there was a period of
fifty years, not seventy, from the 18th year of Nebuchadnezzar to the second year
of Cyrus. Josephus himself emphasizes that Berossus’ figures are “both correct
and in accordance with our books.” Thus the context, too, requires the “fifty years”
at Against Apion I, 21.
Josephus’ complete works as Appendix V.31 In this careful study

Whiston points out that often in the later parts of his works,
Josephus attempted to correct his earlier figures. Thus he
demonstrates that Josephus first gives the length of the period
from the Exodus to the building of the temple as 592 years, which
figure he later changed to 612.32 The next period, from the building
of the temple to its destruction, he first gives as 466 years, which
he later “corrected” to 470.33
Of the seventy years, which Josephus first reckons from the
destruction of the temple to the return of the Jewish exiles in the
first year of Cyrus, Whiston says that “it is certainly Josephus’ own
calculation,” and that the 50 years for this period given in Against
Apion I, 21, “may probably be his own correction in his old age.”34
If this is the case, Josephus might even be quoted as an
argument against the application of the seventy years made by the
Watch Tower Society. In any case, it seems obvious that his
statements on the seventy years cannot be used as an argument
against Berossus in the way the Society does. Josephus’ last figure
for the length of the desolation period is in complete agreement with
Berossus’ chronology, and Josephus even emphasizes this agreement!35
In addition to Josephus, the Watch Tower Society also refers to
Theophilus of Antioch, who wrote a defense of Christianity towards
the end of the second century C.E. As the Society points out, he
commenced the seventy years with the destruction of the temple.36
But the Watch Tower writers conceal the fact that Theophilus was
confused about the end of the period , as he first places this in the
“second year” of Cyrus (537/36 B.C.E.) and then in the “second
year . . . of Darius” (520/19 B.C.E.).37
Some other early writers, including Theophilus’ contemporary,
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150–215 C.E.), also ended the seventy
31 Josephus’ Complete Works, translated by William Whiston (Grand Rapids: Kregel
Publications, 1978), pp. 678–708. Whiston’s translation was originally published
in 1737.
32 1bid., p. 684, § 14.
33 Ibid., p. 686, § 19.
34 Ibid., pp. 688, 689, § 23.
35 Against Apion I, 20–21.
36 “Let Your Kingdom Come,” p.188.
37 On Theophilus’ application of the seventy years, see A. Roberts and J. Donaldson,
eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 2 (Grand Rapids: Wm. Eerdmans Publishing
Co., reprinted 1979), p. 119. Theophilus probably based his terminal date of the
seventy years on Ezra 4:24, confusing Darius Hystaspes with “Darius the Mede” of
Daniel 5:31 and 9:1–2.
years “in the second year of Darius Hystaspes” (520/19 B.C.E.),

which would place the desolation of Jerusalem about 590/89
B.C.E.38
Eusebius in his chronicle (published c. 303 C.E.) adopted
Clement’s view, but also tries another application, starting with the
year in which Jeremiah began his activity, forty years prior to the
desolation of Jerusalem, and he ends the seventy years in the first
year of Cyrus, which he sets at c. 560 B.C.E. Julius Africanus, in c.
221 C.E., applies the seventy years to the period of Jerusalem’s
desolation, the end of which he, like Eusebius later, erroneously
dates to c. 560 B.C.E. It is very obvious that these early Christian
writers did not have access to sources that could have helped them
to establish an exact chronology for this ancient period.
The Watch Tower Society’s use of ancient writers then, is
demonstrably very selective. They quote Josephus on the seventy
years of desolation, at the same time concealing the fact that he
finally gives fifty years for the period. Their reference to
Theophilus reflects the same methods: He is quoted, not because
he really presents evidence that supports them, but because his
calculation to some extent agrees with theirs. Other contemporary
Christian writers, whose calculations differ from theirs, are ignored.
This procedure is a clear misrepresentation of the full body of
evidence from the various ancient writers who discussed the matter
at hand.
A-4: Misrepresentation of the Biblical evidence
In its further discussion of the seventy years , the Watch Tower
Society attempts to show that, even if the historical evidence is
against their application of the period, the Bible is on their side.
First, at the top of page 188 of ‘Let Your Kingdom Come,” they state,
categorically, that “we believe that the most direct reading of
Jeremiah 25:11 and other texts is that the 70 years would date from
when the Babylonians destroyed Jerusalem and left the land of
Judah desolate.”
The simple truth is, however, that the Society bluntly refuses to
accept the most natural understanding of Jeremiah 25:11 and a
38 Ibid., p. 329. This application of the seventy years may have been influenced by
Rabbinic views. Referring to the Rabbinic chronicle Seder Olam Rabbah (SOR), Dr.
Jeremy Hughes points out that “later Jewish tradition reckoned 52 years for the
Babylonian exile (SOR 27) and 70 years as the interval between the destruction of
the first temple and the foundation of the second temple, with this event dated in
the second year of Darius (SOR 28; cf. Zc 1.12).” The 70 year-period was “divided
into 52 years of exile and 18 years from the return to the foundation of the second
temple (SOR 29).”—Jeremy Hughes, Secrets of the Times (Sheffield: JSOT Press,
1990), pp. 41 and 257.
number of other texts related to this subject.39 As was discussed in

Chapter 5, the most direct reading of Jeremiah 25:11 shows the
seventy years to be a period of servitude, not desolation: “These nations
shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” (NASB) It was
further pointed out that the other text in Jeremiah referring to the
seventy years, Jeremiah 29:10, confirms this understanding. The
most direct reading of the best and most literal translation of this
text shows those “seventy years” to be a reference to the
Babylonian rule: “When seventy years have been completed for
Babylon.” (NASB) Both texts clearly refer to Babylon, not
Jerusalem.
If the seventy years refer to the Babylonian rule, as these verses
show, this period ended with the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C.E.; and
this is directly stated at Jeremiah 25:12: “Then after seventy years
are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon and that nation.”
(NRSV) As this punishment took place in 539 B.C.E., the end of
the seventy years cannot be extended beyond that date, either to
537 B.C.E. or any other date, as that would be in conflict with a
direct reading of Jeremiah 25:12. 40
There cannot be any doubt whatsoever about the matter: The
most direct reading of Jeremiah’s prophecy (Jeremiah 25:11–12 and
29:10) is in clear conflict with the application that the Watch Tower
Society gives to the seventy years. In spite of this, it boldly declares:
But the Bible itself provides even more telling evidence against
the claim that the 70 years began in 605 B.C.E. and that Jerusalem
was destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E.41
What “telling evidence”? This:
As mentioned, if we were to count from 605 B.C.E., the 70
years would reach down to 535 B.C.E. However, the inspired Bible
writer Ezra reported that the 70 years ran until “the first year of
Cyrus the king of Persia,” who issued a decree allowing the Jews to
return to their homeland.42
But did Ezra really report that? As was shown in the discussion
of 2 Chronicles 36:21–23 in Chapter 5, Ezra does not clearly indicate
39 As is shown in the Appendix for Chapter 5, “The ‘third year of Jehoiakim’ (Daniel
1:12),” these texts also include Daniel 1:1–2 and 2:1.
40 For a full discussion of the texts dealing with the seventy years, see Chapter 5 of
the present work.
41 “Let Your Kingdom Come,” pp. 188–189.
42 Ibid., p. 189.
that the seventy years ended “in the first year of Cyrus,” or in 537,
as the Watch Tower Society holds. On the contrary, such an
understanding of his words would be in direct conflict with
Jeremiah 25:12, where the seventy years are ended in 539 B.C.E.!
This scripture provides the most telling evidence against the claim
that the seventy years ended in 537 B.C.E. or in any other year after
539.
It is true that in the original manuscript of The Gentile Times
Reconsidered (sent to the Society in 1977), one of the possible
applications of the seventy years considered was that they could be
counted from 605 to 536/35 B.C.E. But this application was
presented as a less likely alternative. In the published editions of
the work this suggestion has been omitted because, like the
application of the period advocated by the Watch Tower Society, it
was found to be in clear conflict with Jeremiah’s prophecy. In
discussing this application, the Society argues that “there is no
reasonable way of stretching Cyrus’ first year from 538 down to
535 B.C.E.”43 As the application discussed did not imply this, and
as I am not aware of any other modem commentator that attempts
to stretch Cyrus’ first year “down to 535 B.C.E.,” this statement
seems to be nothing but a “straw man” created by the Watch
Tower Society itself. Although an argument directed against such a
fabricated “straw man” may easily knock it down, the argument
completely misses the real target.44
Finally, the Watch Tower Society claims,
. . . we are willing to be guided primarily by God’s Word
rather than by a chronology that is based principally on secular
evidence or that disagrees with the Scriptures. It seems evident that
the easiest and most direct understanding of the various Biblical
statements is that the 70 years began with the complete desolation
of Judah after Jerusalem was destroyed.45
Again, these statements tend to give the impression that there is
a conflict between the Bible and the secular evidence on the
43 Ibid.
44 Most commentators end the seventy years either with the fall of Babylon in 539
B.C.E., with Cyrus’ decree in 538, with the return of the first Jewish remnant to
Palestine in 538 or 537 (Ezra 3:1–2), or with the commencing of the reconstruction
of the temple in 536 (Ezra 3:8–10). (Cf. Professor J. Barton Payne, Encyclopedia of
Biblical Prophecy, Grand Rapids: Baker Books, the 1980 reprint of the 1973
edition, p. 339.) Curiously, these alternatives (except for the Watch Tower Society’s
own 537 B.C.E. date) are not even mentioned in the “Appendix” to “Let Your
Kingdom Come”!
45 “Let Your Kingdom Came,” p. 189.
seventy years, and that the Watch Tower Society faithfully stands
for the Bible against secular evidence. But nothing could be further
from the truth. On the contrary, biblical and historical data are in
good agreement on the period under discussion. Here, historical
and archaeological discoveries, as in so many other cases, uphold and
confirm biblical statements. On the other hand the interpretation of
the seventy-year period given by the Watch Tower Society does
conflict with facts established by secular evidence. As has been
clearly demonstrated above and in Chapter 5, it is also in flagrant
conflict with the “easiest and most direct understanding of the
various Biblical statements” on the seventy years, such as Jeremiah
25: 11–12; 29:10; Daniel 1:16; 2:1; and Zechariah 1:7,12, and 7:1–5.
The real conflict, therefore, is not between the Bible and secular
evidence, but between the Bible and secular evidence on the one
hand, and the Watch Tower Society on the other. As its application
of the seventy years is in conflict both with the Bible and the
historical facts, it has nothing to do with reality and merits rejection by
all sincere truth-seekers.
SUMMARY
It has been amply demonstrated above that the Watch Tower
Society in its “Appendix” to “Let your Kingdom Come” does not give
a fair presentation of the evidence against their 607 B.C.E. date:
(1) Its writers misrepresent historical evidence by omitting from
their discussion nearly half of the evidence presented in the first
edition of this work (the Hillah stele, the diary BM 32312, and
contemporary Egyptian documents) and by giving some of the
other lines of evidence only a biased and distorted presentation.
They erroneously indicate that priests and kings might have altered
historical documents (chronicles, royal inscriptions, etc.) from the
Neo-Babylonian era, in spite of the fact that all available evidence
shows the opposite to be true.
(2) They misrepresent authorities on ancient historiography by quoting
them out of context and attributing to them views and doubts they
do not have.
(3) They misrepresent ancient writers by concealing the fact that
Berossus is supported by the most direct reading of Daniel 1:1–6,
by quoting Josephus when he talks of seventy years of desolation
without mentioning that in his last work he changed the length of
the period to fifty years, and by referring to the opinion of the
second century bishop, Theophilus, without mentioning that he

ends the seventy years, not only in the second year of Cyrus, but
also in the second year of Darius Hystaspes (as did his
contemporary Clement of Alexandria and others), thus confusing
the two kings.
Finally, (4) they misrepresent biblical evidence by concealing the
fact that the most direct understanding of the passages dealing with
the seventy years shows them to be the period of Neo-Babylonian
rule, not the period of Jerusalem’s desolation. This understanding is
in good agreement with the historical evidence, but in glaring
conflict with the application given to it by the Watch Tower
Society. It is truly distressing to discover that individuals, upon
whose spiritual guidance millions rely, deal so carelessly and
dishonestly with facts. Their “Appendix” to “Let Your Kingdom
Come” in defence of their chronology is nothing but yet one more
nefarious exercise in the art of concealing truth.
It may be asked why the leaders of an organization that
constantly emphasizes its interest in “the Truth” in reality find it
necessary to suppress the truth and even oppose it?
The obvious reason is that they have no other choice, as long as
they insist that their organization was appointed in the year 1919 as God’s
sole channel and mouthpiece on earth. If the 607 B.C.E.–1914 C.E.
calculation is abandoned, this claim will fall. Then these leaders will
have to admit, at least tacitly, that their organization for the past
hundred years has appeared on the world scene in a false role with
a false message.
When occasionally the questioning of the 607 B.C.E. date has
been commented upon in the Watch Tower publications in recent
years, the sole defense has been a reference to the “Appendix” of
1981. In The Watchtower of November 1, 1986, for example, it is
claimed that “in 1981 Jehovah’s Witnesses published convincing
evidence in support of the 607 B.C.E. date.” Then the reader is
referred to the book “Let Your Kingdom Come,” pages 127–40 and
186–89.46
As the Society’s “Appendix” only contains a series of failed
attempts to undermine the evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date,
and as the only “convincing evidence” presented in support of the
date is a reference to “yet undiscovered material,” the Watch
Tower writers evidently trust that the majority of the Witnesses are
completely unaware of the actual facts. And the leaders of the
46 The Watchtower, November 1,1986, p. 6. (Emphasis added.) A similar reference to
the “Appendix” is found in the Watchtower of March 15, 1989, p. 22.
When Did the "Seven Times"

Really End?
Some people argue that even if the "seven
times" are prophetic and even if they last 2,520
years, Jehovah’s Witnesses are still mistaken
about the significance of 1914 because they use
the wrong starting point. Jerusalem, they claim,
was destroyed in 587/6 B.C.E., not in 607
B.C.E. If true, this would shift the start of "the
time of the end" by some 20 years. However, in
1981 Jehovah’s Witnesses published
convincing evidence in support of the 607 B.C.E.
date. ("Let Your Kingdom Come," pages 127-40,
186-9) Besides, can those trying to rob 1914
of its Biblical significance prove that 1934—or
any other year for that matter—has had a
more profound, more dramatic, and more
spectacular impact upon world history than
1914 did?
From The Watchtower of November 1, 1986, page 6.
Watch Tower Society want to keep it that way. This is clear from
the warnings repeatedly published in the Watch Tower publications
against reading literature by former Witnesses who know the facts
about their chronology. The leaders of the Watch Tower Society
evidently fear that if Witnesses are allowed to be exposed to these
facts, they might discover that the basis of the prophetic claims of
the movement is nothing but a groundless, unbiblical and
unhistorical chronological speculation.
Thus, although the Watch Tower organization probably uses the
word “Truth” more often than most other organizations on earth,
the fact is that truth has become an enemy of the movement.
Therefore it has to be resisted and concealed.
Anybody, of course, be it an individual or an organization, is
fully entitled to believe whatever he/she/it prefers to believe, as
long as it does not hurt other people—that flying saucers exist, that
the earth is flat, or, in this case, that Jerusalem, contrary to all the
evidence, was desolated in 607 B.C.E., and that, somewhere, there
may be “yet undiscovered material” to support such views.
If, however, such “believers” are not willing to concede to
others the right to disagree with their theories, and instead classify
those who no longer are able to embrace their views as godless
apostates, condemn them to Gehenna if they do not change their
minds, force their friends and relatives to regard them as wicked
ungodly criminals that must be avoided, shunned and even hated,
explaining that God will shortly exterminate them forever together
with the rest of mankind—then it is high time for such “believers”
to be held responsible for their views, attitudes and deeds. Any
faith leading to such grave consequences for other people must
first clearly be shown to be securely rooted in actual reality, not just
in untenable speculations that can be supported only by “yet
undiscovered material.”
B. UNOFFICIAL DEFENSES
WRITTEN BY SCHOLARLY WITNESSES
The “Appendix” of 1981 is so far the only official attempt by the
Watch Tower Society to overcome the lines of evidence against the
607 B.C.E. date presented in The Gentile Times Reconsidered.
Evidently realizing that the Society’s defense is hopelessly
inadequate, some scholarly Jehovah’s Witnesses and members of
other Bible Student groups have on their own initiative set about to
work out papers in defense of the Gentile times chronology. About
half a dozen of such papers have come to my attention. Most of
them have been sent to me by Jehovah’s Witnesses who have read
them and wanted to know my opinion about them.
A common feature of these papers is their lack of objectivity.
They all start with a preconceived idea that has to be defended at
all costs. Another common feature is that the papers time and
again reflect inadequate research, often resulting in serious
mistakes. Unfortunately, some of the papers also repeatedly resort
to defaming language. In scholarly publications authors usually
treat each other with respect, and critical papers are regarded as
constructive contributions to the ongoing debate. Should it not be
expected that Christians, too, refrain from using disparaging and
disgraceful language in referring to sincere critics? Classifying them
as “detractors,” “ridiculers,” and so on, is the very opposite of the
attitude recommended by the apostle Peter at 1 Peter 3:15.
As the most important arguments presented in the papers that

have come to my attention have already been considered in their
proper contexts in the present work, there is no need to deal with
them again here. A brief description of the papers composed by
two of the most qualified defenders of the Watch Tower Society’s
chronology may be of interest to readers and is given below.47
Rolf Furuli is a Jehovah’s Witness who lives in Oslo, Norway. He
is a former district overseer and is regarded by Norwegian
Witnesses as the leading apologist of Watch Tower teachings in
that country, and Witnesses often turn to him with their doctrinal
problems. It is not to be wondered at, therefore, that he has seen it
as an important task to “refute” my work on the Watch Tower
Society’s Gentile times chronology.
Furuli’s first attempt of that sort, a paper of more than one
hundred pages called “Den nybabyloniske kronologi og Bibelen” (”The
Neo-Babylonian Chronology and the Bible”), was sent to me by
Witnesses in Norway in 1987. Like the Watch Tower Society in its
“Appendix,” Furuli attempted to undermine the reliability of the
historical sources for the Neo-Babylonian chronology presented in
my work. To meet the wishes of the Norwegian Witnesses (who
had contacted me in secret), I decided to write a reply to Furuli’s
paper.
The first 31 pages of my reply (which in all finally amounted to
93 pages) were sent in the spring of 1987 to the Norwegian
Witnesses, who soon provided Rolf Furuli with a copy, too. Furuli
quickly realized that his discussion had been shown to be
untenable, and if he continued to circulate his paper, my reply
would be circulated, too. To prevent this, he wrote me a letter,
dated April 23, 1987, in which he described his paper as just
“private notes” which “not in all details” represented his “present
views” but was solely an expression of the information available to
him at the time it was written. He asked me to destroy my copy of
his paper and never quote from it again.48
47 According to the information I have, John Albu in New York is probably the Watch
Tower chronologist who was most deeply read in Neo-Babylonian history. Some
years ago I was told that he has prepared some material in defense of the 607
B.C.E. date, but up till now nothing of it has come to my attention. Albu died in
2004.
48 As I later found out that Furuli continued to share his paper with Witnesses who
had begun to question the Society’s chronology, I saw no reason to stop the
circulation of my reply to it.
A main point in Furuli’s argumentation was that the dates on some cuneiform
documents from the Neo-Babylonian era create “overlaps” of a few months between
some of the reigns, which he regarded as proof that extra years must be added to
these reigns. These “overlaps” are discussed in the Appendix for chapter 3 of the
present work.
Three years later Furuli had prepared a second paper aimed at

overthrowing the evidence presented in my work. For some time
Furuli had been studying Hebrew at the university in Oslo, and in
his new paper of 36 pages (dated February 1, 1990) he tried to
argue that my discussion of the seventy years “for Babylon” was in
conflict with the original Hebrew text.
It was evident, though, that Furuli’s knowledge of Hebrew at
that time was very imperfect. Having consulted with a number of
leading Scandinavian Hebraists, I wrote a reply of 69 pages,
demonstrating in detail that his arguments throughout were based
on a misunderstanding of the Hebrew language. As Furuli in his
discussion had questioned the reliability of the Hebrew Masoretic
text (MT) of the book of Jeremiah, my reply also included a
defense of this text against the Greek Septuagint text (LXX) of the
book.
In 2003 Furuli published a book of 250 pages on the Persian
chronology, which is basically a defence of the erroneous Watch
Tower dating of the reign of Artaxerxes I. Also included is a
section of 18 pages containing another linguistically untenable
discussion of the Biblical 70-year passages.49
Philip Couture, a Jehovah’s Witness who resides in California,
USA, has been a member of the Watch Tower movement since
1947. He has for years been doing research on Neo-Babylonian
history and chronology, evidently in order to find some support for
the 607 B.C.E. date.
In the autumn of 1989 a friend in New Jersey, U.S.A., sent me a
copy of a treatise of 72 pages (which included a section with pages
copied from various works) entitled A Study of Watchtower Neo-
Babylonian Chronology in the Light of Ancient Sources. It was written by
an anonymous Watch Tower apologist, and I did not notice until
much later that my friend had enclosed a slip of paper stating that
the author was Philip Couture.50
Although Couture carefully avoids mention of my work, he
repeatedly quotes from it or alludes to its contents. The reason is,
quite evidently, that he is not supposed to have read what in the
Watch Tower publications is classified as “apostate literature.” The
only critic that Couture mentions by name is a Seventh-Day
49 Rolf Furuli, Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews
(Oslo: R. Furuli A/S, 2003). For a review of the book, see the Appendix.
50 This was also confirmed to me by Professor John A. Brinkman at the University of
Chicago, a letter from whom to Couture had been included in the treatise (with the
name of the addressee removed).
Adventist, William MacCarty, who wrote a booklet on the Watch

Tower Society’s Gentile times calculation back in 1975.51
Like Furuli’s first paper, Couture’s treatise is an attempt to
undermine the reliability of the historical sources for the Neo-
Babylonian chronology. Despite his efforts, however, he fails to
come up with even one tenable argument that can move the
burden of evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date. The reason for this
simply is that, however skilful and capable a person may be, it will
in the end be impossible for him to find any real and valid support
for an idea that is false and therefore impossible to defend.
About half of Couture’s treatise deals with astronomy and its
relation to Neo-Babylonian chronology. Unfortunately, this is an
area that Couture was not quite familiar with. Thus, although a
separate section of his paper contains a “word of caution”
regarding “the use and abuse of eclipses,” he himself repeatedly
falls into the very pitfalls against which he warns.52
As this and other important points brought up by Couture have
been dealt with in various sections of the present work, no further
comments on his treatise are given here.53 I do not know if
Couture is still prepared to defend his position.
Some of the other papers sent to me present discussions of the
Biblical passages on the seventy years, but ignore the historical
evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date.54 Such a discussion is not, as
the author of the paper may intimate, an attempt to defend the
51 William MacCarty,1914 and Christ’s Second Coming (Washington, D.C.: Review and
Herald Publishing Association, 1975).
52 One example of this is his discussion of the lunar eclipse on Ululu 13 of the second
year of Nabonidus, described in the royal inscription Nabon. No. 18, which modern
astronomers have identified with the one that took place on September 26, 554
B.C.E. (This eclipse is discussed in Chapter 3 of the present work, section B-1-c.)
On page 11 of his treatise, Couture claims that “within a few years either direction
there are a number of other lunar eclipses which are just as possible.” But at none
of the six alternative eclipses presented by Couture (dating from 563 to 543 B.C.E.)
did the moon set heliacally, as is explicitly stated in the inscription, and three of
them were not even visible in Babylonia! Such errors reveal that Couture did not
know how to calculate and identify ancient lunar eclipses.
53 For readers who have read Couture’s treatise and are interested in my response to
it, a separate, detailed refutation is available at a charge to cover copying costs and
postage.
54 One example of this is a book of 136 pages written by Charles F. Redeker, The
Biblical 70 Years. A Look at the Exile and Desolation Periods (Southfield, Michigan:
Zion’s Tower of the Morning, 1993). Redeker is a member of the Dawn Bible
Students, a conservative Bible Student offshoot of the Watchtower organization
formed in the early 1930’s in reaction to the many changes of Russell’s teachings
introduced by the Watch Tower Society’s second president, Joseph F. Rutherford.
Bible against attacks founded upon secular sources. Rather, it is an

attempt to force the meaning of the Biblical texts to adapt them to
a theory that is in glaring conflict with all historical sources from the
Neo-Babylonian period. The choice in such discussions is not really
between the Bible and secular sources; it is between the rantings of
over-exalted minds and the historical evidence. As long as the
historical reality is ignored, such discussions amount to little more
than futile exercises in escapism or wishful thinking.
It is to be expected that the attempts to overcome the historical
evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date presented in this work will
continue. New discussions, prepared by the Watch Tower Society
and/or other defenders of the 607 B.C.E.–1914 C.E. calculation
will probably appear in the future. If, at least on the surface, some
arguments presented in such discussions appear to have some
strength, they will have to be critically examined and evaluated. If it
turns out to be necessary, a running commentary on such
discussions will be made available on the Internet.
APPENDIX
For Chapter One:
ADDITIONAL NOTES ON THE SECOND ADVENT MOVEMENT

As noted on page 43, along with intense interest in time
prophecies, the Second Advent movement was also characterized
by a number of other distinctive factors.
Many of the Second Adventist splinter groups that branched off
from the original Millerites rejected the immortal soul and hell
doctrines (and even the trinity doctrine). This was due largely to the
articles and tracts published in the 1820’s, 1830’s, and 1840’s by a
former Baptist pastor, Henry Grew of Hartford, Connecticut and
later of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 1
The doctrine of “conditional immortality” was first introduced
among the Millerites by George Storrs. It was the reading of one of
Grew’s tracts in 1837 that turned Storrs against the immortal soul
and hell doctrines, and he was later to become the leading
champion in the United States of conditionalism.
Typical of many Second Adventist periodicals, the World’s Crisis
advocated conditionalism, the doctrine of the conditional―not
inherent—immortality of the human soul, with its corollary tenet
that the ultimate destiny of those who are rejected by God is
destruction or annihilation, not conscious torment. The World’s
Crisis had advocated the date of 1854 for Christ’s second coming
and when, like all the preceding dates, this date failed, the
“immortality question” came strongly to the fore and caused a
second major division within the original movement.
1 LeRoy Edwin Froom, The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, Washington D.C.:
Review and Herald, 1965, pp. 300–315. Grew’s anti-trinitarian position, too, was
adopted by a majority of the Second Adventists, including the three major
Adventist groups that branched off from the “original” Adventists: 1) the Seventh-
Day Adventists, 2) the Advent Christians, and 3) the “age to come” Adventists. In
1898 the SDA Church, on the authority of Ellen G. White, the “prophetess” of this
movement, changed its position on the question. (Erwin Roy Gane, The Arian or
Anti-Trinitarian Views Presented in Seventh-Day Adventist Literature and the Ellen
G. White Answer, unpublished M.A. thesis, Andrews University, June 1963, pp. 1–
110) Some decades later, the Advent Christian Church, too, began to reconsider its
anti-trinitarian position.—See David Arnold Dean, Echoes of the Midnight Cry: The
Millerite Heritage in the Apologetics of the Advent Christian Denomination, 1860–
1960 (unpublished Th.D. dissertation, Westminster Theological Seminary, 1976)
pp. 406–416.
312
Appendix 313
Although the doctrine of conditional immortality eventually was

adopted by a majority of the Second Adventists, it was never
accepted by the leadership of the original movement, which
increasingly began to condemn it as a heresy in their periodical, the
Advent Herald. Finally, in 1858, the original Second Adventists, or
the “Evangelical Adventists,” as they now called themselves,
openly broke with the “conditionalist” Adventists and formed a
separate organization, The American Evangelical Advent Conference. The
Evangelical Adventists, however, soon became a minority, as their
members in increasing numbers sided with the “conditionalist”
Adventists. The association finally died out in the early years of the
20th century.2
After the break with the Evangelical Adventists, the supporters
of the World’s Crisis, too, formed a separate denomination in 1860,
The Advent Christian Association (later “The Advent Christian
Church”), today the most important Adventist denomination aside
from the Seventh-Day Adventists and Jehovah’s Witnesses.3
Many “conditionalist” Adventists did not join this association,
however, partly because they were strongly opposed to all forms of
structured church organization and would accept no names of their
church but the “Church of God,” and partly also because of their
distinctive “age to come” views, that is, that the Jews would be
restored to Palestine before the coming of Christ, that his coming
would usher in the millenium, and that the saints would reign with
Christ for a thousand years, during which period his kingdom
2 David Tallmadge Arthur, “Come out of Babylon”: A Study of Millerite Separatism
and Denominationalism, 1840–1865 (unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of
Rochester, 1970), pp. 291–306; Isaac C. Wellcome, History of the Second Advent
Message (Yarmouth [Maine], Boston, New York, London, 1874), pp. 597–600, 609,
610. See also the excellent overview by D. A. Dean, op. cit., pp. 122–129. Even
Joshua V. Himes, editor of the Advent Herald and the most influential leader of the
original movement after the death of Miller in 1849, adopted the “conditionalist”
position in 1862 and left the Evangelical Adventists.
3 Numerically, the membership of this church has remained at about 30,000–50,000
throughout its history. The two most influential leaders and writers at the
formation of the association were H. L. Hastings and Miles Grant, the latter being
editor of the World’s Crisis from 1856 to 1876. Hastings left the association in
1865 and remained independent of all associations for the rest of his life, although
he continued to advocate conditionalism and other teachings of the Advent
Christian denomination. (See Dean, op. cit., pp. 133–135, 142, 210–294.)
would be set up on earth. By the early 1860’s, these Adventists had

been separated from the Advent Christians.4
In 1863 another group of “conditionalist” Adventists, headed by
Rufus Wendell, George Storrs, R. E. Ladd, W. S. Campbell, and
others, broke with the Advent Christian Association and formed a
new denomination, The Life and Advent Union. This group
promulgated the view that only the righteous would be resurrected
at Christ’s coming. The wicked dead would remain in their graves
forever. They also denied the personality of the holy spirit and even
of the devil. For the promotion of these teachings, they started a
new paper, Herald of Life and of the Coming Kingdom, with Storrs as
editor.5 Storrs later changed his view of the resurrection and left
the group in 1871, resuming the publishing of his earlier Bible
Examiner magazine.
For Chapter Two:
METHODS OF RECKONING REGNAL YEARS
The accession and nonaccession year systems
Babylon, and later Medo-Persia, applied the accession year system, in
which the year during which a king came to power was reckoned as
his accession year, and the next year beginning on Nisan 1 (spring),
was reckoned as his first year.
In Egypt the opposite method was applied: the year in which a
king came to power was counted as his first year. There is evidence
to show that the latter method, the nonaccession year system, was also
applied in the kingdom of Judah. The evidence is as follows:
1. The battle of Carchemish in 605 B.C.E., when the army of
Pharaoh Neco of Egypt was defeated by Nebuchadnezzar, is stated
at Jeremiah 46:2 as having occurred “in the fourth year of Jehoiakim
4 The leading advocate of these views was Joseph Marsh in Rochester, N.Y., editor of
the Advent Harbinger and Bible Advocate (in 1854 changed to Prophetic Expositor
and Bible Advocate). See also D. T. Arthur, op. cit., pp. 224–227, 352–371. Henry
Grew as well as Bible translator Benjamin Wilson both associated with this group.
(Historical Waymarks of the Church of God, Oregon, Illinois: Church of God General
Conference, 1976, pp. 51–53) Due to their opposition to all church organization,
the “age to come” Adventists were very loosely associated. A more stable
organization was not formed until 1921, when the Church of God of the Abrahamic
Faith was organized with headquarters in Oregon, Illinois. — D. T. Arthur, op. cit.,
p. 371.
5 D. A. Dean, op. cit., pp. 135–138; D. T. Arthur, op. cit ., pp.349–351. The Life and
Advent Union lived on until 1964, when it merged again with the Advent Christian
Church.
Appendix 315
the son of Josiah, king of Judah.” According to Jeremiah 25:1 “the

fourth year of Jehoiakim . . . was the first year of Nebuchadnezzar.”
But the Neo-Babylonian Chronicle 5 (B.M. 21946) clearly states that
this battle took place in Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year, not in his
first year.6 The reason why Jeremiah reckons Nebuchadnezzar’s
accession year as his first year seems to be that Judah did not apply
the accession year system. Jeremiah, therefore, applied the Jewish
non-accession year system not only to Jehoiakim, but also to
Nebuchadnezzar.
2. In 2 Kings 24:12; 25:8, and Jeremiah 52:12 Jehoiachin’s
deportation and the destruction of Jerusalem are said to have taken
place in Nebuchadnezzar’s eighth and nineteenth regnal years, while
Jeremiah 52:28–30 seems to put these events in Nebuchadnezzar’s
seventh and eighteenth years, respectively. The difference in both cases
is one year. The Neo-Babylonian Chronicle 5 is in agreement with
Jeremiah 52:28 in stating that Nebuchadnezzar seized Jerusalem
and captured Jehoiachin in his seventh year.
There is evidence to show that the last chapter of Jeremiah,
chapter 52, was not authored by Jeremiah himself. This is clearly
indicated by the concluding statement of the preceding chapter
(Jeremiah 51:64): “Thus far are the words of Jeremiah.” Chapter
52, in fact, is almost word for word taken from 2 Kings 24:18–
25:30, the only exception being Jeremiah 52:28–30, the verses containing
the divergence of one year in the reference to Nebuchadnezzar’s
regnal years.7 Professor Albertus Pieters in all probability gives the
correct explanation of this difference when he states:
This difference is perfectly explained if we assume that the
section in question was added to the prophecies of Jeremiah by
someone in Babylon who had access to an official report or record,
in which the date would, of course, be set down according to the
Babylonian reckoning.8
6 The Neo-Babylonian chronicles are discussed in Chapter Three, section B-1.
7 It cannot be determined whether chapter 52 was added by Jeremiah himself, his
scribe Baruch, or some other person. The reason why this section from 2 Kings
was included may have been “to show how Jeremiah’s prophecies were fulfilled.”—
Dr. J. A. Thompson, The Book of Jeremiah (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman’s
Publishing Co., 1980), pp. 773, 774.
8 Albertus Pieters, “The Third Year of Jehoiakim,” in From the Pyramids to Paul, ed.
by Lewis Gaston Leary (New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1935), p. 186. That
the information in Jeremiah 52:28–30 may have been added to the book of
Jeremiah in Babylonia is also supported by the fact that the Greek Septuagint
(LXX) version of Jeremiah, which was produced in Egypt (perhaps from a
manuscript preserved by the Jews in that country), does not include these verses.
The compiler of Jeremiah 52, then, faithfully reproduced the

dates found in his two sources, even if those sources reflected two
different ways of reckoning regnal years: the accession year system
used by the Babylonians, and the nonaccession year system used by
the Jews.
The last four verses of chapter 52 of Jeremiah (verses 31–34),
although taken verbatim from 2 Kings 25:27–30, also reflects the
accession year system, which may be explained by the fact that the
passage reproduces information that originally must have been
received from Babylonia. As stated in this passage, Evil-merodach
(Awel-Marduk), “in the year of his becoming king,” released the
Judean king Jehoiachin from prison in the 37th year of his exile.
According to Professor Pieters the clause “in the year of his
becoming king” (Jeremiah 52:31) “is the technically correct term
for the year of the monarch’s accession,”9 the Babylonian
documents using a similar expression when referring to the
accession year.
That the writer of the passage in Jeremiah 52:28–34 used the
accession year system is thus the conclusion of a number of
modern Biblical scholars.10
3. The accession year system is most probably also employed by
the prophet Daniel at Daniel 1:1, where he dates the first
deportation of Jewish exiles to the “third year” of Jehoiakim. This
deportation, however, must have followed upon the battle of
Carchemish, the victory there paving the way for
Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion and conquest of the countries in the
west, including Judah.
As noted above, this battle is dated at Jeremiah 46:2 to the ‘fourth
year” of Jehoiakim, not to his third. Most commentators, therefore,
choose to regard the “third year” of Daniel 1:1 as a historical
blunder by the author of the book, and as indicating that he was
not contemporary with the event, but was writing hundreds of
years afterwards. Some, including the Watch Tower Society, argue
that the deportation mentioned in the text was identical with the
one that occurred eight years later, after the end of Jehoiakim’s
11th year of reign, when his son and successor Jehoiachin was
exiled to Babylon.11
9 Pieters, op. cit., p. 184.
10 See, for example, John Bright, The Anchor Bible: Jeremiah (N.Y.: Doubleday, 1965),
p. 369; J. A. Thompson, op. cit., p.782, and J. Philip Hyatt, “New Light on
Nebuchadnezzar and Judean History,” Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 75 (1956),
p. 278.
11 Insight an the Scriptures, Vol. 1 (Brooklyn, New York: Watchtower Bible and Tract
Society of New York, Inc., 1988), p. 1269. A detailed examination of this theory is
presented in the Appendix for Chapter Five: “The ‘third year of Jehoiakim’ (Daniel
1:1, 2).”
Appendix 317
However, if it is accepted that Daniel was living in Babylon in

the Neo-Babylonian period and was occupying a high rank in its
administration, it would have been natural for him to apply the
Babylonian calendar and their system of reckoning regnal years,
and to do this as well when referring to the reigns of non-
Babylonian kings, including Jehoiakim, just as Jeremiah, living in
Judea, conversely applied the Jewish nonaccession year system in
referring to Nebuchadnezzar’s reign.
4. The Babylonian calendar was also used (alongside the
Egyptian civil calendar) by the Jewish colony at Elephantine in s.
Egypt from the 5th century onward, as has been established by Dr.
Bezalel Porten and others. Dr. Sacha Stern concludes that, “Non-
Jewish or ‘official’ calendars were routinely used by Diaspora Jews
throughout the whole of Antiquity.”12
Several difficult problems in Biblical chronology are easily
solved if the accession and nonaccession year systems are taken
into consideration. A study of the chronological tables in the final
section of this Appendix (“Chronological tables covering the
seventy years”) will make this clear.
Nisan and Tishri years
It is well established that the Assyrian, Babylonian and Persian
calendar started on Nisan 1 (the first day of the month Nisan in the
spring), which was also the beginning of the regnal years. The Jews,
in later times, had two beginnings of their calendar years: Nisan 1
in the spring and Tishri 1 six months later in the autumn—Tishri 1
being the older new-year day.13 Although Nisan was the beginning
of the sacred calendar year, and the months were always numbered
from it,14 Tishri was retained as the beginning of the secular calendar
year.
The problem is: Did the kings of Judah follow the custom of
Babylon and other countries in reckoning the regnal years from
Nisan 1, or did they reckon them from Tishri, the beginning of
their secular year? Although scholars disagree on this, there is
evidence to show that the kings of Judah reckoned their regnal
years on a Tishri-to-Tishri basis.
12 Sacha Stern, “The Babylonian Calendar at Elephantine,” Zeitschrift far Papyrologie
and Epigraphik, Band 130 (2000), p. 159.
13 J. D. Douglas, ed., New Bible Dictionary, 2nd ed. (Leicester, England : Inter-Varsity
Press, 1982), p. 159; compare Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 391.
14 “In the Hebrew Scriptures the months are numbered from Nisan, regardless of
whether the reckoning of the year was from spring or fall.” — Edwin R. Thiele, The
Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, revised edition (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), p. 52. In footnote 11 on the same page he
gives many examples of this.
1. Jeremiah 1:3 states that the inhabitants of Jerusalem, after the

desolation of the city, “went into exile in the fifth month,” which is
also in agreement with the record in 2 Kings 25:8–12. Yet this fifth
month is said to have been at “the end of the eleventh year of
Zedekiah.”15 Only if the regnal years were reckoned as beginning
from Tishri (the seventh month) could the fifth month be said to
be at “the end of’ Zedekiah’s eleventh regnal year, which then
ended with the next month, Elul, the sixth month.
2. According to 2 Kings 22:3–10 King Josiah of Judah, in his
eighteenth year, began repairs on the temple of Jerusalem. During
these repairs High Priest Hilkiah found “the book of the law” in
the temple.16 This discovery resulted in an extensive campaign
against idolatry throughout the whole land. After that Josiah
reinstituted the passover on Nisan 14, two weeks after the
beginning of the new year according to the sacred calendar. Very
interestingly, this passover is said to have been celebrated “in the
eighteenth year of King Josiah.” (2 Kings 23:21–23) As the repairs of
the temple, the cleansing of the land from idolatry and many other
things recorded in 2 Kings 22:3–23:23 could not reasonably have
occurred within just two weeks, it seems obvious that Josiah’s
eighteenth regnal year was not counted from Nisan 1, but from
Tishri 1.
3. Another indication of a Tishri reckoning of regnal years in
Judah is given in Jeremiah 36. In “the fourth year of Jehoiakim”
(verse 1), Yahweh told Jeremiah to write in a book all the words he
had spoken to him against Israel, Judah, and all the nations (verse
2). This Jeremiah did through Baruch, his secretary (verse 4). When
Baruch had finished the work, Jeremiah asked him to “go, and
from the scroll you wrote at my dictation, read all the words of
Yahweh to the people in his Temple on the day of the fast.”
(Jeremiah 36:5, 6, JB). Which fast?
This was evidently a special fast proclaimed for some
unspecified reason. Most probably the reason was the battle of
Carchemish in May–June that same year, “in the fourth year of
Jehoiakim” (Jeremiah 46:2), and the subsequent events, including
the siege laid against Jerusalem in the same year according to
15 KIV, ASV, NASB, and other versions. The New World Translation (NW) uses the
word “completion”: “until the completion of the eleventh year of Zedekiah the son of
Josiah, the king of Judah, until Jerusalem went into exile in the fifth month “
16 As argued by many commentators, the “book of the law” probably was the book of
Deuteronomy, which may have been lost for some time, but was now rediscovered.
Cf. Professor Donald J. Wiseman, 1 and 2 Kings (Leicester: Inter-Varsity Press,
1993), pp. 294–296.
Appendix 319
Daniel 1:1. Though Nebuchadnezzar by now, due to the death of

his father, had returned to Babylon (as recorded in the Neo-
Babylonian Chronicle 5), the Jews had good reasons for fearing that
he soon would return and continue his operations in Judah and the
surrounding areas. Against this background, a “summons to a fast
in the presence of Yahweh for the whole population of Jerusalem
and for all the people who could come to Jerusalem from the
towns of Judah” (Jeremiah 36:9, JB) is quite understandable. Very
interestingly, this fast, at which Baruch was to read aloud from the
scroll he had written, took place “in the fifth year of Jehoiakim the
son of Josiah, the king of Judah, in the ninth month,” according to the
same verse.
If Jehoiakim’s regnal years were counted from Nisan, the first
month, Baruch began to write down Jeremiah’s prophecies about a
year prior to this fast. Besides, it seems to have been proclaimed
already in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (verses 1, 6), and thus about
nine months before it was held. All this seems very improbable.
But if Jehoiakim’s regnal years were counted from Tishri, the
seventh month, his fourth year ended with Elul, the sixth month
(corresponding to parts of August–September, 605 B.C.E.), and the
fast in the ninth month (parts of November–December, 605
B.C.E.) took place a little more than two months after the
beginning of Jehoiakim’s fifth year.
Baruch’s writing down of Jeremiah’s prophecies, then, took only
a few months, which is more probable, and the fast could have
been proclaimed only two months before it was held, and not long
after the battle of Carchemish and the subsequent Babylonian
operations in Syria and Palestine in the summer and autumn of 605
B.C.E.17
4. There is evidence, too, that Jewish writers, when referring to
foreign kings, at least sometimes reckoned their regnal years
according to the Tishri year. This is done by Nehemiah for
example. In Nehemiah 1:1 he refers to the month Chislev
17 According to the Neo-Babylonian Chronicle 5 Nebuchadnezzar was enthroned in
Babylon “on the first day of the month Elul,” corresponding to September 7, 605
B.C.E., Julian calendar. After that, and still in his accession year,
“Nebuchadnezzar returned to Hattu [the Syro-Palestinian area in the west]. Until
the month Shebat [parts of January–February, 604 B.C.E.] he marched about
victorious in Hattu.” — A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, (Locust
Valley, New York: JJ. Augustin Publisher, 1975), p. 100. Thus Nebuchadnezzar
may already have returned to the Hattu area at the time of the fast in November or
December, 605 B.C.E. The danger of another invasion of Judah, therefore, seemed
impending.
(November–December) in the twentieth year of Artaxerxes. But the

month of Nisan of the next year is still referred to as in Artaxerxes’
twentieth year of rule. (Nehemiah 2:1) If Nehemiah reckoned
Artaxerxes’ regnal years from Nisan 1, he should have written
twenty-first year at chapter 2, verse 1. Nehemiah, therefore, obviously
reckoned the regnal years of the Persian king Artaxerxes according
to the Jewish Tishri-to-Tishri calendar, not according to the Persian
Nisan-to-Nisan count. This is also supported in the Watch Tower
Society’s Bible dictionary, Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 2 (1988),
pages 487, 488.18
That Judah followed a Tishri-to-Tishri reckoning of the regnal
years, at least in this period of its history, is the conclusion of some
of the best scholars and students of Bible chronology, for example,
Sigmund Mowinckel, Julian Morgenstein, Friedrich Karl Kienitz,
Abraham Malamat, and Edwin R. Thiele.19 Although this way of
reckoning regnal years makes the synchronisms between Judah and
Babylon somewhat more complicated, it clears up many problems
when applied. In the chronological tables on pages 350–352 of this
book, both kinds of regnal years are paralleled with our modern
calendar.
18 Few scholars seem to hold that Judah in the seventh and sixth centuries B.C.E.
employed this combination of both the nonaccession year system and the Tishri-to-
Tishri count of the regnal years, as advocated in this work. Those who opt for the
nonaccession year system usually hold that Judah applied the Nisan-to-Nisan
reckoning, and those who argue that Tishri-to-Tishri regnal years were used
generally believe that the accession year system was employed.
19 See for example J. Morgenstein’s review of Parker and Dubberstein’s Babylonian
Chronology 626 B.C.–A.D. 45 in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 2 (1943),
pp. 125–130, and Dr. A. Malamat’s article, “The Twilight of Judah: In the
Egyptian-Babylonian Maelstrom,” in Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol.
XXVII (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1975), p. 124, including note 2; also K. S. Freedy and D.
B. Redford, “The Dates in Ezekiel in Relation to Biblical, Babylonian and Egyptian
Sources,” Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 90 (1970), pp. 464, 465.
Dr. Edwin R. Thiele, however, assumes that while the books of Kings reckon the
regnal years from Tishri, Jeremiah and Ezekiel both reckon them from Nisan. (E.
R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, Grand Rapids: Zondervan
Publishing House, 1983, pp. 51–53, 182–191.) This seems a rather far-fetched
speculation, and there is no need for it, if we allow for both Tishri regnal years and
the nonaccession year system for this period.
Appendix 321
For Chapter Three:
SOME COMMENTS ON COPYING, READING, AND SCRIBAL

ERRORS IN CUNEIFORM TABLETS
If twenty years are to be added to the Neo-Babylonian era,
considerable numbers of texts dated to each of these years should have
been found. It would never do to come up with one or two oddly
dated documents from the era. Like modern clerks, secretaries, and
bookkeepers, the Babylonian scribes now and then made errors in
writing. As the writing had to be done while the clay tablet was
soft, some of the errors could be corrected before the tablet dried
out. Many tablets bear traces of crossings-out and corrections.
Usually, the errors found on the tablets concern minor details,
repetitions, omissions, etc. Although the errors sometimes also
concern the date, it is remarkable that most of the odd dates found
in modern catalogues of Babylonian tablets turn out to be modern
reading, copying, or printing errors, including misreading or
misprinting of royal names.
In their attempts at defending the Watch Tower Society’s
chronology, some Witnesses, both in the United States and
Norway, have exploited not only such copying, reading, and scribal
errors in cuneiform texts, but also the dates on some documents
that seem to create overlaps of a few weeks or months between the
reigns of some of the Neo-Babylonian rulers. For this reason it
seems necessary to take a closer look at these problems.
Modern copying and reading errors
As Mr. C. B. F. Walker at the British Museum points out,
“modern readers frequently incorrectly read numbers and month
names on Babylonian tablets.”20 Royal names, too, are sometimes
misread by modern scholars. Since dating within the Babylonian
period is based on regnal years (rather than an era dating) the name
of the king involved is obviously crucial.
Thus on one published text the translation referred to
Babylonian ruler “Labashi-Marduk’s 4th year.”21 Later scholars
20 Letter Walker-Jonsson, October 1, 1987. This is also reflected in the CBT
catalogues on the Sippar collection at the British Museum, referred to in chapter
3, note 60, which list some 40,000 texts. Quite a number of the odd dates are just
printing errors, while many others on collation turn out to be reading errors. A list
with corrections and additions is kept at the museum by Mr. Walker.
21 R. Campbell Thompson, A Catalogue of the Late Babylonian Tablets in the Bodleian
Library, Oxford IV (London: Luzac and Co., 1927), tablet no. A 83.
realized that the text actually referred to Assyrian king Shamash-

shum-ukin.22 (There is a wide difference in our alphabetical spelling of
the two names, but one must remember these were written in
cuneiform signs which, in this case, were much more easily
mistakable.) A similar error in reading another tablet resulted in
reference to the 21st year of Sin-shar-ishkun, the next to the last
Assyrian king.23 Later reexamination of this damaged section led to
the conclusion the reference was more probably to Babylonian king
Nabu-apla-usur (Nabopolassar).24
Scribal errors
Not all the odd dates are modem errors, however. It is well
established that the Persian king Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, ruled
for eight years (529/28–522/21 B.C.E.). Yet one text from his
reign (BM 30650) seemed to be dated to Cambyses’ “11th year”. At
first the text caused much discussion among scholars, but it was
finally concluded that it refers to Cambyses’ first year. The number
“1” had been written over an original “10,” which the scribe had
not been able to completely erase, resulting in a number that easily
could be misread as “11”.25
Another document was dated to the “10th year” of Cyrus,
although it is known from all ancient sources that Cyrus ruled for
nine years only. The problem was soon resolved. In the period
22 Letter Dr. D. J. Wiseman-Jonsson, June 19, 1987.
23 G. Contenau in Textes Cuneiformes, Tome XII, Contrats Néo-Babyloniens, I (Paris:
Librarie Orientaliste, 1927), p. 2 + P1. X, tablet no. 16; Archiv für Orientforschung,
Vol. 16, 1952–53, p. 308; Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 35:1–2, 1983, p.59.
24 Letter from Dr. Béatrice André of the Louvre Museum to C. O. Jonsson, March 20,
1990. As Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, ruled for 21 years, this
reading of the royal name creates no problem. ― In the early days of Assyriology
the reading of royal names was an even more arduous task. In 1877, for example,
Wt. St. Chad Boscawen found two tablets in the archive of the Babylonian Egibi
banking house, which seemed to mention two previously unknown Neo-Babylonian
kings: Marduk-shar-uzur and La-khab-ba-si-kudur. Later, however, it turned out
that the two names were misreadings for Nergal-shar-uzur [Neriglissar] and
Labashi-Marduk. According to the banker Bosanquet, who financially supported
Boscawen’s work on the tablets, there was also a tablet in the Egibi archive dated
to the 11th year of Nergal-shar-uzur. However, no such tablet has since been
found in the collection at the British Museum. It was most probably another
misreading, and Bosanquet himself did not refer to it again when he later
presented his own speculative and wholly untenable chronology of the Neo-
Babylonian era.― Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, Vol.6 (London
1878), pp. 11, 78, 92, 93, 108–111, 262, 263; S. M. Evers, “George Smith and the
Egibi Tablets,” Iraq, Vol. LV, 1993, p. 110.
25 F. H. Weissbach in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Vol.
LV, 1901, pp. 209, 210, with references.
Appendix 323
involved, the scribes commonly made duplicate copies of an

agreement, one for each party. Numbers of such duplicates have
been found, including one for this text. But instead of being dated
to the tenth year of Cyrus, this copy is dated to the “2nd year” of
Cyrus. The first copy evidently contained a scribal error.26
The two above-mentioned examples are from the Persian era.
What about the Neo-Babylonian period?
A few documents from this era with unusual dates have been
found that create some problems. It is remarkable, however, that
the problems have to do with month numbers only, not with year
numbers. Some defenders of Watch Tower chronology in their
extreme efforts to find at least some support for their position have
illogically sought to transform these overlaps of months into
evidence for differences involving years. As the evidence will show,
none of the documents can be used in a valid way to question the
Overlap Nebuchadnezzar/Awel-Marduk?
Two of the tablets containing problematic dates are from the
accession-year of Awel-Marduk, the son and successor of
Nebuchadnezzar.
The latest document from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar is dated
VI/26/43 (month 6, day 26, year 43, corresponding to Oct. 8, 562
B.C.E.). According to Parker & Dubberstein’s Babylonian
Chronology, published in 1956, the first text from the reign of his son
and successor, Awel-Marduk, is dated VI/26/acc. (month 6, day
26, accession year), that is, on the same day.27
Since 1956, however, a couple of tablets from Sippar have been
found that are dated to Awel-Marduk’s accession-year one month
earlier, that is in the fifth month. On one tablet (BM 58872) the day
number is damaged and illegible, but the other tablet (BM 75322) is
26 Weissbach, ibid., p. 210.
27 R. A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology: 626 B.C.–AD. 75
(Providence: Brown University Press, 1956), p. 12.
28 A translation of the first text (BM 58872) was published by R. H. Sack in 1972 (no.
79 in Ronald H. Sack, Amel-Marduk 562–560 B.C., Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1972, pp. 3, 106). For the second text (BM 75322), see CBT
(cf. p. 321, note 20), Vol. VIII, p.31. Two other texts published by Sack (numbered
56 and 70 in his work) seem to be dated to the “4th month” of Awel-Marduk’s
accession-year, which would imply an overlap of two months with the reign of his
father. However, Mr. Walker, who collated the two texts in 1990, confirmed that
no.56 (=BM 80920) is dated to the “7th month”, as shown also in CRT VIII, p.245.
In Sack no. 70 (BM 65270), the month name is difficult to read, and “it is perhaps
most likely that the month is 7 rather than 4” ―Letter Walker-Jonsson, November
13, 1990. Cf. also D. J. Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon (Oxford: Oxford
clearly dated V/20/acc.28 These texts, then, indicate that there was
an overlap of over one month between the reigns of the two kings:
Nebuchadnezzar’s 43nd year: last text: VI/26/43
Months: | month 4 | month 5 | month 6 | month 7 |
Awel-Marduk’s accession-year: first text: V/20/acc
An explanation for this overlap maybe that Nebuchadnezzar
died earlier than October (the sixth month of the Babylonian
calendar year included part of October) and that some scribes
continued to date documents to his reign for a few weeks until it
was fully clear who his successor would be. Berossus states that his
son and successor Awel-Marduk “managed the affairs in a lawless
and outrageous fashion,” and therefore “was plotted against and
killed by Neriglisaros [Neriglissar], his sister’s husband,” after only
two years of reign.29 As argued by the Polish Assyriologist Stefan
Zawadzki, the wicked character of Awel-Marduk was probably
evident already before his becoming king, which may have
provoked opposition to his succession to the throne in some
influential quarters. This may have been the reason why some
scribes for a few weeks continued to date their documents to the
reign of his deceased father.30 (It has been pointed out earlier that
Nabonidus evidently viewed Awel-Marduk as an usurper.)
In order to add some years to the Neo-Babylonian period,
someone might argue, as did one Norwegian source, that the dates
above, rather than indicating an overlap, show that
Nebuchadnezzar’s forty-third year was not the same as Awel-
29 Stanley Mayer Burstein, The Babyloniaca of Berossus. Sources from the Ancient
Near East, Vol. 1, fascicle 5 (Malibu, Calif.: Undena Publications, 1978), p. 28.
30 Stefan Zawadzki, “Political Situation in Babylonia During Amel-Marduk’s Reign,” in
J. Zablocka and S. Zawadzki (eds.), Shulmu IV: Everyday Life in Ancient Near East:
Papers Presented at the International Conference, Poznan, 19–22 September, 1989
(Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University Press, 1993), pp. 309–317. That
Nebuchadnezzar probably had died before the sixth month of the 43rd year is also
supported by a Neo-Babylonian text from Uruk, YBC 4071, dated to the 15th of
Abu (the fifth month), 43rd year of “The Lady of Uruk, King of Babylon” (the “Lady
of Uruk” being Ishtar, the goddess of war and love, a great temple of whom was
located in Uruk). Dr. David B. Weisberg, who published this text in 1980,
concludes that Nebuchadnezzar evidently was dead at this time, although
“cautious scribes continued to date to him even after his death, waiting prudently
to see who his successor would be. One, however, may have tipped his hand and
opted for a dating to The Lady-of-Uruk, ‘King’ of Babylon.” —D. B. Weisberg, Texts
from the Time of Nebuchadnezzar, Yale Oriental Series, Vol. XVII (New Haven and
London: Yale University Press, 1980), p. xix. Cf. Zawadzki, op. cit., p. 312.
Appendix 325
Marduk’s accession-year, and that either Nebuchadnezzar ruled for

more than forty-three years or there was another, unknown king
between them.
Such assumptions, however, are disproved by the Bible itself. A
comparison of 2 Kings 24:12 and 2 Chronicles 36:10 with Jeremiah
52:28 shows that Jehoiachin’s exile began toward the end of
Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh regnal year. This would mean that at the
death of Nebuchadnezzar in his forty-third year Jehoiachin had
spent almost thirty-six years in exile (43-7=36), and that the thirty-
seventh year of exile began later in that same year, in the accession-
year of Awel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach). And this is exactly what we
are told in Jeremiah 52:31:
But in the thirty-seventh year of the exile of Jehoiachin king of
Judah, in the twelfth month, on the twenty-fifth day of the month,
Evil-merodach king of Babylon, in the year he came to the throne,
pardoned Jehoiachin king of Judah and released him from
prison.—Jerusalem Bible. (Compare 2 Kings 25:27.)
Clearly, the Bible does not allow for any additional years
between the forty-third year of Nebuchadnezzar and the accession-
year of Awel-Marduk.
Overlap Awel-Marduk/Neriglissar?
Before the publication of the CBT catalogues in 1986–88 (see p.
321, note 20), the latest tablet known from the reign of Awel-
Marduk was dated V/17/2 (Aug. 7, 560 B.C.E.), while the first tablet
from the reign of his successor Neriglissar was dated V/21/acc.
(Aug. 11, 560 B.C.E.). Only four days, then, separated the latest
tablet from Awel-Marduk’s reign from the first tablet dated to
Neriglissar.31
In the CBT catalogues, however, there are two texts that seem
to create a considerable overlap between the reigns of Awel-
Marduk and Neriglissar. The first (BM 61325) is from the reign of
Awel-Marduk and is dated to the tenth month of his second regnal
year (X/19/2), or about five months later than the latest tablet
previously known from his reign.32
This overlap of five months with the reign of Neriglissar is
further extended by the second text, BM 75489, which is dated to
31 Ronald H. Sack, “Nergal-sharra-usur, King of Babylon as seen in the Cuneiform,
Greek, Latin and Hebrew Sources ,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, Vol. 68 (Berlin,
1978), p. 132.
32 CBT VII, p.36. The catalogue has day “17”, which is corrected to “19” in Walker’s
list.
the second month of Neriglissar’s accession-year (II/4/acc.), or

about three months and a half earlier than the earliest tablet previously
known from his reign.33 Together, these two texts seem to create
an overlap of eight and a half months:
Awel-Marduk’s 2nd year: last text: X/19/2
Months: | month 1 | month 2 | months 3–9 | month 10 |
Neriglissar’s accession-year: first text: II/4/acc
How can this overlap be explained? Again, someone might
argue that the dates above, rather than showing an overlap, indicate
that Awel-Marduk’s second year was not the same as Neriglissar’s
accession-year, and that either he ruled for more than two years or
that there was another, unknown ruler between the two.
Any evidence, however, in support of such assumptions is
completely lacking. It should be kept in mind that each of their
known regnal years are covered by numerous dated tablets, both
published and unpublished. If Awel-Marduk ruled for more than
two years, we would have a large number of tablets, economic and
other types, dated to each of those additional years.
It is of considerable interest in this connection that the Uruk
King List (discussed in chapter 3, section B-1b) specifies the reign
of Neriglissar as “‘3’ (years) 8 months”. As Neriglissar’s reign
ended in the first month (Nisanu) of his fourth year (see below), he
acceded to the throne in the fifth month (Abu) three years and
eight months earlier, according to this kinglist. This is the same month
as that established earlier for his accession, before the two odd dates mentioned
above were discovered.
There are good reasons to believe that the information given in
the Uruk King List was based upon sources that go back to the
Neo-Babylonian period itself, including the chronicles. The
preserved figures are all in good agreement with those established
by the contemporary documents. This seems to be true even
when—in two cases―the number of months is given.
Thus the Uruk King List gives Labashi-Marduk a reign of only
three months, and the contracts from Uruk dated to his reign also
show that he was recognized in that city as king for (parts of) three
33 CBT VIII, p. 35. Walker, who collated both tablets on several occasions, points out
that “the months are very clearly written in both cases.” — Letter Walker-Jonsson,
October 26, 1990.
Appendix 327
months. When the same kinglist, therefore, indicates that

Neriglissar acceded to the throne in the month of Abu, this, too,
may very well be correct. At this point of time he had firmly
established his rule and was recognized as king in most parts of
Babylonia.34
If the two odd dates referred to earlier are not simply scribal
errors, the reason for the overlap they create at the end of Awel-
Marduk’s reign may be the same as that suggested above for the
overlap at the beginning of his reign, namely, the prevailing
opposition against his rule, which culminated with Neriglissar’s
seizure of power through a coup d’état. This explanation has recently
been argued in some detail by R. H. Sack in his book Neriglissar-
King of Babylon.35
Overlap Neriglissar/Labashi-Marduk?
The two last tablets known from the reign of Neriglissar are
dated 1/2/4 (April 12, 556 B.C.E.) and I?/6/4 (April 16). The first
tablet known from the reign of his son and successor, Labashi-
Marduk, is dated I/23/acc. (May 3, 556 B.C.E.), that is, twenty-
one, or possibly only seventeen days later. These dates create no
overlap between the two.
Overlap Labashi-Marduk/Nabonidus?
The latest tablet known from the reign of Labashi-Marduk is
dated III/12/acc. (June 20, 556 B.CE.), while the first tablet known
from the reign of his successor, Nabonidus, is dated one month
earlier, II/15/acc. (May 25, 556 B.CE.). This overlap of somewhat
less than a month is a real one.
It may be easily accounted for, however, by the circumstances that
brought Nabonidus to the throne. As explained by Berossus,
Labashi-Marduk was “only a child” at the time of Neriglissar’s
death.
34 Documents from Uruk show that Labashi-Marduk was recognized as king in that
city in the months of Nisanu, Ayyaru, and Simanu.— Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The
Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–539 B.C. (New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 1989), pp. 86–88. The critical comments on the Uruk King List by
Ronald H. Sack on page 3 of his work, Neriglissar―King of Babylon (= Alter Orient
and Altes Testament, Band 236, Neukirchen-vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1994),
are mistaken, as they are based on an inadequate presentation of the list, which
also disagrees with the sources referred to in his footnote.
35 R. H. Sack, op. cit., pp. 25–31. There is some evidence that Neriglissar, before his
seizure of power, held the highest office (qipu) at the Ebabbara temple in Sippar,
and that his revolt started in that city. This would explain why the earliest texts
dated to his reign are from Sippar, indicating he was first recognized in that area
while Awel-Marduk was still recognized elsewhere for several months.—S.
Zawadzki, op. cit. (note 30 above), also J. MacGinnis in Journal of the American
Oriental Society, Vol. 120:I (2000), p. 64.
“Because his wickedness became apparent in many ways he was

plotted against and brutally killed by his friends. After he had been
killed, the plotters met and jointly conferred the kingdom on
Nabonnedus [Nabonidus], a Babylonian and a member of the
conspiracy:”36 This account agrees with the Hillah-stele, where
Nabonidus gives a similar description of Labashi-Marduk’s
character and of his own enthronement.37
The evidence is that the rebellion that brought Nabonidus to
power broke out almost immediately after Labashi-Marduk’s
accession, and that both of them ruled simultaneously for a few
weeks, but at different places. It should be noted that all tablets known
from the reign of Labashi-Marduk are from three cities only,
Babylon, Uruk, and Sippar, and that there was no overlap between
the two reigns at any of these cities:
Nippur Babylon Uruk Sippar
Labashi-Marduk, latest tablet: — May 24 June 19 June 20
Nabonidus, earliest tablet: May 25 July 14? July 1 June 26
Dr. Paul-Alain Beaulieu discusses the available data at some
length, concluding that, “In consideration of all this evidence the
usual reconstruction of Nabonidus’ accession seems correct. He
was probably recognized as king as early as May 25 in central
Babylonia (Babylon and Nippur), but outlaying regions would have
recognized Labâshi-Marduk until the end of June.”38
Thus, there is a well-founded explanation for the brief overlap
between the reigns of Labashi-Marduk and Nabonidus. The
accession of the young and—at least in some influential circles—
unpopular Labashi-Marduk caused a rebellion and Nabonidus,
strongly supported by leading strata in Babylonia, seized power and
established a rival kingship. For a brief period there was a double
kingship, although in different parts of the kingdom, until Labashi-
Marduk finally was murdered and Nabonidus could be officially
crowned as king.
In conclusion, the odd dates on a few tablets from the Neo-
Babylonian period create no major problems. None of them add
any years to the period, as the “overlaps” created by the odd dates
36 Burstein, op. cit., p. 28.
37 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament [ANET], ed. by James B.
Pritchard (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1950), p. 309. For
additional details, see chapter 3 above, section B-4-e.
38 Paul-Alain Beaulieu, op. cit. (note 34 above), pp. 86–88. Cf. also W. Röllig in
Reallexikon der Assyriologie and vorderasiatischen Archäologie, ed. D. G. Edzard,
Vol. VI (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980), p. 409.
Appendix 329
concern months only, not years. And as has been shown above, it is
possible to find reasonable explanations for all the three overlaps
without giving oneself up to farfetched and demonstrably
untenable theories about extra years and extra kings during the
period.39
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE ROYAL INSCRIPTIONS
The Hillah stele (Nabon. No. 8)

According to the Hillah stele, fifty-four years had passed from the
desolation of the temple Éhulhul in Harran in the six,teenth year of
Nabopolassar (610/609 B.C.E.) until the accession-year of
Nabonidus (556/555 B.C.E.).
In an attempt to undermine the confidence in the information
on this stele, at least one of the defenders of the Watch Tower
Society’s chronology has claimed that the fifty-four years referred
to the period of desolation of the Éhulhul temple, and that
Nabonidus states it was rebuilt immediately after the end of this
period. As the rebuilding of the temple was not actually completed
until several years after the Hillah stele had been inscribed, the
fifty-four year period is claimed to be a fiction.
Such an interpretation of the stele is a gross distortion of the
matter. Although it is true that the temple had lain desolate for
fifty-four years when Nabonidus, in his accession-year, concluded
that the gods had commanded him to rebuild it, he does not say
39 If defenders of the Watch Tower Society’s chronology insist that such an “overlap”
of some months between two Neo-Babylonian rulers indicates there were more
years or maybe even an extra king between the two, they should—for the sake of
consistence—give the same explanation to similar “overlaps” found between rulers
of the Persian era. For example, the latest tablet from the reign of Cyrus is dated
VIII/20/9 (December 5, 530 B.C.E.), while the earliest text from the reign of his
successor, Cambyses, is dated VI/12/acc. (August 31, 530 B.C.E.). This would
mean there was an overlap between the two rulers of over three months! (Jerome
Peat, “Cyrus ‘king of lands,’ Cambyses ‘king of Babylon’: the disputed co-regency,”
Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 41/2, Autumn 1989, p. 210; M. A. Dandamayev,
Iranians in Achaemenid Babylonia, Cosa Mesa, Califomia and New York: Mazda
Publishers, 1992, pp. 92, 93.) As the Watch Tower Society dates the fall of Babylon
to 539 B.C.E. by counting backwards from the reign of Cambyses, they would
certainly not like to have any additional years inserted between Cyrus and
Cambyses, as that would move the date for the fall of Babylon as many years
backwards in time! (See Insight an the Scriptures, Vol. 1, 1988, p. 453.)
Dandamayev (op. cit., 1992, p.93) gives the following very plausible explanation of
the overlap: “It seems that Cyrus appointed Cambyses as joint ruler before his
expedition against the Massagetae” This is in agreement with Herodotus’ statement
(VII, 3) that it was the custom of Persian kings to appoint their successors to the
throne before they went out to war, in case they would be killed in the battles.
that it was rebuilt immediately. As indicated by a number of texts the

restoration of the temple was evidently a drawn-out process that
lasted for several years, perhaps until the thirteenth year of
Nabonidus.
The fifty-four years, on the other hand, clearly ended in the
accession-year of Nabonidus, when, according to the Adad-guppi’
inscription, “the wrath of his [Sin’s] heart calmed. Towards E-hul-
hul the temple of Sin which (is) in Harran, the abode of his heart’s
delight, he was reconciled, he had regard. Sin, king of the gods,
looked upon me and Nabu-na’id (my) only son, the issue of my
womb, to the kingship he called. “40
The statement on the Hillah stele that Sin at this time “returned
to his place” should not be taken to mean that the temple was
rebuilt at this time. Rather, it may mean that Sin, the moon god,
“returned to his place” in the sky, as suggested by Tadmor. The
Babylonians not only knew that lunar phenomena such as eclipses
often recurred after a period of eighteen years (the so-called “Saros
cycle”), but that they also, and with a much higher degree of
reliability, recurred after a period of fifty-four years (three “Saros
cycles”). The Babylonian astronomers even used these and other
cycles for predicting lunar eclipses. At the time Nabonidus acceded
to the throne a complete cycle of the moon had passed since the
destruction of the moon temple at Harran, and Nabonidus may
have seen this as a remarkable coincidence and a favorable omen.
As Sin had now “returned to his place” in the sky, had not the time
arrived for him to return also to his earthly abode in Harran? So
Nabonidus concluded that the temple had to be rebuilt.41
The Adad-guppi’ inscription (Nabon. No. 24)
It is well known that the Adad-guppi’ inscription at one point
contains an error of calculation. As defenders of the Watch Tower
Society’s chronology have emphasized this error in an attempt to
undermine the value of the inscription, a few comments on the
problem seem necessary.
40 C. J. Gadd, “The Hamat Inscriptions of Nabonidus,” Anatolian Studies, Vol. VIII,
1958, pp. 47–49.
41 Hayim Tadmor, “The Inscriptions of Nabunaid: Historical Arrangement,” in Studies
in Honor of Benno Landsberger on his Seventy-fifth Birthday [Assyriological Studies,
No. 16], ed. H. Güterbock & T. Jacobsen (Chicago: The Chicago University Press,
1965), p. 355.—For the superiority of the 54-year cycle, see Dr. W. Hartner,
“Eclipse Periods and Thales’ Prediction of a Solar Eclipse. Historical Truth and
Modern Myth,” in Centaurus, Vol. 14, 1969, pp. 60–71.
Appendix 331
Ashurbanipal is generally believed to have begun his reign in

Assyria in 668 B.C.E. His twentieth year, therefore, is dated to
649/48 B.C.E. If Adad-guppi’ was born in that year, and if she
lived on until the beginning of Nabonidus’ ninth year, 547 B.C.E.,
she would have been 101 or 102 years old at her death, not 104
years as stated in the inscription. Scholars who have examined the
inscription, therefore, have concluded that the stele contains a
miscount of about two years. “All agree on this point,” say scholars
P. Garelli and V. Nikiprowetsky.42
Further, the inscription seems to give the Assyrian king Assur-
etil-ili a reign of three years, which has been regarded as a problem
as there is a contract tablet dated to the fourth year of this king.43
Since C. J. Gadd published his translation of the text, other
scholars have examined these problems. Dr. Joan Oates offers a
solution which has been accepted by other scholars as most
probably the correct one:44
As is evident from the inscription, Adad-guppi’ first lived in
Assyrian territory (perhaps in Harran) serving under Assyrian kings
until the third year of Assur-etil-ili, when she moved to Babylon,
serving under Babylonian kings from that time on. As Oates
explains, this does not mean that Assur-etil-ili’s third year was his
last. If Assur-etil-ili began his rule in Assyria after his father’s death
in 627 B.C.E., his third year was 624/23 B.C.E. His second and
third regnal years in Assyria, then, overlapped the first and second
years of Nabopolassar in Babylon (625/24 and 624/23 B.C.E.). In
calculating the age of Adad-guppi’, Nabonidus (or the scribe who
made the inscription) simply summed up the regnal years without
taking into account this overlapping of Assur-etil-ili’s reign with
that of Nabopolassar.45
Oates’ solution was supported in 1983 by Erle Leichty.
Discussing a new inscription from Assur-etil-ili’s reign, he pointed
out its agreement with Oates’ conclusion that “the third year of
Assur-etilli-ilani is the same as the second year of Nabopolassar,”
42 P. Garelli and V. Nikiprowetsky, Le Proche-Orient Asiatique (Paris: Presses
Universitaires de France, 1974), p. 241. One exception is M. Gerber in ZA 88:1
(1998), pp. 72–93.
43 C. J. Gadd, op. cit., pp. 70ff.
44 Joan Oates, “Assyrian Chronology, 631–612 B.C.,” Iraq, Vol. 27, 1965, pp. 135–
159.
45 Evidently Dr. Paul-Alain Beaulieu, in his discussion of these problems, was not
aware of Oates’ solution. His comments, therefore, are confusing, and his
questioning of the accuracy of the chronological data of the stele clearly is
unwarranted.—Paul-Alain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556–
539 B.C. (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1989), pp. 139, 140.
adding, “I believe that the Oates chronology will probably turn out
to be the correct one, but final judgement must await the rest of
the evidence.”46
Whatever the case, the error in the inscription is a minor
problem that does not affect the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings
as given in the Adad-guppi’ inscription. It arose in the attempt to
establish Adad-guppi’s age, which had to be calculated, because, as
pointed out by Rykle Borger, the Babylonians (like Jehovah’s
Witnesses today!) “never celebrated their birthdays, and hardly
knew how old they were themselves:”47
For Chapter Four:
1. ASTROLOGY AS A MOTIVE FOR BABYLONIAN
ASTRONOMY
In order to depreciate the value of the astronomical texts, some
defenders of the Watch Tower chronology have emphasized that
the Babylonians’ interest in the celestial phenomena was astrologically
motivated. Although it is true that this was an important object of
their study of the sky, it actually contributed to the exactness of the
observations.
In the great collection of ancient omens called Enuma Anu Enlil
(the final form of which dates from the Neo-Assyrian period) the
observer is given this instruction:
When the Moon is eclipsed you shall observe exactly month, day,
night-watch, wind, course, and position of the stars in whose realm the eclipse
takes place. The omens relative to its month, its day, its night-watch,
its wind, its course, and its stars you shall indicate.
For the Babylonian “astrologers” eclipses played the most
prominent role, and all details, therefore, were highly important.
Dr. A. Pannekoek concludes that “the astrological motive, by
demanding greater attention in observing the moon, provided for
better foundations in chronology.48
Further, it would be a mistake to think that “astrology” in the
sense this word is used today was practiced in the Neo-Babylonian
period or earlier. The idea that a man’s fate is determined by the
positions of the stars and planets at the date of birth or conception
originated much later, during the Persian era. The oldest horoscope
discovered dates to 410 B.C.E.49 As pointed out by B. L. van der
46 Erie Leichty in the Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 103, 1983, p.220,
note 2.
47 Rykle Borger, “Mespotamien in den Jahren 629–621 v. Chr.,” Wiener Zeitschrift für
die Kunde des Morgenlandes, Vol. 55, 1959, p. 73.
48 A. Pannekoek, A History of Astronomy (London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1961),
pp. 43, 44.
49 A. J. Sachs, ‘Babylonian horoscopes,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 6(1952), p.
49.
Appendix 333
Waerden, the earlier astrology “had a quite different character: it

aimed at short-range predictions of general public events, such as wars and
harvests, from striking phenomena such as eclipses, clouds, annual
rising and setting of planets, whereas the [later] Hellenistic
‘Chaldeans’ predicted individual fates from positions of planets and
zodiacal signs at the date of birth or conception.”50
Professor Otto Neugebauer, therefore, explains that
“Mesopotamian ‘astrology’ can be much better compared with
weather prediction from phenomena observed in the skies than
with astrology in the modern sense of the word.” He also
emphasizes that the origin of astronomy was not astrology but
calendaric problems: “Determination of the season, measurement
of time, lunar festivals―these are the problems which shaped
astronomical development for many centuries,” and “even the last
phase of Mesopotamian astronomy . . . was mainly devoted to
problems of the lunar calendar.”51
2. SOME COMMENTS ON ANCIENT LUNAR ECLIPSES
How reliable are modern identifications of lunar eclipses described
in ancient Babylonian astronomical texts from the eighth century
B.C.E. onward? Pointing out one of the pitfalls, the Watch Tower
Society quotes The Encyclopaedia Britannica as saying that a particular
town or city would, on the average, experience about forty lunar
eclipses in fifty years.52 Although this is true, the frequency of
eclipses falling in a specific month is much lower. Other factors,
too, set limits to the alternatives.
Even when a lunar eclipse recurs in the same month one year
later, it will not occur at exactly the same time of the day or be of the
same magnitude. If it occurs during the daylight hours it will, of
course, be invisible from that part of the earth. As the Babylonian
astronomers often give specific data on lunar eclipses, such as date
(regnal year, month, day),53 time of the onset relative to sunrise or
50 B. L. van der Waerden, “History of the Zodiak,” Archiv für Orientforschung, Vol. 16
(1952/53), p. 224.
51 Otto Neugebauer, Astronomy and History. Selected Essays (New York: Springer-
Verlag, 1983), p. 55.—For an extensive discussion of the nature of Babylonian
astrology, see Francesca Rochberg-Halton, Aspects of Babylonian Celestial
Divination: The Lunar Eclipse Tablets of Enuma Anu Enlil (= Archiv für
Orientforschung, Beiheft 22), (Horn, Austria: Verlag Ferdinand Berger & Söhne
Gesellschaft M.B.H., 1988), pp. 2–17.
52 1nsight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 454.
53 The day number is often omitted in the texts, because, as each Babylonian month
began at new moon, the full moon and therefore also any possible lunar eclipse
always fell in or near to the middle of the month.
sunset, duration of partial and total phases, sometimes also

magnitude and position relative to stars or constellations, the
identification of the eclipses described in such texts usually creates
no problems, provided that the texts are well preserved.
The Watchtower of March 15, 1969, pages 184 onward, refers to
another factor, which, it is held, makes it difficult to identify
ancient eclipses. It is pointed out that astronomers for a long time
(for centuries, actually) have been aware of the fact that the tides
produced by the moon and the sun in the oceans and body of the
earth create a retardation of the earth’s rotation, causing a gradual
lengthening of the day. This, it is said in the article, affects the
ancient records.
However, when it comes to identifying ancient lunar eclipses
from the eighth century B.C.E. onward, this is not a major problem
today. The great number of observations recorded on cuneiform
tablets have, in fact, enabled modern astronomers to measure the
exact rate of this change of the earth’s rotation. It is known today
that the length of the day increases at a rate of 1.7 milliseconds per
century. The day in Late Babylonian time was thus about 43–44
milliseconds shorter than present.54
Today astronomers, of course, make allowance for the variation
in the earth’s rotation in their calculations of the dates of ancient
eclipses. The Watchtower article discussed solar eclipses only. But as
very few reliable observations of solar eclipses are preserved from
ancient times, and as none of them are connected with the
chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period, they are irrelevant to
our discussion.
As I wanted to know how ancient records of lunar eclipses are
affected by this increasing of the solar day, I wrote to Professor
Robert R. Newton, who at that time (in 1981) was a leading
authority on this problem.55 I wanted to know how much the
lengthening of the solar day has affected ancient records of lunar
eclipses and if we can still rely upon the older tables of calculations
of lunar eclipses published by Oppolzer in 1887 and Ginzel in
1899.
54 This most recent value is the result of the very careful research performed by
Richard Stephenson of the University of Durham and Leslie Morrison, formerly of
the Royal Greenwich Observatory in Cambridge.—See New Scientist, January 30,
1999, pp. 30–33.
55 Newton’s research in this area has since been improved upon by other scholars.
See, now, the exhaustive discussion by F. Richard Stephenson in Historical
Eclipses and Earth’s Rotation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
Appendix 335
Newton, in his answer said:

I have not used Ginzel’s canon much, and cannot speak
specifically of the errors in it. However, I expect that his errors are
about the same as those in Oppolzer’s Canon der Finsternisse, which
I have used extensively. The earliest lunar eclipse in his canon, for
example, is that of —1206, April 21, which came at 20H 17M,
Greenwich Mean Time, with a magnitude of 2.6 digits, according
to his calculations. According to my calculations, it came on that
date at 20H 32M, with a magnitude of 2.4 digits. Thus it is perfectly
safe to use Oppolzer’s Canon in identifying ancient eclipses; his greatest errors
are probably something like half an hour.56
As far as lunar eclipses are concerned, then, the argument that
the lengthening of the solar day caused by tides makes it difficult to
identify ancient eclipses is not valid. In modern eclipse catalogues,
of course, the errors in the canons of Oppolzer and Ginzel have
been corrected.57
For Chapter Five:
THE “THIRD YEAR OF JEHOIAKIM” (DANIEL 1:1, 2)
Daniel 1:1f. dates the first deportation of Jewish prisoners by
Nebuchadnezzar to the “third year of the reign of Jehoiakim. “ As
was shown in the appendix for chapter two (”Methods of
reckoning regnal years”), in this passage Daniel seems to follow the
Babylonian method of counting regnal years, employing an
accession year even for kings outside Babylon, including Jehoiakim.
This makes Jehoiakim’s fourth year (Jeremiah 46:2) his third year in
the accession-year system, and this third year of Jehoiakim in turn
corresponds to Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year.
Thus it is seen that this first deportation took place in the same
year as the famous battle at Carchemish, and evidently shortly after
that battle, in the year 605 B.C.E. Daniel 1:1f., therefore, strongly
56 Letter Newton—Jonsson, dated May 11, 1981. Other scholars agree. Jean Meeus &
Hermann Mucke, for example, in their Canon of Lunar Eclipses — 2002 to + 2526
(Wien: Astronomisches Büro, 1979), page XII, explain that Oppolzer’s monumental
work “is accurate enough for historical research.” This, of course, refers to ancient
lunar eclipses, not ancient solar eclipses, on which the Canon is far from correct.
See, for instance, the comments by Willy Hartner in Centaurus, Vol. 14 (1969), p.
65.
57 See, for example, Bao-Lin Liu and Alan D. Fiala, Canon of Lunar Eclipses 1500
B.C.–AD. 3000 (Richmond, Virginia: Willman-Bell, Inc., 1992).
supports the conclusion that Judah became a vassal to Babylon

eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E., in
confirmation of the conclusion that the seventy years (Jeremiah
25:11; 29:10) should be understood as a period of servitude, not of
desolation.
Reinterpretations of the “third year of Jehoiakim”
In order to undermine the strength of Daniel 1:1 several arguments
have been advanced in the publications of the Watch Tower
Society against a natural reading of this text. As early as 1896
Pastor Charles T. Russell, in writing in Zion’s Watch Tower of May
15, page 106 (Reprints, pp. 1975–76) argued against those who
quoted Daniel 1:1 in support of the secular dates for
Nebuchadnezzar’s reign:
For instance, they adopt the uncertain secular date for the
beginning of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign; and then referring to Dan.
1:1, they thus fix the date of Jehoiakim’s reign and alter other
matters to suit. Then again, they apply the “seventy years” as years
of captivity and begin them in the third year of Jehoiakim; whereas
the Scriptures unequivocally declare, repeatedly, that those were
years of “desolation of the land,” “without an inhabitant.” (Jer.
25:11, 12; 29:10; 2 Chron. 36:21; Dan. 9:2.)
Several years later two prominent members of Russell’s
movement, the Scottish brothers John and Morton Edgar,
published the two-volume Great Pyramid Passages.58 On page 31 of
Volume II, they summarize their arguments against a natural
reading of Daniel 1:1:
[1] It cannot be admitted that the 70 years desolation of
Jerusalem and the land began in the 3rd year of Jehoiakim, for
according to the Scriptures “desolation” implies “without an
inhabitant,” and Jerusalem and the land were not without
inhabitants until after the dethronement of Zedekiah. . . .
[2] [A natural reading of Daniel 1:1] conflicts with Daniel 2:1. In
reading over the 1st chapter of Daniel it would appear that the
Hebrew children were taken captive by Nebuchadnezzar in the 3rd
year of Jehoiakim. They were trained in the learning and tongue of
the Chaldeans for three years (verses 4, 5), and yet, according to
Dan. 2:1,25, they were brought into the presence of
58 John and Morton Edgar, Great Pyramid Passages (London: The Marshall Press,
Ltd., 1923–24). The first edition was published in 1912 and 1913 and was
distributed by the Watch Tower Society. It was reissued with some additions in
1923 and 1924 by Morton Edgar, who also added a Vol. III. (His brother John
Edgar died in 1910.) The quotations here are from the 1924 edition of Vol. II.
Appendix 337
Nebuchadnezzar in or before his second year, though verse 18 of

the 1st chapter shows that the three years had completely expired.
How, then, is Daniel 1:1 to be understood? The Edgar brothers
pointed out that “a number of commentators suggest that the 3rd
year of Jehoiakim in Daniel 1:1 should be understood as meaning
the 3rd year of his vassalage to Nebuchadnezzar,” which in effect
was his eleventh and last regnal year. 59 In this way the deportation
of Daniel and other Hebrew captives was made identical with the
deportation of Jehoiachin in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar.
But this explanation did not negate the seeming conflict with
Daniel 2:1, which dates the image dream of Nebuchadnezzar to his
second year; in fact, that conflict was exacerbated. If Daniel was
not deported to Babylon until the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar,
how could he be at his court interpreting his dreams in his second
year, five years earlier?
So, in addition to the interpretation placed on Daniel 1:1 to
explain its reference to the third year of Jehoiakim, there was also
need for another interpretation of Daniel 2:1 to explain its
reference to Nebuchadnezzar’s second year. The Edgar brothers
suggested that the number “2” is an error, which “has evidently
risen out of the number 12.”60 Later these arguments were adopted
by the Watch Tower Society. They were, for example, incorporated
into the 1922 edition of the booklet The Bible on Our Lord’s Return,
pages 84–88.
But the explanation that Daniel 1:1 refers to Jehoiakim’s third
year of vassalage to Nebuchadnezzar, corresponding to
Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh regnal year, creates yet another
problem.
If this vassalage ended in the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, it
must have begun three years earlier according to 2 Kings 24:1, or in
Nebuchadnezzar’s fourth year, which was the eighth year of
Jehoiakim. As is stated in 2 Kings 23:34–37, Jehoiakim was a
tributary king of Egypt before he became a vassal to Babylon. If we
59 Ibid., Vol. II, pp. 29 (ftn. 4) and 31. This “solution,” found already in Josephus’ Ant.
X, 6:1–3, was adopted by a number of later writers. Dr. E. W. Hengstenberg refers
to it in his work Die Authentie des Daniel und die Integrität des Sacharjah
(Berlin,1831), p.54. Hengstenberg rejects the idea because (1) there is no evidence
indicating that Jehoiakim’s regnal years were counted in this curious way, (2) it is
an unfounded hypothesis with no support in the Bible, or elsewhere, that
Nebuchadnezzar’s first siege of Jerusalem occurred in Jehoiakim’s eighth year,
and (3) the “solution” is in inextricable conflict with Daniel 2:1.
60 John and Morton Edgar, op. cit., Vol. II, p. 32. This, too, is an old idea, suggested,
for example, by Chrysostom in the fourth century. One ancient manuscript of the
LXX version of Daniel (Papyrus 967), dating from the early third century CE., also
reads “twelfth” at Dan. 2:1. The reading is best explained as a scribal
“correction”.—John J. Collins, Daniel (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), p. 154.
accept the Watch Tower explanation, this would mean that his
vassalage to Egypt continued up to his eighth year. Yet both
Jeremiah 46:2 and the Babylonian chronicle B.M. 21946 indicate
that Jehoiakim’s vassalage changed from Egypt to Babylon in the
same year as the battle of Carchemish, or in the fourth year of
Jehoiakim.
In the book Equipped for Every Good Work, published by the
Watch Tower Society in 1946, the arguments against a natural
reading of Daniel 1:1 are repeated on pages 225–227. But
interestingly, the Egyptian vassalage is now discussed:
Jehoiakim was put on the throne by Egyptian decree and was
tributary to Egypt for several years, but when Babylon defeated Egypt
Jehoiakim came under Babylonian control and so remained for three years,
after which three-year period as tributary to Babylon the Judean
king rebelled.61
Here it is admitted that Jehoiakim’s vassalage changed from
Egypt to Babylon when Babylon defeated Egypt. The real problem,
however, is concealed, as it is not mentioned that Egypt was
defeated in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (Jeremiah 46:2), and not in
his eighth year as the Watch Tower explanation would require!
Another interesting change may also be noted in Equipped for
Every Good Work. Instead of holding to the earlier guess that the
“second year” in Daniel 2:1 originally read “twelfth year,” the
following interpretation is presented:
The time of this dream and its interpretation is stated as the
second year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. . . . In the nineteenth year
of his reign Nebuchadnezzar was used as God’s executioner to
destroy faithless Jerusalem and end Israel’s history as an
independent Theocratic nation. Then Nebuchadnezzar began
reigning in a unique way, as the first of the world rulers of the
Gentile times. In the second year of his reign in this special capacity
the dream showing the end of Satan’s organization and rule and
the taking over of power by Christ’s kingdom came to
Nebuchadnezzar, as recorded at chapter 2.62
According to this explanation, the “second year” of Daniel 2:1,
or the second year of the Gentile times, reckoned from 607 B.C.E.,
was actually Nebuchadnezzar’s twentieth regnal year! Why would
61 Equipped for Every Good Work (Brooklyn, N.Y.: Watchtower Bible and Tract Society,
1946), pp. 225–226.
62 Ibid., pp. 226–227. This, too, was an earlier idea, suggested already in the Jewish
Talmud (Seder ‘Olam Rabbah; see John J. Collins, op. cit., p. 154). Hengstenberg
(op. cit., p. 54) rejects it because there is “not the slightest trace” of any such
reckoning of Nebuchadnezzar’s regnal years anywhere.
Appendix 339
Daniel use this curious way of reckoning regnal years only in this
passage of his book? No other arguments are proposed for this
new position except this statement:
Here again, as at Daniel 1:1, the peculiarity which the writer of
this book has of making a secondary reckoning of the years of a
king’s reign is demonstrated. He reckons by counting from
epochal events within the reign that put the king in a new
relationship.63
There could hardly be a more obvious example of circular
reasoning.
The date of Jehoiakim’s rebellion
The latest discussion of these problems is found in the Watch
Tower Society’s Bible dictionary Insight on the Scriptures, Vol. 1
(1988), pages 1268–69. Daniel 1:1 is still interpreted as meaning the
third year of Jehoiakim’s vassalage to Babylon, beginning at the end
of his eighth year of reign and ending in his eleventh and last year.
On page 480 of Vol. 2 of the same work, an attempt is made to
find support for this in the Babylonian chronicle B.M. 21946. After
recording the battle of Carchemish in Nebuchadnezzar’s accession
year, this chronicle refers to several succeeding campaigns in the
Hattu-area by Nebuchadnezzar, in his first, second, third and
fourth years. Mentioning these campaigns, the Society’s dictionary
says that “evidently in the fourth year he made Judean King
Jehoiakim his vassal. (2 Kings 24:1)”
This conclusion, however, is not supported by the Babylonian
Chronicle. On the contrary, this chronicle indicates that
Jehoiakim’s vassalage to Babylon began in Nebuchadnezzar’s
accession-year, or possibly in his first year, and that in the fourth
year Jehoiakim was already in open revolt against Babylon. To
demonstrate this, it is necessary to quote important parts of the
Babylonian Chronicle, from the accession year to the fourth year of
Nebuchadnezzar:
Events from c. Sept./Oct. 605 to Jan./Feb. 604 B.C.E.:
”In (his) accession year Nebuchadnezzar (II) returned to
Hattu. Until the month Shebat he marched about victoriously in
Hattu. In the month Shebat he took the vast booty of Hattu to
Babylon.”
From May/June to Nov./Dec. 604:
”The first year of Nebuchadnezzar (II): In the month of Sivan
he mustered his army and marched to Hattu. Until the month
63 Equipped for Every Good Work, p. 227.
Kislev he marched about victoriously in Hattu. All the kings of

Hattu came into his presence and he received their vast tribute.”
From April/May 603 onwards:
”The se[cond year]: In the month of Iyyar the king of
Akkad strenghtened his large army and [marched to Hattu].
He encamped [ . . . ] . . . large siege towers he moved acr[oss
… …from the month] Iyyar until the month [ . . . he marched
about victoriously in Hattu].”
In 602:
”[The third year: In the month . . ., on] the thirteenth [day]
Nabu-shumu-lishir [ . . . ] [In the month . . . the king of Akkad
mustered his army and [marched] to Hattu. [ . . . . . . ] He brought
the vast [booty] of Hattu into Akkad.”
In 601 (march against Egypt in Kislev = Nov./Dec.):
”The fourth year: The king of Akkad mustered his army and
marched to Hattu. [He marched about victoriously] in Hattu. In
the month Kislev he took his army’s lead and marched to Egypt.
[When] the king of Egypt heard (the news) he m[ustered] his army.
They fought one another in the battle-field and both sides
suffered severe losses (literally, they inflicted a major defeat upon
one another). The king of Akkad and his army [went back] to
Babylon.”64
From this chronicle it is seen that the whole Hattu-territory
(primarily Syria-Lebanon but extending to Phoenicia and Palestine)
became tributary to Nebuchadnezzar as of his accession year. And
in Nebuchadnezzar’s first year it is explicitly stated that “all the
kings of Hattu” were tributary to him, which reasonably cannot
have excepted Jehoiakim.
Many scholars conclude that Nebuchadnezzar’s fourth year, in
which Insight on the Scriptures supposes that Jehoiakim’s Babylonian
vassalage began, was probably the year in which Jehoiakim revolted
against Nebuchadnezzar, because in that year Nebuchadnezzar
battled with Egypt, and both seem to have suffered great losses.
Nebuchadnezzar had to return to Babylon, where he remained in
the fifth year and “refitted his numerous horses and chariotry.”65
This unsuccessful battle with Egypt may have encouraged
64 A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles (New York: J. J. Augustin
Publisher, 1975), pp. 100–101. The square brackets indicate damages in the text.
65 Ibid., p. 101.
Appendix 341
Jehoiakim to throw off the Babylonian yoke, thus ending his three
years of vassalage to Babylon.66
2 Kings 24:1–7 seems to support the above conclusion. Verse 1
states that “in his (Jehoiakim’s) days Nebuchadnezzar the king of
Babylon came up, and so Jehoiakim became his servant for three
years. However, he turned back and rebelled against him.” As a
result, Jehovah (through Nebuchadnezzar) “began to send against
him marauder bands of Chaldeans and marauder bands of Syrians
and marauder bands of Moabites and marauder bands of the sons
of Ammon, and he kept sending them against Judah to destroy it,
according to Jehovah’s word that he had spoken by means of his
servants the prophets.” — 2 Kings 24:1–2, NW.
The wording of this passage indicates that these marauder bands
kept on raiding the territory of Judah for quite a time, evidently for
some years. Jehovah “began” to send them, and, according to the
New World Translation, “he kept sending them” against Judah. This
was not one attack only, like that mentioned in Daniel 1:1, but it
evidently came upon Judah in waves, time and again. Consequently,
they could not have begun these attacks in the last year of
Jehoiakim’s reign, and this also calls for an earlier beginning of
Jehoiakim’s rebellion.
The three deportations to Babylon
Another line of evidence supporting a natural reading of Daniel
1:1, is that according to 2 Chronicles, chapter 36, verses 7, 10 and
18 the vessels of the temple were brought to Babylon in three
successive installments:
(1) The first time, during Jehoiakim’s reign, “some” of the
vessels were brought to Babylon. (Verse 7)
(2) The second time, together with Jehoiachin, the
“desirable” (NW) or “valuable” (NASB) vessels were brought
to Babylon. (Verse 10)
(3) The third time, together with Zedekiah, “all” the
vessels were brought to Babylon. (Verse 18)
66 “This battle,” says J. P. Hyatt, “must lie back of Jehoiakim’s change of allegiance,
when he withheld tribute from Babylonia, probably making an alliance with
Egypt.” (”New Light on Nebuchadnezzar and Judean History,” Journal of Biblical
Literature, Vol. 75, 1956, p. 281.) It is also possible that this change of allegiance
occurred some time before Nebuchadnezzar’s war with Egypt. Nebuchadnezzar’s
decision to march to Egypt in 601 B.C.E. may have been caused by the alliance
between the Egyptians and Jehoiakim. — See Mark K. Mercer, “Daniel 1:1 and
Jehoiakim’s three years of servitude,” Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol.
27:3 (Autumn 1989), pp. 188–191.
From these texts we learn that some of the vessels were brought
to Babylon during Jehoiakim’s reign, the valuable vessels were brought
at the deportation of Jehoiachin, and all the rest of the vessels were taken
to Babylon at the end of Zedekiah’s reign. Of the three deportations of
vessels, the first is clearly referred to at Daniel 1:1, 2, as this text
states that during the third year of Jehoiakim “some” of the vessels
were brought to Babylon.67
Again, this indicates that Daniel 1:1–2 refers to a deportation
different from and earlier than that which took place at the end of
Jehoiachin’s short reign. This gives additional support to the
conclusion that the phrase “the third year of the kingship of
Jehoiakim” means what it says―Jehoiakim’s third regnal year, not
his eleventh.
Finally, if the deportation mentioned at Daniel 1:1–4 is equated
with the one that took place at the end of Jehoiachin’s three
months of reign, why does Daniel state that “Jehovah gave into his
hand Jehoiakim,” instead of Jehoiachin? (Daniel 1:2) When Jehoiachin
was taken captive, Jehoiakim had been dead for over three months.
(2 Kings 24:8–17; 2 Chronicles 36:9–10) There is even evidence to
show that Jehoiakim was already dead when Nebuchadnezzar, in
his seventh year, left Babylon for the siege of Jerusalem that ended
up in Jehoiachin’s deportation. The evidence is as follows:
Nebuchadnezzar’s siege of Jerusalem during the reign of
Jehoiachin is also described in the Babylonian chronicle B.M.
21946. For the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar this chronicle says:
From Dec. 598 (or Jan. 597) to March 597 B.C.E.:
”The seventh year: In the month Kislev the king of Akkad
mustered his army and marched to Hattu. He encamped against
the city of Judah and on the second day of the month Adar he
captured the city (and) seized (its) king. A king of his own choice
he appointed in the city (and) taking the vast tribute he brought it
into Babylon.”68
67 It is interesting to note that in this first deportation Nebuchadnezzar brought only
“some” of the vessels from the temple in Jerusalem to Babylon, and these were not
even the “valuable” vessels. This strongly supports the conclusion that the siege of
Jerusalem at this time did not end up in the capture of the city. If it did, why did
he not take the valuable vessels from the temple? If, on the other hand, the siege
was raised because Jehoiakim capitulated and paid a tribute to Nebuchadnezzar,
it is quite understandable that Jehoiakim did not include the most valuable
vessels in the tribute.
68 A. K. Grayson, op. cit., p. 102. The chronicle is in complete agreement with the
description of this siege given in the Bible. (2 Kings 24:8–17; 2 Chronicles 36:9–
10.)
Appendix 343
Nebuchadnezzar’s army left Babylon “in the month of Kislev,”

which was the ninth month, and seized Jehoiachin “on the second
day of the month Adar,” that is, the twelfth month.69 This means
that even if the army left Babylon in the beginning of Kislev (which
this year began on December 18, 598 B.C.E., Julian calendar), the
interval between the day it left Babylon until the city was captured
and its king (Jehoiachin) seized, on the second Adar (which
corresponded to March 16, 597), was three months at the most.70
As Jehoiachin ruled for “three months and ten days” (2
Chronicles 36:9), he evidently had been ruling for some days already
when Nebuchadnezzar left Babylon in the month of Kislev! If the siege of
Jerusalem described at Daniel 1:1f. referred to this siege during the
reign of Jehoiachin, how could it be said that it took place during the
reign of Jehoiakim (Daniel 1:1), that Nebuchadnezzar came up
“against him” (2 Chronicles 36:6), and that “Jehovah gave into his
hand Jehoiakim” (Daniel 1:2), when Jehoiakim was already dead
when Nebuchadnezzar left Babylon?
Equating the siege described at Daniel 1:1f. with the one that
took place during the reign of Jehoiachin (2 Kings 24:10–12; 2
Chronicles 36:10) is clearly impossible. Daniel and the Chronicler
at 2 Chronicles 36:6 both obviously describe an earlier siege and an
earlier deportation, during the reign of Jehoiakim. There is no reason
to believe that the “third year” of Daniel 1:1 means anything else
but his third year of reign. There is no evidence at all, either in the
book of Daniel, in the other books in the Bible or in the
contemporary Neo-Babylonian historical texts, that regnal years
were reckoned from a king’s vassalage, or from Nebuchadnezzar’s
rise to world dominion. Such theories are nothing more than
unfounded guesses, adopted only in an attempt to defend an
erroneous application of the seventy years of servitude predicted by
Jeremiah.
69 The Babylonians had a second Ululu (an intercalary month) in the seventh year of
Nebuchadnezzar, thus making Kislev and Adar the tenth and thirteenth months
respectively that year, although they were normally the ninth and twelfth calendar
months . This fact does not affect the discussion above.
70 If the Babylonian army left Babylon some time after Jehoiachin had ascended the
throne, the siege was of very short duration, two months at most and probably
less, as the time the army needed to march from Babylon to Jerusalem has to be
subtracted from the three months from Kislev to Adar. Such a march took at least
one month. It is possible, however, that a part of the army had left Babylon earlier,
as 2 Kings 24:10–11 indicates that Nebuchadnezzar arrived at Jerusalem some
time after the siege had begun. The reason for the short duration of the siege was
Jehoiachin’s surrender to Nebuchadnezzar on Adar 2 or March 16, 597 B.C.E.,
Julian calendar. (2 Kings 24:12) For an excellent discussion of this siege, see
William H. Shea, “Nebuchadnezzar’s Chronicle and the Date of the Destruction of
Lachish III,” in Palestine Exploration Quarterly, No. 111 (1979), pp. 113f.
The three years of training

But what about the three years of training referred to in Daniel
1:5, 18, which seem to conflict with a natural reading of Daniel 1:1
and 2:1? Is there no simpler way to solve this seeming conflict than
to suppose that the prophet in Daniel 1:1 reckoned Jehoiakim’s
regnal years from the beginning of his vassalage to Babylon, and
Nebuchadnezzar’s regnal years in Daniel 2:1 from the year of his
rise to world dominion? Why should Daniel reckon the regnal years of
these two kings in such a confusing, abnormal manner when he
knew that his readers no doubt would misunderstand him? And
why does he not reckon the regnal years in this peculiar way
elsewhere in his book, for instance in 7:1, 8:1, 9:1, and 10:1, where he
follows the customary method of reckoning regnal years? Before
such strained explanations are adopted, should not a simpler and
more natural solution be sought?
It has already been demonstrated in the appendix for chapter
two (”Methods of reckoning regnal years”) that there is no real
discrepancy between the third year of Jehoiakim in Daniel 1:1, and
his fourth year in Jeremiah 25:1 and 46:2. When the existing
accession and nonaccession year systems are taken into
consideration, this difference of one year is easily understood.71
This solution also has bearing upon the seeming conflict
between the three years of training and Daniel 2:1. If Daniel 1:1
refers to Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year (in agreement with the
Babylonian Chronicle), his “second year” at Daniel 2:1 may be
regarded as the third year of the training of the Jewish captives.
According to the Hebrew way of reckoning time periods, whereby
fractions of time were reckoned as full units, this would make three
years.72 The three years are not necessarily three full years. Dr.
71 A brilliant discussion of this problem may be found in the article by Professor
Albertus Pieters, “The Third Year of Jehoiakim,” in From the Pyramids to Paul, a
miscellany in honour of Dr. G. L. Robinson (New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons,
1935), pp. 180–193. Pieters concludes: “The ‘third year’ of Jehoiakim in Dan. 1:1 is
the same as the ‘fourth year’ of Jehoiakim in Jer. 25:1 and 46:2, the former being
reckoned according to the Babylonian and the latter according to the Palestinian
method of computing the years of the king’s reign.”—Ibid., p. 181.
72 This way of counting time periods is often termed “inclusive reckoning.” The best
example is the period of Jesus’ death, from Friday afternoon to his resurrection on
Sunday morning. Although, chronologically, this period was a little more than two
nights and one day, Bible writers refer to it as “three days” (Matt. 27:63; Mark
10:34), even “three days and three nights.” (Matt. 12:40) The Watch Tower Society
correctly applies it to mean “a portion of each of three days.” (Insight on the
Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 593) Another example is the period of the siege of Samaria,
stated at 2 Kings 18:9–10 to have lasted from the seventh to the ninth year of
Hoshea; yet the siege is said to have lasted for “three years.” For additional
examples, see Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, new
revised edition (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1983), p. 52, ftn. 12.
Appendix 345
Young presents the following table:73

Years of training: Nebuchadnezzar:
First year Year of accession
Second year First year
Third year Second year
Applying this simple and biblical method to the problem solves
the seeming conflict without unfounded theories and strained
explanations. Many modem Biblical scholars, who regard the book
of Daniel as authentic, have adopted this simple solution. Gerhard
F. Rasel, for one, says:
It is no longer necessary to explain the difficulty between Dan.
2:1 and 1:1, 18 through textual emendation (H. Ewald, A.
Kamphausen, J. D. Prince, K. Marti, and J. Jahn) or double
reckoning (C. B. Michaelis, G. Behrmann). The practice of
inclusive reckoning, together with the recognition of the
Babylonian usage of the king’s accession year as not being
counted, removes all difficulties.74
CHRONOLOGICAL TABLES COVERING THE SEVENTY YEARS
The subsequent tables have been developed in order to facilitate an
examination of the arguments set forth in this work. The
Babylonian and Persian Nisan-to-Nisan regnal years and the Judean
Tishri-to Tishri regnal years have been paralleled with our modem
calendar. Also, the Babylonian accession years and the Judean
nonaccession years have been duly considered. The guiding
principle has been to take the biblical dates as they stand, if nothing
else is indicated by the context. The tables intend to demonstrate
how the different biblical dates may be brought into a natural
harmony with each other, and also with the Babylonian chronicles.
A few points require specia1 comments:
A. Josiah’s death at Megiddo, summer 609 (2 Kings 23:29)
As related in Chapter 5 above (section G-2), the city of Harran, the
last Assyrian stronghold, was captured and plundered by
Babylonian and Median forces, either late in 610 or early in 609
B.C.E. Ashur-uballit, the last Assyrian king, fled. In the summer of
73 Edward J. Young, The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans
Publishing Co., 1949), pp. 55–56; cf. pp. 267–70.
74 Gerhard F. Hasel in Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol. XV, No. 2, 1977, p.
167.
609 a large Egyptian force headed by Pharaoh Necho marched up

to the Euphrates to help Ashur-uballit recapture Harran. For some
unknown reason, the Judean king Josiah tried to stop the Egyptian
forces at Megiddo, but was defeated and mortally wounded.―2
Kings 23:29–30; 2 Chronicles 35:20–25.
At one time it was debated whether Josiah’s death took place in
609 or 608 B.C.E.75 This question is now settled, since the
Babylonian chronicle B.M. 22047 (first published by D. J.
Wiseman, 1956) shows that the unsuccessful attempt to recapture
Harran took place between Tammuz and Elul (c. July–September)
in Nabopolassar’s seventeenth regnal year (609/08).76 As the
Egyptian army needed almost a month to travel from Megiddo up
to the Euphrates, the battle at Megiddo and Josiah’s death took
place early in the summer of 609 B.C.E.77
As may be seen from the tables, this date is in good agreement
with a Judean Tishri-to-Tishri reckoning of regnal years.
B. Jehoahaz’ three months of reign and Jehoiakim’s succession
After the death of Josiah, the Jews made Jehoahaz the son of
Josiah king in Jerusalem. (2 Chronicles 36:1) After only three
months of reign, Pharaoh Necho, on his return from the
Euphrates, removed Jehoahaz and put his brother Jehoiakim on
the throne in Jerusalem. From then on Judah was a vassal to Egypt.
As the failed Egyptian-Assyrian attempt to recapture Harran ended
in Elul (August–September), and the Egyptian retreat from Harran
to Jerusalem took almost a month, the removal of Jehoahaz and
installation of Jehoiakim must have occurred in the next month,
Tishri (September–October).
According to the Judean nonaccession year system, Jehoiakim’s
first regnal year, then, should be counted from Tishri 1, 609 B.C.E.
Jehoahaz’ three months of reign were evidently included in Josiah’s
reign of 31 years, instead of being counted as a separate regnal year.
(Jehoiachin’s three months of reign, which ended on March 16, 597
75 Edwin R. Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings. New revised edition
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: The Zondervan Corporation, 1983), pp. 205–206.
76 D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldean Kings (London: The Trustees of the British
Museum, 1961; first published in 1956), pp. 63–67. See also Hayim Tadmor’s
article “Chronology of the Last Kings of Judah” in Journal of Near Eastern Studies,
Vol. XV (1956), p. 228.
77 A. Malamat, “The Twilight of Judah: In the Egyptian-Babylonian Maelstrom” in
Supplements to Vetus Testamentum, Vol. XXVIII (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1975), p. 125,
ftn. 5.
Appendix 347
B.C.E., was evidently treated in a similar way, being a part of

Zedekiah’s first regnal year.)
C. Zedekiah’s first year, 598/97 B.C.E.
As was shown in the first section of the Appendix for Chapter 5,
“The ‘third year of Jehoiakim’ (Daniel 1:1–2),” the Babylonian
chronicle B .M. 21946 dates Jehoiachin’s removal from the throne
to the second Adar of Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh regnal year,
corresponding to March 16, 597, Julian calendar, after which
Zedekiah was appointed king. Following the nonaccession year
system, Zedekiah’s first year, then, was reckoned from Tishri, 598,
to Tishri, 597 B.C.E. Zedekiah’s first regnal year was the same as
Jehoiachin’s first year of exile, which is seen from a comparison of
Ezekiel 24:1–2 (the dates in Ezekiel are those of Jehoiachin’s exile)
with 2 Kings 25:1.
This is quite natural, as Jehoiachin’s three months of reign began
after Tishri 598. His first regnal year, therefore, would have been
reckoned from Tishri 1, 598, had he not been removed from the
throne. Now his three months had to be included in Zedekiah’s
first regnal year.
D. Hananiah’s “prophecy”, July–August 594 B.C.E. (Jeremiah
28:1)
In Nebuchadnezzar’s tenth year a rebellion broke out in his army
from the month of Kislev to the month of Tebet (c. November
595–January 594 B.C.E.), according to the Babylonian Chronicle
B.M. 21946.78 If this rebellion caused the revolt plans among the
Jewish exiles, which also spread to Judah as reflected in Jeremiah,
chapters 27–29, these plans must have developed soon after the
Babylonian rebellion. The “prophecy” of Hananiah, that the yoke
of Babylon would be broken and the exiles brought back within
two years, is dated to the fifth month of the fourth year of Zedekiah.
(Jeremiah 28:1–4) This fifth month (Ab, corresponding to July–
August), therefore, must have fallen in July–August, 594 B.C.E., a
few months after Nebuchadnezzar had crushed the rebellion. A
look at the table shows that the fifth month of Zedekiah’s fourth
year actually fell in July–August, 594 B.C.E., thus indicating that
the chronological system presented in the tables is correct.
78 Wiseman, op, cit., p. 73. Cf. A. K. Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles
(Locust Valley, New York: J. J. Augustin Publisher, 1975), p. 102.
E. The siege of Jerusalem, 589–587 B.C.E.

It has been debated whether the siege lasted for eighteen months,
or for about two-and-a-half years.79 According to a Nisan-to-Nisan
regnal year the siege lasted for eighteen months (2 Kings 25:1–4),
but this conflicts with the statement in Ezekiel 33:21, which says
that an escapee from the destruction of Jerusalem reached Ezekiel
“in the twelfth year, in the tenth month, on the fifth day of the
month.” This would mean that the escapee reached Ezekiel with
the message that the city had been taken about one-and-a-half years
after the destruction of Jerusalem. This seems incredible.
Therefore, it is often argued that Ezekiel 33:21 originally read
“eleventh year,” which is supported by the Syriac Version, the Greek
Septuagint Version, and a few Hebrew manuscripts.80 But if a Tishri-
to-Tishri regnal year is applied, the well-attested reading of “twelfth
year” may be retained, with the escapee reaching Ezekiel about six
months after the capture of Jerusalem, which seems more natural.
Further, it is shown by this reckoning that the siege lasted for
about two-and-a-half years, instead of eighteen months.
F. Jehoiachin’s 37th year of exile, 562/61 B.C.E.
In 2 Kings 25:27 (=Jeremiah 52:31), Jehoiachin’ s 37th year is
equated with the accession year of Evil-Merodach. Here we have
an excellent confirmation of the conclusion that the Judean kings
applied a Tishrito-Tishri regnal year.
Evil-Merodach ascended to the throne in the autumn of 562
B.C.E., and his accession-year ran to Nisan, 561 B.C.E.
Jehoiachin’s release from prison took place in the twelfth month of
Evil-Merodach’s accession year (Jeremiah 52:31), on the twenty-
fourth day. This corresponded to March 30, 561 B.C.E. (Julian
calendar).
If Nisan-to-Nisan regnal years are applied to Jehoiachin’s exile,
his 37th year cannot be counted from Nisan, 561 B.C.E., as this
month fell after his release from prison. But if his 37th year of exile
is reckoned from Nisan, 562 B.C.E., in order to retain the
synchronism to Evil-Merodach’s accession year, his first year of
exile has to be reckoned from Nisan, 598, to Nisan, 597 B.C.E. Is
this likely?
79 “The Nations Shall Know that I Am Jehovah”—How? (Brooklyn, N.Y.: Watchtower
Bible and Tract Society, 1971), pp. 285–287, argues for a siege of eighteen months.
80 1bid., p. 286.
Appendix 349
As his deportation took place around Nisan 1, 597 B.C.E. (2

Kings 24:10–17; 2 Chronicles 36:10, and the Babylonian Chronicle
B.M. 21946:11–13), this would mean that his first year of exile fell
nearly exactly one year before he was deported! As this is
impossible, his years of exile must have been reckoned according
to Tishri-to-Tishri years.
Appendix 351
Appendix 353
For Chapter Seven:

A REVIEW OF:
ROLF FURULI, PERSIAN CHRONOLOGY AND THE
LENGTH OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE OF THE JEWS
(OSLO: ROLF FURULI A/S, 2003)
Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews is the
first of two volumes in which Rolf Furuli attempts to revise the
traditional chronology for the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods.
Furuli states that the reason for this venture is that this chronology
is in conflict with the Bible. He insists that the Bible
“unambiguously,” “explicitly,” and “definitely” shows that
Jerusalem and the land of Judah were desolate for 70 years, until
the Jewish exiles in Babylon returned to Judah as a result of the
decree Cyrus issued in his first regnal year, 538/37 B.C.E. (pp. 17,
89, 91). This implies that the desolation of Jerusalem in
Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th regnal year took place 70 years earlier, in
607 B.C.E. As has been amply documented in the present work,
this is contrary to modern historical research, which has fixed the
18th year of Nebuchadnezzar in 587/86 B.C.E. Furuli does not
explicitly mention the 607 B.C.E. date in this volume, perhaps
because a more detailed discussion of the Neo-Babylonian
chronology is reserved for his not-yet-published second volume.
Most of the ten chapters in this first volume, therefore, contain a
critical examination of the reigns of the Persian kings from Cyrus
to Darius II. The principal claim of this discussion is that the first
year of Artaxerxes I should be moved 10 years backward, from 464
to 474 B.C.E. Furuli does not mention that this is an old idea that
can be traced back to the noted Jesuit theologian Denis Petau,
better known as Dionysius Petavius, who first presented it in a
work published in 1627. Petavius’ revision had a theological basis,
because, if the “seventy weeks [of years],” or 490 years, of Daniel
9:24–27 are to be counted from the 20th regnal year of Artaxerxes
(Neh. 2:1ff.) to 36 C.E. (his date for the end of the period),
Artaxerxes’ 20th year must be moved from 445 back to 455 B.C.E.
Furuli says nothing about this underlying motive for his proposed
revision.
The hidden agenda

Furuli published this book at his own expense. On the back
cover of the book he presents himself this way:
Rolf Furuli is a lecturer in Semitic languages at the University of Oslo.
He is working on a doctoral thesis which suggests a new understanding
of the verbal system of Classical Hebrew. He has for many years worked
with translation theory, and has published two books on Bible
translation; he also has experience as a translator. The present volume is
a result of his study of the chronology of the Ancient world for more
than two decades.
Furuli does not mention that he is a Jehovah’s Witness, and that
for a long time he has produced apologetic texts defending
Watchtower exegesis against criticism. His two books on Bible
translation are nothing more than defenses of the Witnesses’ New
World Translation of the Bible. He fails to mention that for many
years he has tried to defend Watchtower chronology and that his
revised chronology is essentially a defense of the Watchtower
Society’s traditional chronology. (See above, pages 308, 309.) He
describes his chronology as “a new chronology,” which he calls
“the Oslo Chronology,” (p. 14) when in fact the 607 B.C.E. date
for the destruction of Jerusalem is the chronological foundation for
the claims and apocalyptic messages of the Watchtower
organization, and the 455 B.C.E. date for the 20th year of
Artaxerxes I is its traditional starting point for its calculation of the
“seventy weeks” of Daniel 9:24–27.
Despite these facts, Furuli nowhere mentions the Watchtower
Society or its chronology. Nor does he mention my detailed
refutation of this chronology in various editions of the present
work, The Gentile Times Reconsidered (GTR), first published in 1983,
despite the fact that in circulated “organized collections of notes”
he has tried to refute the conclusions presented in its earlier
editions. Furuli’s silence on GTR is noteworthy because he
discusses R. E. Winkle’s 1987 study of the Biblical 70-year period
which presents mostly the same arguments and conclusions as are
found in the first edition of GTR (1983). (See above, p. 235, note
57.) As a Jehovah’s Witness, Furuli is forbidden to interact with
former members of his organization. If this is the reason for his
feigned ignorance of my study, he is acting as a loyal Witness —
not as a scholar.
Clearly, Furuli has an agenda, and he is hiding it.
Appendix 355
ATTEMPTS TO REVISE THE NEO-BABYLONIAN CRONOLOGY

Although Volume I of Furuli’s work principally is an attempt at
revising the Persian chronology, some parts of it also contain
arguments for a lengthening of the Neo-Babylonian chronology:
(A) In chapter 6 Furuli claims there are dated business tablets
from the 17th regnal year of Nabonidus that overlap Cyrus’ reign,
which, if they are correct, “suggest that Nabonid reigned longer”
(p. 132).
(B) As the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period is fixed
by a number of astronomical tablets, Furuli devotes much space on
trying to undermine the reliability of these tablets, including the
astronomical diary VAT 4956 from the 37th year of
Nebuchadnezzar. In Chapter 1 he claims there are only two
principal astronomical sources for the chronology of the Neo-
Babylonian and Persian periods. In the same chapter he describes
nine “potential sources of error” in the Babylonian astronomical
tablets.
(C) In Chapter 2 Furuli argues that the astronomical texts
probably mainly contain, not actual observations, but backward
calculations performed during the Seleucid era (after 312 B.C.E.).
(D) In Chapter 4, finally, Furuli discusses Jeremiah’s prophecy
of the 70 years, arguing that the writers of Daniel 9:2 and 2
Chronicles 36:21 “unambiguously” applied the 70 years to the
period of the desolate state of Jerusalem.
In this review I will critically examine these claims one by one.
As the Persian chronology is not the subject of the present work,
Furuli’s chronological revision of that period will not be examined
here. A more detailed review of Furuli’s book that includes
comments on his revised Persian chronology is found on this site:
http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/furulirev.htm
This material has also been included at the end of this book.
For some works often referred to in the discussion below the
following abbreviations are used:
ADT Abraham J. Sachs and Hermann Hunger, Astronomical
Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia (Wien: Verlag der
Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Vol. I — 1988, II
— 1989, II1 — 1996, V — 2001).
CBT Erle Leichty et al, Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the
British Museum, Vols. 6, 7, and 8 (1986, 1987, and 1988). These
volumes list the tablets from Sippar held at BM.
LBAT Abraham J. Sachs (ed.), Late Babylonian Astronomical and.

Related Texts. Copied by T G. Pinches and J. N Strassmaier (Providence,
Rhode Island: Brown University Press, 1955).
PD Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, Babylonian
Chronology 626 B.C. – A.D. 75 (Providence, Rhode Island: Brown
University Press, 1956).
(A) The supposed “overlap” between the reigns of
Nabonidus and Cyrus
An argument repeatedly used by Furuli is that the existence of
dated business documents showing chronological “overlaps” of
some days, weeks, or months between a king and his successor
proves that “something is wrong with our chronological scheme.
In that case it is likely that the successor did not succeed the
previous king in the year when he died. There may be one or more
years in between, or there may even be another ruler between the
two kings in question. This way to test a chronology is very
important because there are discrepancies between all the kings of
the New Babylonian Empire and several of the early kings of the
Persian Empire.” (p. 132)
This argument is critically examined and disproved in the
Appendix of the present work, where the conceivable “overlaps”
between the reigns of all the kings of the Neo-Babylonian period
are examined in detail. (See above, pp. 321–329.) The only
suggested “overlap” not discussed is that between the 17th year of
Nabonidus and the accession-year of Cyrus. The reason for this is
not just that there are no dated texts that show such an overlap
between the two reigns, but also because there are a number of
tablets that definitely prove that Cyrus succeeded Nabonidus in his
17th year. Five such texts are discussed in the present work on
pages 135–139 above.
Nevertheless, Furuli claims that some business tablets show an
overlap between Nabonidus’ 17th year and Cyrus’ accession-year.
His “Table 18” on p. 132 shows that the earliest tablet extant from
the reign of Cyrus (CT 57:717) is dated to day 19, month VII
(Tishri) of his accession-year, i.e., three days after the fall of
Babylon. This date is correct. But then Furuli goes on to list three
tablets in his table that seem to be dated to Nabonidus after the
earliest tablet dated to Cyrus, indicating an overlap of five months
between the two kings:
Appendix 357
Month-day-year: King:
VII -- 19 — acc. Cyrus
VIII -- 10 — 17 Nabonidus
IX -- xx — 17 Nabonidus
XII -- 19 — 17 Nabonidus
Furuli concludes:
If one or more of the three tablets dated in months 8 and 12 of
Nabonid are correct, this suggests that Nabonid reigned longer than 17
years. (p. 132)
But none of the three “overlapping dates” are real.
(A-1) Nabonidus “VIII —10 — 17” (BM 74972):
As Furuli explains, PD rejected this date because “the month
sign is shaded” in J. N. Strassmaier’s copy of the text published in
1889.81 They had good reasons for doing this because F. H.
Weissbach, who collated the tablet in 1908, explained that the
month name was highly uncertain and “in any case not
Arahsamnu” (month VIII).82
Actually, there is an even more serious error with the date. Back
in 1990 I asked C. B. F. Walker at the British Museum to take
another look at the date on the original tablet. He did this together
with two other Assyriologists. They all agreed that the year is 16,
not 17. Walker says:
On the Nabonidus text no. 1054 mentioned by Parker and
Dubberstein p. 13 and Kugler, SSB I1388, I have collated that tablet (BM
74972) and am satisfied that the year is 16, not 17. It has also been
checked by Dr. G. Van Driel and Mr. Bongenaar, and they both agree
with me.83
(A-2) Nabonidus “IX — xx —17” (No. 1055 in
Strassmaier, Nabonidus):
This text does not give any day number, the date above just
being given as “Kislimu [= month IX], year 17 of Nabonidus”. The
text, in fact, contains four different dates of this kind, in the
following chronological disorder: Months IX, I, XII, and VI of
“year 17 of Nabonidus”. None of these dates refers to the time
when the tablet was drawn up. Such a date is actually missing on
81 PD ( Parker & Dubberstein’s Babylonian Chronology, 1956), p. 13. The tablet is
listed as No. 1054 in J. N. Strassmaier, Inschriften von Nabonidus, König von
Babylon (Leipzig, 1889).
82 See F. X. Kugler, Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel [SSB], Vol. II:2 (1912), p.
388
83 Letter Walker to Jonsson, November 13, 1990.
the tablet. As F. X. Kugler explained, the tablet belongs to a

category of texts containing installment dates or delivery dates
(mashshartum).84 Such dates were given at least one month, and
often several months in advance. That is why PD states (p. 14) that
“this tablet is useless for dating purposes” As shown by its
contents, No. 1055 is an administrative text giving the dates for
deliveries of certain amounts of barley in year 17 of Nabonidus.85
(A-3) Nabonidus “XII -19 —17” (BM 55694):
This tablet was copied by T. G. Pinches in the 1890’s and was
finally published in 1982 as CT 57:168.86 It is also listed in CBT 6,
p. 184, where the date is given as “Nb(-) 19/12/13+” (= day 19,
month 12, year 13+).87 Evidently the royal name and the year
number are both damaged and only partially legible. “Nb(-)” shows
that the royal name begins with “Nabu-”. This could refer to either
Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, or Nabonidus. If it is Nabonidus,
the damaged year number, “13+”, may refer to any year between
his 13th and 17th year. An examination of the original tablet might
perhaps give some clues.
None of the three tablets listed by Furuli, then, can be used to
prove that Nabonidus’ 17th year overlapped the accession-year of
Cyrus, suggesting that “Nabonid reigned longer than 17 years”
(B) Attempts at undermining the reliability of the
astronomical tablets
( B-1) Only three principal sources for the chronology of
the ancient world?
Furuli is well aware that the most damaging evidence against his
so-called “Oslo Chronology” is provided by the astronomical
cuneiform tablets. He therefore strives to belittle the importance of
most of these tablets, stating that there are only two principal
astronomical sources on which the chronology of the Neo-
Babylonian and Persian periods can be based. (Pages 15, 24, 45) At
least one of these, he claims, contradicts the third principal
chronological source—the Bible:
84 F. X. Kugler, SSB II:2 (1912), pp. 388, 389.
85 P.-A. Beaulieu in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 52:4 (1993), pp. 256,
258.
86 CT 57:168 = Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Part
57 (1982), No. 168.
87 Erle Leichty, Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum (CBT), Vol.
6 (1986), p. 184 (82-7-14, 51).
Appendix 359
There are three principal sources with information regarding the

chronology of the New Babylonian and Persian kings, namely, Stem
Kambys 400, VAT 4956 and the Bible. The information in these three
sources cannot be harmonized. (p. 21)
Furuli knows, of course, that for the fixing of the absolute date
for the fall of Babylon to 539 B.C.E., at least one astronomical text
is needed. As the diary VAT 4956 is disastrous for his Oslo
Chronology, he is forced to choose Strm Kambys 400 for this
purpose, claiming that this is “the tablet that is most important for
Persian chronology” (p. 128) and “the only source on the basis of
which an absolute chronology can be made regarding the year
Cyrus conquered Babylon.” (p. 134)
The poor quality of this tablet has already been pointed out in
the present work. As was noticed already by F. X. Kugler in 1903,
it is probably the least reliable of all astronomical tablets. (See
above, pp. 84–88.) Modern scholars even question whether it
contains any observations at all. Dr. John M. Steele, for example,
explains:
It is also unwise to base any conclusions concerning the Babylonian
records on this tablet alone, since it does not fall into any of the common
categories of text. In particular, it is not certain whether this text contains
observations or calculations of the phenomena it records. At least some
of the data must be calculated. For instance, the full run of lunar six
timings for the 7th year of Cambyses cannot all have been measured;
clouds would surely have prevented their observation on at least some
occasions. The lunar six data must therefore have been either all
calculated, as suggested by Kugler (1907: 61–72), or be a mixture of
observation and calculation. There is also debate concerning whether the
two lunar eclipses were observed or calculated.88
The fact is that the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian and
Persian eras is fixed by nearly 50 astronomical observational tablets
(diaries, eclipse texts, and planetary texts). Many of them are quite
extensive and detailed and serve as principal sources for the
absolute chronology of this period. Most of these tablets are
88 John M. Steele, Observations and Predictions of Eclipse Times by Early Astronomers
(Dordrecht-Boston-London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000), p. 98. C. B. F.
Walker refers, for example, to the inaccurate magnitude reported for one the two
eclipses in the text, “but,” he adds, “the Cambyses text is now understood to
contain a series of predictions rather than observations.” — Walker in John Curtis
(ed.), Mesopotamia in the Persian Period (London: The Trustees of the British
Museum, l997), p. 18.
published in volumes I and V of Sachs & Hunger’s ADT.89 For

example, there are about 25 diaries from the reign of Artaxerxes II
(404–358 BCE), 11 of which have the royal name and regnal dates
preserved. Most, if not all, of these appear to be, not later copies,
but original compilations from the 46-year reign of Artaxerxes II.90
Therefore, to fix the absolute chronology of the reign of
Artaxerxes II or any other Persian king, Strm Kambys 400 is needless
and irrelevant. Nor is it needed to fix the reigns of Cambyses and
Cyrus, which can be more securely fixed by other texts.
(B-2) Potential “sources of errors” in the Babylonian
astronomical tablets
Attempting to further weaken the reliability of the astronomical
texts, Furuli, on pages 29–37, describes nine “potential sources of
error” that might undermine the trustworthiness of tablets that
conflict with his Oslo Chronology, such as VAT 4956. On closer
inspection, however, the supposed “sources of error” turn out to
be either (a) trivial and immaterial, (b) not applicable to the tablets
used for fixing the Neo-Babylonian and Persian chronology and
therefore irrelevant, or (c) mere figments of imagination. All of
Furuli’s “potential sources of errors” fall into one of these three
categories. Some examples are given below.
(B-2a) Trivial and immaterial sources of error:
An example of (a) is Furuli’s description of “the process of
writing down the data.” His discussion of this focuses on the
astronomical diary VAT 4956, dated to the 37th year of the reign
of Nebuchadnezzar. Furuli explains:
The tablet itself is a copy made a long time after the original was
made, but even the original was not made at the time the observations
were made. The tablet covers a whole year, and because clay hardly can
be kept moist for 12 months, the observations must have been written
down on quite a lot of smaller tablets, which were copied when the
original was made. (pp. 30, 31)
As far as the copying and compilation procedure is concerned,
Furuli’s description is correct and well known to Assyriologists.
Copying errors do exist, but they usually create few problems in
tablets that are fairly well preserved and detailed enough to be
89 ADT = Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia.
90 Communication H. Hunger to C. O. Jonsson, dated January 26, 2001.
Appendix 361
useful for chronological purposes. As discussed in chapter 4 of the

present work (p. 162 above), the dated lunar and planetary
positions recorded in VAT 4956 evidently contain a couple of
scribal errors. These errors, however, are minor and easily detected
by modem computations of the observations recorded.
Thus, on the obverse (front) side, line 3 has day “9”, which
already P. V. Neugebauer and E. F. Weidner pointed out is a
scribal error for day “8”.91 Similarly, obverse, line 14, has day “5”,
which is obviously an error for day “4”. The remaining legible
records of observed lunar and planetary positions, about 30, are
correct, as is demonstrated by modem calculations. In their recent
examination of VAT 4956, Professor F. R. Stephenson and Dr. D.
M. Willis conclude:
The observations analyzed here are sufficiently diverse and accurate
to enable the accepted date of the tablet i.e. 568–567 B.C.— to be
confidently confirmed.92
(B-2b) Inapplicable and therefore irrelevant “sources of
error”:
An example of (b) is Furuli’s reference to the gradual change in
the speed of the earth’s rotation. (p. 33) As is pointed out in the
present work (p. 334 above), this is no problem for the period
under discussion, as the rate of the decrease in the earth’s rotation
has been established back to, and even over a century beyond the
Neo-Babylonian period. From the middle of the 8th century B.C.E.
and on, therefore, we are on “safe ground” with respect to this
source of error.
(B-2c) Imaginary “source of error”, no. 1:
An example of (c) is Furuli’s reference to the supposed
“crudeness of observations” recorded on the astronomical tablets.
On page 32 he claims:
One problem is the crudeness of the observations. Because the
tablets probably were made for astrological reasons, it was enough to
know the zodiacal sign in which the moon or a certain planet was found
at a particular point of time. This does not give particularly accurate
observations.
By this statement Furuli creates a false impression that the lunar
and planetary positions recorded on the Babylonian astronomical
tablets are given only in relation to zodiacal signs of 30 degrees
each.
91 A translation and discussion of the tablet by Neugebauer & Weidner was published
in 1915. See above, p. 157, note 8.
92 F. R. Stephenson & D. M. Willis in J. M. Steele & A. Imhausen [eds.], Under One
Sky. Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East (Munster: Ugarit-Verlag,
2002), pp. 423–428. (Emphasis added)
He supports this by quoting a scholar, Curtis Wilson, who in a

review of a book by R. R. Newton made such a claim, stating that,
“The position of the planet is specified only within an interval of
30°.”93
But anyone with even a cursory acquaintance with the
Babylonian astronomical tablets knows that Wilson’s claim —
repeated by Furuli — is false. Although it is true that many
positions recorded on the tablets are given with reference to
constellations along the zodiacal belt, the great majority of the
positions, even in the earliest diaries, are given with reference to
stars or planets. The division of the zodiacal belt into signs of 30
degrees each took place later, during the Persian era, and it is not
until “toward the end of the 3rd century B.C.” that “diaries begin
to record the dates when a planet moved from one zodiacal sign to
another.”94 During the entire 800-year period from ca. 750 BCE to
ca. 75 CE the Babylonian astronomers used a number of stars close
to the ecliptic as reference points. As Professor Hermann Hunger
explains in a work also used by Furuli:
In order to give the position of the moon and the planets a number of
stars close to the ecliptic are used for reference. These have been called
“Normalsterne” [Normal Stars] by Epping, and the term has remained in
use ever since. (ADT, Vol. I, p. 17; emphasis added.)
On pages 17–19 of the same work, Hunger lists 32 such normal
stars known from the tablets. Noel Swerdlow states: “By far the
most numerous observations of planets in the Diaries are of their
distances ‘above’ or ‘below’ and ‘in front of’ or ‘behind’ normal
stars and each other, measured in cubits and fingers.95
Such detailed observations are shown by VAT 4956, in which
about two-thirds of the lunar and planetary positions recorded are
given in relation to normal stars and planets. And, in contrast to
positions related to constellations, where the moon or a planet
usually is just said to be “in front of,” “behind,” “above,” “below,”
or “in” a certain constellation, the records of positions related to
normal stars also give the distances to these stars in “cubits” (of ca.
22.5 degrees each) and “fingers” (1/24 of the cubit), as Swerdlow
points out. Although the measurements are demonstrably not
93 C. Wilson in Journal of the History of Astronomy 15:1 (1984), p. 40.
94 H. Hunger in N. M. Swerdlow [ed.], Ancient Astronomy and Celestial Divination
(London: The MIT Press, 1999), p. 77. Cf. B. L. Van der Waerden, “History of the
Zodiak,” Archiv fur Orientforschung 16 (1952/1953), pp. 216–230.
95 N. M. Swerdlow, The Babylonian Theory of the Planets (Princeton, New Jersey,
1998), p. 39.
Appendix 363
mathematically exact, they are considerably more precise than

positions related only to constellations.
By parsing all the astronomical diaries in the first two
volumes of Sachs/Hunger’s ADT, Professor Gerd Grasshoff
“obtained descriptions of 3285 events, of which 2781 are complete
without unreadable words or broken plates. Out of those are 1882
topographical events [i.e., positions related to stars and planets],
604 are lunar observations called Lunar Six . . . and 295 are
locations of a celestial object in a constellation.”96 Thus, two-thirds
of the positions are related to stars or planets, whereas only about
10 percent are related to constellations.
(B-2c) Imaginary “source of error”, no. 2:
Another example of (c) is Furuli’s claim that the 12,000-foot
mountain range to the east of Babylon might prevent or preclude
observations:
To the east of Babylon there is a mountain range rising to about
12,000 feet above sea level, while the area to the west of the city is a flat
desert. ... it is obvious that the high mountains to the east of Babylon
would prevent some observations. (p. 29)
But the Zagros mountains to the east of Babylon create no
serious problems. The higher parts of the range begin about 230
kilometers east of Babylon with Kuh-e Varzarin at about 9500 feet
above sea level. Mountains “about 12,000 feet above sea level” lie
considerably farther away. Due to the distance and the curvature of
the earth, the Zagros mountains are not visible from Babylon, at
least not from the ground, as can be testified by anyone who has
been there. Professor Hermann Hunger, for example, says:
I have been there [in Iraq], three years, of which two months were
spent in Babylon. There are no mountains visible from Babylon.97
It is possible, of course, that an observer atop the 90-meter-high
Etemenanki ziggurat in Babylon (if the observations could have
been made from there) could have seen a very thin, irregular line of
mountains far to the east, although this, too, is doubtful. This
might have affected the arcus visionis to some degree (the smallest
angular distance of the sun below the horizon at the first or last
96 Gerd Grasshoff, “Normal Stars in Late Astronomical Babylonian Diaries,” in Noel
M.Swerdlow [ed.], Ancient Astronomy and Celestial Divination (London: The MIT
Press, 1999), p. 107.
97 Communication Hunger to Jonsson December 4, 2003.
visibility of a heavenly body above the horizon), which in turn

could have changed the date of the first and last visibility of a
heavenly body by a day or two.
It should be emphasized that this might possibly be a problem
with astronomical texts that report only phenomena close to the
horizon. Observations of lunar and planetary positions related to
specific stars and constellations higher in the sky would not be
affected, and it is usually these that are the most useful for
chronological purposes. Most of the about 30 lunar and planetary
positions recorded on the astronomical tablet VAT 4956 belong to
this category.
None of Furuli’s “potential sources of error” weakens the
reliability of VAT 4956. I am aware of only one scholar who has
tried to overcome the evidence provided by this diary, namely, E.
W. Faulstich, founder and director of the Chronology-History
Research Institute in Spencer, Iowa, USA. Faulstich believes it is
possible to establish an absolute Bible chronology without the aid
of extra-Biblical sources, based solely on the cyclical phenomena of
the Mosaic law (sabbath days, sabbath and jubilee years) and the
cycle of the 24 sections of the levitical priesthood. One
consequence of his theory is that the whole Neo-Babylonian period
has to be moved backward one year. Because this conflicts with the
absolute dating of the period based on the astronomical tablets,
Faulstich argues that VAT 4956 contains information from two
separate years mixed into one. This idea, however, is based on
serious mistakes. I have thoroughly refuted Faulstich’s thesis in the
unpublished article, “A critique of E. W. Faulstich’s Neo-
Babylonian chronology” (1999), available from me upon request.
(C) Are most astronomical positions calculated rather
than observed?
The “most acute problem for making an absolute chronology
based on astronomica1 tablets,” Furuli claims, is that many,
“perhaps most positions of the heavenly bodies on such tablets, are
calculated rather than observed.” (p. 15) Is this true?
As discussed in chapter 4 of the present work (pp. 154–156
above), Babylonian astronomers at an early stage were able to
predict certain astronomical phenomena, such as the occurrences
of lunar eclipses and certain planetary positions. These calculations
presuppose that they had worked out theories for dating and
locating such phenomena. In fact, about 300 texts have been found
Appendix 365
containing lists of lunar and planetary positions at regular intervals.

(See above, p. 156.) Such arithmetical tables were termed
“ephemerides” by Professor Otto Neugebauer, who published all
extant tablets of this kind in his three-volume work, Astronomical
Cuneiform Texts (1955). All these tablets are late, almost all dating
from the 3rd to the 1st centuries B.C.E.
Does this mean, then, that all or most of the phenomena
recorded on the astronomical tablets might have been computed
rather than observed, as Furuli claims? Were the Babylonian
astronomers able to do this? Are there indications in the recorded
data that they did just that?
(C-.1) Phenomena the Babylonian astronomers were
unable to calculate
Although the Babylonian astronomers were able to calculate
and predict certain astronomical events, the observational texts —
diaries, planetary texts, and eclipse texts — contain reports of
several phenomena and circumstances connected with the
observations that could not have been calculated.
That the diaries usually record real observations is shown by their
reports of climatological phenomena. For example, the scribes
repeatedly report when bad weather prevented astronomical
observations. We often find reports about “clouds and rain of
various sorts, described in detail by numerous technical terms, as
well as fog, mist, hail, thunder, lightning, winds from all directions,
often cold, and frequent ‘pisan dib’, of unknown meaning but always
associated with rain.”98 Other recorded phenomena were rainbows,
solar halos and river levels. None of these could have been
retrocalculated much later. What, then, about the astronomical
phenomena?
As discussed in chapter 4 of the present work (p. 185 above),
there were a number of planetary phenomena recorded in the texts
that the Babylonian astronomers were unable to calculate. These
included conjunctions of planets with the moon and other planets,
with their distances. VAT 4956 records a number of such — for
the Babylonian astronomers — unpredictable and incalculable
phenomena.
With respect to lunar eclipses, the Babylonian astronomers were
certainly able to predict and retrocalculate the occurrences of lunar
98 N. M. Swerdlow, The Babylonian Theory of the Planets (1998), p. 18.
eclipses, but they were unable to predict or calculate a number of

important details about them. (See above, p. 185.) This has been
discussed in detail by Dr. John M. Steele.99 Commenting on the
claim that the eclipse records on the lunar eclipse tablets might be
retrocalculations by Babylonian astronomers in the Seleucid era,
Steele explains:
You were absolutely right when you argued that the Babylonians
could not have retrocalculated the early eclipse records. The Saros cycle
could have been used to determine the date of eclipses, even centuries
earlier, but none of the Babylonian methods could have allowed them to
calculate circumstances such as the direction of the eclipse shadow, the
visibility of planets during the eclipse, . . .
Although the Babylonians could calculate the time of the eclipses,
they could not do so to the same level of accuracy as they could observe
— there is a clear difference of accuracy between eclipses they said were
observed and those they say were predicted (this is discussed in my
book), which proves that the “observed” eclipses really were
observed.100
(C-2) Most of the contents of the observational texts are
observations
Although the observational texts, due to particular
circumstances such as bad weather, occasionally contain calculated
events , most of the entries are demonstrably based on actual
observations. That this is the case with the Diaries is directly
indicated by the Akkadian name engraved at the end and on the
edges of these tablets: natsaru sha ginê, which means “regular
watching.” (ADT, Vol. I, p. 11)
Scholars who have examined these tablets in detail agree that
they contain mostly genuine observations. Professor Hermann
Hunger gives the following description of the various kinds of
astronomical data recorded in the Diaries:
Lunar Six [i.e., the time differences between the settings and risings
of the sun and the moon just before and after conjunction and
opposition]; planetary phases, like first and last visibility . . . conjunctions
between planets and the so-called Normal Stars . . . eclipses; solstices and
equinoxes; phenomena of Sirius. Toward the end of the 3rd century
99 John M. Steele, Observations and Predictions of Eclipse Times by Early
Astronomers (Dortrecht-Boston-London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000); also
in his article, “Eclipse Prediction in Mesopotamia,” Archive for History of Exact
Sciences, Vol. 54 (2000), pp. 421–454.
100 Communication Steele to Jonsson, March 27, 2003.
Appendix 367
B.C., Diaries begin to record the dates when a planet moved from one
zodiacal sign into another. The rest of the Diaries’ contents is non-
astronomical.
Hunger adds:
Almost all of these items are observations. Exceptions are the solstices,
equinoxes, and Sirius data, which were computed according to a scheme
. . . furthermore, in many instances when Lunar Sixes, lunar or solar
eclipses, or planetary phases could not be observed, a date or time is
nevertheless given, marked as not observed. Expected passings of
Normal Stars by the moon are sometimes recorded as missed because of
bad weather, but never is a distance between moon and Normal Star
given as computed.101
In summary, Furuli’s claim that “perhaps most positions of the
heavenly bodies on such tablets, are calculated rather than
observed” is groundless. It is refuted by statements in the tablets
themselves and by the fact that they contain data that the
Babylonians were unable to calculate. These circumstances are
diametrically opposed to the suggestion that the data in the
astronomical diary VAT 4956 might have been calculated later so
that possibly “there never was an ‘original tablet’.” (Furuli, p. 30)
(C-3) A theory of desperation
If the entries on the observational tablets — diaries, and lunar
and planetary tablets — record mostly demonstrably genuine
observations, and if the Babylonian astronomers were unable to
compute and retrocalculate many of the astronomical and other
data reported, how, then, is it possible for anyone to wriggle out of
the evidence provided by these tablets?
Because the tablets often contain so many detailed observations
dated to specific regnal years that they can be safely fixed to
particular Julian years, the only escape is to question the
authenticity of the regnal year numbers found on the tablets.
This is what Furuli does. He imagines that “a scribe could sit
down in the 2nd century and make a tablet partly of some
phenomena covering many years, partly on the basis of theory (the
three schemes) and partly on the basis of tablets from a library”
that might show real observations. Then, upon discovery that the
dates on the library tablets conflicted with the theoretical data,
“these erroneous data could be used to ‘correct’ the correct data of
101 H. Hunger in Swerdlow (ed.), Ancient Astronomy and Celestial Divination (1999),
pp. 77, 78. (Emphasis added)
his library tablet, to the effect that the tablet he was making would
contain wrong data of regnal years:’ (Furuli,p.41)
Furuli indicates that not only the dates on the lunar and
planetary tablets but also the dates on the diaries might have been
tampered with by the Seleucid scholars in the same way. Referring
again to the fact that the earliest extant diaries are copies, he says:
But what about the regnal year(s) of a king that are written on such
tablets? Have they been calibrated to fit an incorrect theoretical
chronological scheme, or have they been copied correctly? (Furuli, p. 42)
Furuli realizes, of course, that his Oslo Chronology is
thoroughly contradicted by the Babylonian astronomical tablets.
That is the reason he proposes, as a last frantic resort, the theory
that these tablets might have been redated by Seleucid scholars to
bring them into agreement with their own supposed theoretical
chronology for earlier times. Is this scenario likely? What does it
imply?
(C-4) The scale of the supposed Seleucid chronological
revisions
To what extent does Furuli’s Oslo Chronology differ from the
traditional chronology? In a chronological table on pages 219–225
covering the 208 years of the Persian era (539–331 BCE), Furuli
shows, reign by reign, the difference between his chronology and
the traditional one. It turns out that the only agreement between
the two is the dating of the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses — the
period from the fall of Babylon (539 BCE) to 522 BCE, a period of
17 years. By giving the usurper Bardiya one full year of reign after
Cambyses, Furuli moves the whole 36-year reign of Darius I one
year forward. Then he moves the reigns of Darius’ successors
Xerxes and Artaxerxes I 10 years backward by adding 10 years to
the reign of the latter, creating a coregency of 11 years between
Darius I and Xerxes.
But Furuli also assigns a one-year reign to the usurper Sogdianus
between Artaxerxes I and his successor Darius II. The effect of this
is that the remaining reigns up to 331 BCE are all moved one year
forward. The end result is that Furuli’s Oslo Chronology is at
variance with the traditional chronology for the Persian era for 191
of its 208 years, or for 92 percent of the period.
But this is not all. As mentioned in the introduction, Furuli
wants to add 20 extra years to the Neo-Babylonian period
somewhere after the reign of Nebuchadnezzar — between 562
and 539 BCE. The effect of this — what Furuli calls the “domino
Appendix 369
effect” — is that not only the reign of Nebuchadnezzar but all the
reigns of his predecessors are moved backward 20 years.
Because the Babylonian astronomical archive starts with the
reign of Nabonassar, 747–734 BCE, Furuli’s Oslo Chronology is at
variance with the traditional chronology for most, if not the whole,
of the Babylonian era from 747 to 539 BCE. This means that the
disagreement between the two runs to more than 90 percent of the
416-year period from 747 to 331 BCE. This also means that the
Oslo Chronology is contradicted by more than 90 percent of the
astronomical observational texts — diaries, eclipse texts, and
planetary texts — dated to this period. Because these tablets record
thousands of observations dated to particular regnal years, months,
and days within this period, we begin to get some idea of the scale
of the chronologica1 revisions the Seleucid scholars must have
engaged in — according to Furuli’s theory. Yet, this is only a
fraction of the full scope of the necessary revisions.
(C-5) The scope of the original astronomical archive
It should be kept in mind that the extant archive of ca. 1300
nonmathematical and principally observational astronomical
cuneiform tablets is only a fraction of the scope of the original
archive available to the Seleucid scholars. In a lecture held at a
conference in 1994, Professor Hunger explained:
To give you an idea of how much was originally contained in that
archive, and how much is still preserved, I made a few rough estimates.
From well preserved Diaries, I found that in each month about 15 lunar
and 5 planetary positions, both in relation to Normal Stars, are reported.
Also, every month the so-called lunar Six are recorded. Each year will in
addition contain 3 Sirius phases, 2 solstices and 2 equinoxes, at 1east 4
eclipse possibilities or eclipses, and about 25 planetary phases. Together,
this results in about 350 astronomical observations per year. In 600
years, 210,000 observations are accumulated. Now I do not know
whether the archive was ever complete to this extent. Sometimes copies
of older Diaries indicate that things were missing in the original. But on
the whole, this is the order of magnitude. By counting the number of
reasonably (i.e., not completely, but more than half) preserved months, I
arrived at ca. 400 months preserved in dated Diaries (undated fragments
do not help for the purposes of this lecture). If we compare this to a
duration of 600 years for the archive, we see that we have preserved ca. 5%
of the months in Diaries.102
102 H. Hunger in Swerdlow (ed.), Ancient Astronomy and Celestial Divination (1999),
p. 82. (Emphasis added)
If only five percent of the original Babylonian astronomical archive

is preserved today, the scale of the chronological revisions Furuli
thinks Seleucid copyists engaged in becomes apparent. To bring
their whole archive into harmony with their supposed theoretical
chronology, they would have had to redate thousands of tablets
and tens of thousands of observations. Is it likely that they believed
so strongly in a supposed theoretical chronology that they bothered
to redate four centuries’ worth of archives containing thousands of
tablets? The idea is patently absurd, asinine.
We can also ask why the Seleucid scholars would work out a
theoretical chronology for earlier centuries when a reliable
chronology for the whole period back to the middle of the 8th
century could easily be extracted from the extensive astronomical
archive at their disposal. Is it not much more realistic to conclude
that their chronology was exactly the one found in the inherited
archive of tablets, an archive that had been studied and expanded
by successive generations of scholars up to and including their
own?
It should be noted that, to make any claims at all about dates in
his Oslo chronology, Furuli must rely on the dating of the tablets
that the Seleucids supposedly revised. But if one assumes that his
chronology is valid, then so must be the dates recorded on the
tablets — which destroys his claim that the Seleucids revised the
tablets. Thus, Furuli’s argument is internally inconsistent and
cannot be correct.
Another problem is what became of the original pre-Seleucid
tablets. A necessary consequence of Furuli’s theory is that almost
all extant tablets should reflect only the erroneous theoretical
chronology of the Seleucid scholars, not what Furuli regards as the
original and true chronology — the Oslo Chronology. In his view,
therefore, all or almost all extant tablets can only be the late revised
copies of the Seleucid scholars. Thus, on page 64, he claims:
As in the case of the astronomica1 diaries on clay tablets, we do not
have the autographs of the Biblical books, but only copies.
This is certainly true of the Biblical books, but is it true of the
astronomical diaries? Is there any evidence to show that all the
astronomical tablets preserved today are only copies from the
Seleucid era?
Appendix 371
(C-6) Are all extant tablets late copies from the Seleucid
era?
It is certainly true that some of the earliest diaries, including
VAT 4956, are later copies. As discussed in chapter 4 of the
present work, they frequently reflect the struggle of the copyist to
understand the ancient documents they were copying, some of
which were broken or otherwise damaged. Twice in the text of
VAT 4956, for example, the copyist added the comment “broken
off,” indicating he was unable to decipher some word in the
original. Often the documents used archaic terminology that the
copyists tried to modernize. What about diaries from later times?
As an example, there are about 25 diaries from the 46-year reign
of Artaxerxes II (404–358 B.C.E.), 11 of which not only preserve
the dates (year, month, day) but also the name of the king. (ADT,
Vol. I, pp. 66–141) Some of them are extensive and contain
numerous observations (e.g., nos. –372 and –366). None of these
tablets show any of the above-mentioned signs of being later
copies. Is it likely, then, that they, or at least some of them, are
originals?
This question was sent to Professor Hunger a few years ago. He
answered:
In my opinion, the diaries from the time of Artaxerxes II can all be
from his reign. You know that the larger diaries are all copies in the
sense that they are collections of smaller tablets which covered shorter
periods. But that does not mean that they were copied much later. To
me it would make most sense if after every half a year the notes were
copied into one nice exemplar. I had a quick look through the edition
and did not find any remarks like ‘broken” which are an indication that
the scribe copied an older original. So I would answer your question “is
it likely” by “Yes”.103
These tablets, therefore, do not reflect any “theoretical
chronology” supposedly invented by the later Seleucid scholars.
The tablets might very well be original documents. We cannot take
it for granted that they are late copies from the Seleucid era. And
the same holds true, not only for the diaries from the reign of
Artaxerxes II but for most of the observational tablets dating from
before the Seleucid era. Even if some of the diaries and other
tablets dated to the earliest centuries are later copies, it is usually
not known how late these copies are, or whether they were copied
in the Seleucid period or earlier.
103 Communication Hunger to Jonsson, January 26, 2001.
In conclusion, the theory that Seleucid scholars worked out an

erroneous hypothetical chronology for earlier times that they
systematically embodied into the astronomical tablets they were
copying cannot be supported by the available facts. It is not based
on historical reality and is a desperate attempt to save cherished but
false dates.
(D) Unfounded claims about the Biblical 70 years
As is discussed in chapter 5 of the present work, the prophet
Jeremiah directly applies the 70 years to the length of Babylon’s
dominion over the nations, not to the length of the desolation of Jerusa-
lem and the Jewish exile:
. . . these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.
(Jeremiah 25:11, NIV)
When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come back to
you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place.
(Jeremiah 29:10, NIV)
These texts clearly apply the 70-year period to Babylon, not to
Jerusalem. Quoting the above NIV rendering of the two verses,
Furuli even admits this, stating that “the text does not say explicitly
that it refers to an exile for the Jewish nation. If we make a
grammatical analysis in 25:11, we find that ‘these nations’ is the
grammatical subject, and in 29:10, ‘Babylon’ is the patient, that is,
the nation that should experience the period of 70 years.” (p. 75)
(D-1) Is Furuli’s view of the 70 years really supported by
Daniel and the Chronicler?
Attempting to evade this undesirable conclusion, Furuli turns to
the 70-year passages at Daniel 9:2 and 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21,
stating that “the writers of Daniel and 2 Chronicles understood the
words of Jeremiah to imply a 70-year exile for the Jewish nation.”
After quoting the NIV for these two texts, he claims:
As the analysis below shows, the words of Daniel and the Chronicler
are unambiguous. They show definitely that Daniel and the Chronicler
understood Jeremiah to prophesy about a 70-year period for the Jewish
people when the land was desolate. (p. 76)
The discussion of the two passages in chapter 5 above (pp. 215-
225) shows this claim to be groundless. Both passages may easily
be harmonized with the clear statements of Jeremiah.
Appendix 373
Although Daniel links or ties the 70 years to the desolate state of

Jerusalem, this does not mean that he equated the two periods. To
link and to equate are two different things. This was noticed, for
example, by Dr. C. F. Keil, who in his grammatical analysis of
Daniel 9:2 concluded that Daniel connected and yet distinguished
the two periods, just as is done in Jeremiah’s prophecy. Only after
the completion of the 70 years “for Babylon,” JHWH would visit
the Jewish exiles and bring them back to Jerusalem to end its
period of desolation. This is what had been predicted at Jeremiah
29:10, and Daniel’s statement fully agrees with this, according to
Keil. (See above, p. 219, note 31.)104
In his discussion of 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21 Furuli ignores verse
20 and quotes only verse 21:
to fulfill Jehovah’s words by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the land had
paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolate it kept sabbath, to
fulfill seventy years.
It may be noted that this verse starts with a subordinate clause
and, more specifically, with a purpose clause: to fulfill . . . . Furuli
quotes the verse out of context. To know what event would fulfill
“Jehovah’s words by the mouth of Jeremiah,” it is necessary to
examine the main or principal clause, which is found in verse 20.
This verse says:
Furthermore, he [Nebuchadnezzar] carried off those remaining from
the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and his sons
until the royalty of Persia began to reign;
The Chronicler states that the service to the kings of
Babylon ended when “the royalty of Persia began to reign.” This
event took place, he goes on to say in the next verse (21), “to fulfill
Jehovah’s words by the mouth of Jeremiah, . . . to fulfill seventy
years.”
The obvious meaning is that the cessation of the servitude
under Babylon by the Persian takeover in 539 BCE fulfilled the 70-
year prophecy of Jeremiah. The Chronicler does not reinterpret
Jeremiah’s statements to mean 70 years of desolation for Jerusalem,
as Furuli claims. On the contrary, he sticks very closely to
Jeremiah’s description of the 70 years as a period of servitude
under Babylon, and he ends this period with the fall of Babylon,
104 The rather free Bible translation by Eugene H. Peterson well expresses the
distinction made in Jeremiah 29:10 between the end of the two periods, the 70
years for Babylon and Jerusalem’s period of desolation: “As soon as Babylon’s
seventy years are up and not a day before, I’ll show up and take care of you as I
have promised and bring you back home.” (The Message. The Prophets, 2000, p.
230)
exactly as Jeremiah had predicted at Jeremiah 25:12 and 27:7. (See

chapter 5 above, pp. 220, 221.)
(D-2) Jeremiah 25:9–12: 70 years of servitude — for
whom?
Returning to Jeremiah’s prophecy, Furuli first focuses on Jeremiah
25:11, which says:
And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of
astonishment, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.
(NIV)
As was pointed out earlier, Furuli starts his discussion of the 70-
year prophecy by admitting that Jeremiah applies the 70 years to
Babylon, not to Jerusalem. Having concluded (falsely, as has been
shown above and in chapter 5) that Daniel 9:2 and 2 Chronicles
36:21 unambiguously state that Judah and Jerusalem lay desolate
for 70 years, Furuli realizes that the meaning of Jeremiah 25:11 has
to be changed to be brought into agreement with his conclusion.
The clause “these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy
years” is very clear in Hebrew:
weâbdû haggôyîm hâêlleh et-melech bâbel shivîm
shânâh
and-will-serve-they the-nations these king [of] Babel
seventy year[s]
As Furuli points out (p. 82), the particle et before melech bâbel
(”king of Babel”) is a marker indicating that melech bâbel is the
object. The word order is typical in Hebrew: verb-subject-object.
There are no grammatical problems with the clause. It simply and
unambiguously says that “these nations will serve the king of Babel
seventy years.” Furuli, too, admits that “this is the most natural
translation.” (p. 84) How, then, can Furuli force it to say something
else?
Furuli first claims that “the subject (‘these nations’) is vague and
unspecified” Actually, it is not. It simply refers back to “all these
nations round about” referred to in verse 9. Furuli goes on to state
that the subject in the clause might not be “these nations” in verse
11 but “this land” (Judah) and “its inhabitants” in verse 9. Verse
11, therefore, really says that it is only the inhabitants of Judah, not
“these nations,” that will serve the king of Babylon 70 years. How,
then, is the occurrence of “these nations” in the clause to be
explained? Furuli suggests that they might be part of the object,
Appendix 375
the king of Babel, who “would be a specification of” these nations.

The clause could then be translated:
and they will serve these nations, the king of Babel, seventy years (p.
84)
Furuli also suggests that the particle et might not here be used as
an object marker but as a preposition with the meaning “with.”
Based on this explanation, the clause could even be translated:
and they will serve these nations together with the king of Babel seventy
years (p. 84)
These reconstructions are not supported by any Bible
translations. Not only are they far-fetched, they are refuted by the
wider context. The prediction that the nations surrounding Judah
would serve the king of Babylon is repeated in Jeremiah 27:7 in a
way that is impossible to misunderstand:
And all the nations must serve him and his son and his grandson until the
time even of his own land comes.
The immediate context of the verse proves conclusively that
“the nations” referred to include all the non-Jewish nations in the
Near East. Furuli’s linguistic acrobatics, therefore, are unnecessary,
mistaken, and a case of special pleading.
Furuli’s far-fetched and forced reconstruction of the verse
seems to be an attempt to bring it in agreement with the wording
of the Septuagint version (LXX), to which he then refers in
support. (p. 84) Some of the problems with the LXX version of
Jeremiah are discussed in chapter 5 above, ftn. 8 on pp. 195, 196.
(D-3) Jeremiah 29:10: The meaning of the 70 years for
Babylon
Jeremiah 29:10 is discussed in chapter 5 above, pp. 209–214.
The verse explicitly states that the 70 years refer to Babylon, not
Jerusalem:
This is what the LORD says: ‘When seventy years are
completed for Babylon [lebâbel] I will come to you and fulfill my
gracious promise to bring you back to this place’ [i.e., to
Jerusalem]. (NIV)
Furuli notes that most Bible translations render the preposition
le as “to” or “for” and that only a very few (usually older)
translations render it as “at” or “in.” (Furuli, p.85) Of the latter, he
mentions six: NWT, KJV , Harkavy, Spurrell, Lamsa, and the
Swedish Church Bible of 1917.
Alexander Harkavy’s edition from 1939 contains the Hebrew
text together with an English translation. Furuli does not seem to
have noticed that Harkavy states in the preface that the English
text is that of the Authorized Version, that is, the KJV. George
Lamsa’s translation has been strongly criticized because of its heavy
dependence on the KJV. Also in Jeremiah, chapter 29, he almost
slavishly follows KJV. His “at Babylon,” therefore, means nothing.
I have not been able to check Helen Spurrell’s translation. It was
published in London in 1885, not 1985, as Furuli’s Bibliography
erroneously shows, so it is not a modem translation.
The Swedish Church Bible of 1917 has recently been “replaced”
by two new translations, Bibel-2000 and Folkbibeln (1998). Both
have “for Babylon” at Jeremiah 29:10. In answer to my questions,
the translators of both translations emphasized that lebâbel at
Jeremiah 29:10 means “for Babylon” not “at” or “in” Babylon.
Remarkably, even the new revised Swedish edition of the NWT has
changed the earlier “in Babylon” (Swedish “i Babylon”) in the 1992
edition to “for Babylon” (Swedish: “för Babylon”) in the 2003
edition. (See above, p. 211, ftn. 26)
Because the rendering “for Babylon” contradicts the theory that
the 70 years refer to the period of Jerusalem’s desolation, Furuli
needs to defend the notably infrequent rendering “at” or “in”
Babylon. He even claims that the preposition “for” gives the 70
years “a fuzzy meaning:”
If “for” is chosen, the result is fuzziness, because the number 70
then loses all specific meaning. There is no particular event marking
their beginning nor their end, and the focus is wrong as well, because it
is on Babylon rather than on the Jews. (p. 86)
This is an incredible statement and another example of Furuli’s
special pleading. It is difficult to believe that Furuli is totally
ignorant of the fact that both the beginning and the end of
Babylon’s supremacy in the Near East were marked by
revolutionary events — the beginning by the final crushing of the
Assyrian empire and the end by the fall of Babylon itself in 539
BCE. Surely he must know that, according to secular chronology,
exactly 70 years passed between these two events. Modern
authorities on the history of this period agree that the definite end
of Assyria occurred in 610/609 BCE. In the box on page 234 of
chapter 5 above, for example, four leading scholars are quoted to
this effect: viz. Professor John Bright and three leading
Assyriologists, Donald J. Wiseman, M. A. Dandamaev, and Stefan
Zawadski. It would be easy to multiply the number. Another
example is Professor Klas R.Veenhof. He describes how the last
Appendix 377
king of Assyria, Assuruballit II, after the destruction of the capital

Nineveh in 612 BCE, retreated to the provincia1 capital Harran,
the last Assyrian stronghold, where he succeeded in holding out for
another three years, supported by Egypt. Veenhof writes:
It was to no advantage that Egypt supported Assyria; the Babylonian
and Median armies took the city in 610 B.C., and in the following year
[609] they warded off their last defensive attempt. Therewith a great
empire was dissolved.105
The same historical information is given by Professor Jack
Finegan on page 252 (§430) in the new revised edition of his well-
known Handbook of Biblical Chronology. Quoting Jeremiah 29:10 he
concludes:
The “seventy years . . . for Babylon,” of which Jeremiah speaks are
therefore the seventy years of Babylonian rule, and the return of Judah
from exile is contingent upon the end of that period. Since the final fall
of the Assyrian empire was in 609 B.C. (§430), and the New Babylonian
empire endured from then until Cyrus the Persian took Babylon in 539,
the period of Babylonian domination was in fact seventy years (609 —
539 = 70).106
Certainly, no one acquainted with Neo-Babylonian history can
honestly claim that the 70 years “for Babylon” have a “fuzzy
meaning” because no particular events mark the beginning and end
of the period.
(D-4) Jeremiah 29:10: The Septuagint and Vulgate
versions
Furuli next points out that “the Septuagint has the dative form
babylôni” but with “the most natural meaning being ‘at Babylon’.”
The statement reveals a surprising ignorance of ancient Greek. As
every Greek scholar will point out, the natural meaning of the
dative form babylôni is “for Babylon.” It is an exact, literal
translation of the original Hebrew l ebâbel, which definitely means
“for Babel” in this text, as discussed on pp. 213, 214 above. True,
at Jeremiah 29:22 (LXX 36:22) the dative form babylôni is used in
the local sense, “in Babel,” but it gets this sense only because of the
preceding Greek preposition en, “in”:
And from them a malediction will certainly be taken on the part of
the entire body of exiles of Judah that is in Babylon (en babylôni)
Furuli further refers to the rendering of the Latin Vulgate, in
Babylon, which means, as he correctly explains, “in Babylon.” This
105 Klas R. Veenhof, Geschichte des Alten Orients bis zur Zeit Alexanders des Grossen
(Göttingen, 2001), pp. 275, 276. (Translated from German)
106 Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson
Publishers, 1998), p. 255.
translation most probably influenced the KJV of 1611, which in

turn has influenced several other earlier translations. The point is
that all translations derived from or influenced by the Vulgate, such
as the KJV, are not independent sources.
(D-5) Jeremiah 29:10: The Hebrew preposition le (lamed)
The preposition le is the most common preposition in the
Hebrew Old Testament. According to a recent count, it occurs
20,725 times, 1352 of which are found in the book of Jeremiah.107
What does it mean at Jeremiah 29:10? Since the first edition of the
present work was published in 1983, this question has been asked
of dozens of qualified Hebraists around the world. I contacted
some and so did some of my correspondents. Although some of
the Hebraists explained that le in a few expressions has a local sense
(“in, at”), in most cases it does not, and they unanimously reject
this meaning at Jeremiah 29:10. Some of them are quoted in
chapter 5 above, pp. 213, 214.
Furuli disagrees with their view. He believes that because le is
used in a local sense in some expressions at a few places it is likely
used in this sense also in Jeremiah 29:10. He argues:
Can it really be used in the local sense “at”? It certainly can, and The
Dictionary of Classical Hebrew lists about 30 examples of this meaning, one
of which is Numbers 11:10, “each man at (le) the entrance of his tent”.
So, in each case when le is used, it is the context that must decide its
meaning. For example, in Jeremiah 51:2 the phrase lebâbel means “to
Babylon”, because the preceding verb is “to send”. But lirûshâlâm [the
letters li at the beginning of the word is a contraction of le+yod] in
Jeremiah 3:17 in the clause, “all the nations will gather in Jerusalem” has
the local meaning “in Jerusalem”, and the same is true with the phrase
lîhûdâ in Jeremiah 40:11 in the clause, “the king of Babylon had left a
remnant in Judah”. (p. 86)
Well and good, but do these examples allow lebâbel at Jeremiah
29:10 to be translated “in” or “at Babylon”? Is this really a likely
translation? Is it even a possible one? This question was sent to
Professor Ernst Jenni in Basel, Switzerland, who is undoubtedly
the leading authority today on Hebrew prepositions. So far, he has
written three volumes on three of the most common Hebrew
prepositions, be (beth), ke (kaph), and le (lamed). In the volume on
107 Ernst Jenni, Die hebräischen Prepositionen. Band 3: Die Präposition Lamed
(Stuttgart, etc.: Verlag Kohlhammer, 2000), p. 17.
Appendix 379
le (lamed) he devotes 350 pages to the examination of this

preposition.108 His answer of October 1, 2003, quoted on page 214
above, is worth repeating here:
My treatment of this passage is found in the Lamed-book p. 109
(heading 4363). The rendering in all modem commentaries and
translations is “for Babel” (Babel as world power, not city or land); this
is clear from the language as well as also from the context.
By the “local meaning” a distinction is to be made between where?
(“in, at”) and where to? (local directional “to, towards”). The basic
meaning of l is “with reference to”, and with a following local
specification it can be understood as local or local-directional only in
certain adverbial expressions (e.g., Num. 11,10 [Clines DCH IV, 481b] “at
the entrance”, cf. Lamed pp. 256, 260, heading 8151). At Jer. 51,2 l is a
personal dative (”and send to Babel [as personified world power]
winnowers, who will winnow it and empty its land” (Lamed pp. 84f.,
94)). On Jer. 3,17 “to Jerusalem” (local terminative), everything
necessary is in Lamed pp. 256, 270 and ZAH 1, 1988, 107–111.
On the translations: LXX has with babylôni unambiguously a dative
(”for Babylon”). Only Vulgata has, to be sure, in Babylon, “in Babylon”,
thus King James Version “at Babylon”, and so probably also the New
World Translation.
I hope to have served you with these informations and remain with
kind regards,
E. Jenni.
[Translated from the German. Emphasis added.]
In view of this specific and authoritative information, Furuli’s
arguments for a local meaning of le at Jeremiah 29:10 can be safely
dismissed.
(D-6) What about the 70 years at Zechariah 1:12 and 7:5?
That the 70-year texts at Zechariah 1:12 and 7:5 refer to a period
different from the one in Jeremiah, Daniel, and 2 Chronicles is
demonstrated in detail in chapter 5 above, pp. 225–229. There is
no need to repeat the argumentation here. Furuli’s attempt to
equate the 70 years in Zechariah with the 70 years of Jeremiah,
Daniel, and the Chronicler evades the real problem.
According to Zechariah 1:12, Jerusalem and the cities of Judah
had been denounced for “these seventy years.” If this denunciation
108 Ernst Jenni, ibid.
ended when the Jews returned from the exile after the fall of
Babylon, as Furuli holds, why does our text show that the cities still
were being denounced in the second year of Darius, 520/519
BCE? Furuli has no explanation for this, and he prefers not to
comment on the problem.
The same holds true of Zechariah 7:4,5. How can the 70 years
of fasting have ended in 537 BCE, as Furuli claims, when our text
clearly shows that these fasts were still being held in the fourth year
of Darius, 518/517 BCE? Furuli again ignores the problem. He just
refers to the fact that the Hebrew verbs for “denounce,” “fast,”
and “mourn” are all in the Hebrew perfect, stating that, “There is
nothing in the verbs themselves which demands that the 70 years
were still continuing at speech time.” (p. 88) True, but they do not
demand the opposite, either. The verb forms in the passage prove
nothing.
But the context does. It clearly shows that the cities were still
being denounced “at speech time,” in 519 BCE, and that the fasts
were still being held “at speech time,” in 517 BCE, about 70 years
after the siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 589–587 BCE. That
is why this question was raised in 519 BCE: Why is Jehovah still
angry at Jerusalem and the cities? (Zechariah 1:7–12) And that is
also why this question was raised in 517 BCE: Shall we continue to
hold these fasts? (Zechariah 7:1–12) Furuli’s interpretation (which
echoes the Watchtower Society’s) implies that the denunciation of
the cities and the keeping of the fasts had been going on for about
90 — not 70 — years, directly contradicting the statements in the
book of Zechariah.
Summary
In this review of Furuli’s book, we have seen a number of
insurmountable difficulties that his Oslo Chronology creates not
only with respect to the extra-Biblical historical sources but also
with the Bible itself.
The amount of evidence against Furuli’s revised chronology
provided by the cuneiform documents — in particular the
astronomical tablets — is enormous. Furuli’s attempts to explain
away this evidence are of no avail. His idea that most, if not all, of
the astronomical data recorded on the tablets might have been
retrocalculated in a later period is demonstrably false. Furuli’s final,
desperate theory that the Seleucid astronomers — and there were
many — systematically redated almost the whole astronomical
archive inherited from earlier generations of scholars is divorced
from reality.
Appendix 381
With respect to the Biblical passages on the 70 years, we have

seen to what extremes Furuli has been forced to go in his attempts
to bring them in agreement with his theory. He has been unable to
prove his repeated claim that the 70-year passages in Daniel and 2
Chronicles unambiguously state that Jerusalem was desolate for 70
years. His linguistic interpretation of 2 Chronicles 36:21 is
misconstrued because he ignores the main clause in verse 20, which
plainly makes the servitude end at the Persian conquest of Babylon
in 539 BCE. Furuli’s linguistic rerenderings of the passages in
Jeremiah are no better. To reconcile Jeremiah 25:11 with his
theory, he admits that he must discard “the most natural
translation” of the verse. And to bring Jeremiah 29:10 into
agreement with his theory, he must reject the near-universal
rendering “for Babylon” in favor of the unsupportable “in
Babylon” or “at Babylon” — translations rejected by all competent
modern Hebraists.
Furuli’s approach, then, is not Biblical as he claims, but sectarian.
As a conservative Jehovah’s Witness scholar, he is prepared to go
to any length to force the Biblical passages and the historical
sources into agreement with the Watchtower Society’s Gentile
times chronology — a chronology that is the foundation
cornerstone of the movement’s claim to God-given authority. As I
have amply documented in this review, this sectarian agenda forces
Furuli to fabulate more wildly than Sheherazade; the legendary
Persian queen and storyteller of One Thousand and One Nights.
THE 20TH YEAR OF ARTAXERXES
AND THE "SEVENTY WEEKS" OF DANIEL
The questions about the chronology of the reign of Artaxerxes I
and its supposed relation to the 70 weeks of Daniel 9:24–27 would
require a minor book to answer, and such a book is, in fact, what I
have been planning to write for some years. I have been collecting
material on the subject for many years, and in 1989 I even wrote a
brief draft in Swedish. Other projects, however, have occupied my
spare time since then, and I don’t expect to be able to resume the
work on the 70 weeks within the next few years. The following
discussion is an examination of the arguments brought forth by the
Watch Tower Bible & Tract Society in support of the idea that
Artaxerxes I acceeded to the throne in 475 BC, not in 465 BC as is
held by modern historians.
What follows is a brief summary of the Swedish paper on the
chronology of Artaxerxes’ reign.
1. Was Xerxes a coregent with his father Darius?
It is true that the Watch Tower Society attempts to solve the
problems created by their prolongation of Artaxerxes’ length reign
from 41 to 51 years (his accession being dated to 475 instead of
465 BC) by abbreviating the reign of his predecessor Xerxes (485–
465 BC) from 21 to 11 years, arguing that the first 10 years of
Xerxes’ rule was a co-rule with his father Darius.
There is not the slightest evidence in support of such a coregency.
The Watch Tower Society’s discussion on pages 614–616 of its
Bible dictionary Insight on the Scriptures, volume 2 (1988), is a
miserable distortion of the historical evidence. Thus, on page 615
they claim:
There is solid evidence for a coregency of Xerxes with his
father Darius. The Greek historian Herodotus (VII, 3) says:
"Darius judged his [Xerxes’] plea [for kingship] to be just and
declared him king. But to my thinking Xerxes would have been
made king even without this advice." This indicates that Xerxes
was made king during the reign of his father Darius.
If we look up Herodotus’ statement, however, we will discover that
he, in the very next few sentences, directly contradicts the Watch
Tower Society's claim that there was a ten year long coregency of
382
The 20th Year of Artaxerxes 383
Xerxes with Darius by stating that Darius died one year after this
appointment of Xerxes as his successor. Herodotus says:
Xerxes, then, was publicly proclaimed as next in succession to
the crown, and Darius was free to turn his attention to the
war. Death, however, cut him off before his preparations
were complete; he died in the year following this incident and
the Egyptian rebellion, after a reign of thirtysix years, and so
was robbed of his chance to punish either Egypt or the
Athenians. After his death the crown passed to his son
Xerxes.
What we find, then, is that Darius appointed Xerxes his successor
one year (not ten!) before his own death. Further, Herodotus does not say
that Darius appointed Xerxes his coregent, but his successor. (Note, for
instance, the wording of the passage quoted by the Watch Tower
Society in Aubrey de Sélincourt's translation in the Penguin Books).
In the preceding paragraphs, Herodotus explains that a common
rule among Persian kings before they went out to war was to
appoint their successors to the throne, in case they themselves
would be killed in the battles. This custom, he says, was also
followed by Darius.
The Watch Tower Society, then, quotes Herodotus completely out
of context, leaving out the subsequent sentences that refute their
claim. Incredibly, they introduce this forgery by terming it "solid
evidence"!
Other "solid evidence" presented in their Bible dictionary in
support of the coregency is of the same quality, for example the
bas-reliefs found in Persepolis, which Herzfeld in 1932 felt
indicated a coregency of Xerxes with Darius. (Insight 2, p. 615) This
idea, however, is dismissed by modern scholars. The very fact that
the crown prince is pictured as standing behind the throne shows that
he is not a king and a coregent, but an appointed successor.
Second, no names are found on the relief, and the conclusion that
the man on the throne is Darius and the crown prince is Xerxes is
nothing but a guess. J. M. Cook, in his work on the history of
Persia, argues that the crown prince is Artobazanes, the oldest son
of Darius. (Cook, The Persian Empire, New York 1983, p. 75) Other
modern scholars, such as A. B. Tilia and von Gall, have argued that
the king cannot be Darius but must be Xerxes, and that the crown
prince, therefore, is the son of Xerxes! (Cook, p. 242, ftn. 24)
E As "evidence from Babylonian sources" for the claimed

coregency the Watch Tower Society first refers to "a palace for
Xerxes" that was built in Babylon in 498–496 BC. But there is no
evidence to show that this palace was built "for Xerxes". J. M.
Cook refers to Herodotus’ statement that Xerxes was appointed
successor to the throne as late as one year before Darius’ death in
486 BC and adds:
If Herodotus is correct in this, the residence constructed for
the king’s son in Babylon in the early 490s must have been
intended for Artobazanes. (Cook, pp. 74, 75)
The palace, then, proves nothing about a coregency of Xerxes with
Darius.
The final "evidence" for the claimed coregency consists of two clay
tablets held to be dated in the accession year of Xerxes. According
to the Watch Tower Society both tablets are dated several months
before the last tablets dated in Darius’ final regnal year. (Insight 2, p.
615) This "overlapping" of the two reigns, it is argued, indicates a
coregency.
But either the Watch Tower Society conceals the real facts about
these two tablets, or they have done very poor research on the
matter. The first tablet, designated "A. 124" by Thompson in his
Catalogue from 1927, is not dated in the accession-year of Xerxes
(486/485), as Thompson indicated. This was a copying error by
Thompson. The tablet is actually dated in the first year of Xerxes
(485/484 BC). This was pointed out as far back as in 1941 by
George G. Cameron in The American Journal of Semitic Languages and
Literature, Vol. LVIII, p. 320, ftn. 33. Thus there was no
"overlapping" of the two reigns.
The second tablet, "VAT 4397", published as No. 634 by M. San
Nicolo and A. Ungnad in their work from 1934, was dated by them
to the fifth month ("Ab"). It should be noted, however, that the
authors put a question mark after the month name. The sign of the
month on the tablet is damaged and may be reconstructed in
several ways. In the more recent work by Parker and Dubberstein,
Babylonian Chronology, published in 1956, where the same tablet is
designated "VAS VI 177", the authors point out that the tablet "has
the month sign damaged. It might be IX [9] but more probably is
XII [12]." (Page 17) The original guess by Nicolo and Ungnad is
dropped altogether. As Darius died in the 7th month, a tablet

dated to the 9th or 12th month in the accession-year of his
successor is quite all right. There was no overlapping between the
two reigns.
2. The flight of Themistocles

Much has been made in the Watch Tower publications of
Themistocles’ flight to Persia. This argument is an old one,
originating with the Jesuit theologian Denis Petau (Petavius) and
archbishop James Ussher in the seventeenth century. It was
presented in great detail by E. W. Hengstenberg in his work
Christologie des Alten Testaments, published in Berlin in 1832.
According to the Greek historians Thycudides and Charon of
Lampsacus,
Artaxerxes was the king that Themistocles spoke with after his
arrival in Persia. The Watch Tower Society argues that
Themistocles died about 471/70 BC. Artaxerxes, therefore, must
have began his rule before that date and not as late as in 465 BC.
(Insight 2, p. 614) These arguments have a superficial strength, only
because the Watch Tower Society leaves out some very important
information. In proof of their claim that Themistocles met
Artaxerxes after his arrival in Persia, they quote Plutarch’s
information that "Thucydides and Charon of Lampsacus relate that
Xerxes was dead, and that it was his son Artaxerxes with whom
Themistocles had his interview". But they left out the second part
of Plutarch's statement, which says:
. . . but Ephorus and Dinon and Clitarchus and Heracleides and
yet more besides have it that it was Xerxes to whom he came.
With the chronological data Thucydides seems to me more in
accord, although these are by no means securely established.
The Watch Tower Society, then, conceals that Plutarch goes on to
say that a number of ancient historians had written about this
event, and that most of them stated that Xerxes, not Artaxerxes,
was on the throne when Themistocles came to Persia. Although
Plutarch (c 46–120 A.D.) felt that Thucydides was more reliable, he
stresses that the chronological data were by no means securely
established. One fact that usually seems to be ignored is that
Thucydides wrote his story about Themistocles’ flight some time
after 406 BC, or about two generations after the event. He
contradicts himself several times in this narrative, which shows

that his information on the subject cannot be trusted. (On this, see
the Cambridge Ancient History, V, 1992, p. 14.)
But even if Themistocles really may have met Artaxerxes, there is
nothing to show that this occurred in the 470’s. There is no
evidence whatsoever in support of the claim that Themistocles died
in 471/70 BC. None of the sources referred to by the Society says
so, and some of them, including Plutarch, clearly show that he died
much later, in about 459 BC. (Plutarch's Lives, XXXI:2–5) A
considerable time passed after the attempt to defame Themistocles
in Athens in the archonship of Praxiergus (471/70 BC) until his
interview with Artaxerxes (or Xerxes). It took several attempts
before the enemies of Themistocles succeeded and forced him to
flee, first from Athens and finally from Greece. Cambridge Ancient
History (Vol. 5, pp. 62ff.) dates this flight to 569 BC. He first fled to
some friends in Asia Minor, where he stayed for some time. The
Society quotes Diodorus Siculus in support of the 471/70 date for
the beginning of the defamation of Themistocles, but avoids to
mention Diodorus’ statement that, on Themistocles’ arrival in Asia
Minor, Xerxes was still on the throne in Persia! (Diodorus Siculus,
XI:54–59) This, of course, conflicts with Thucydides’ statement
that Themistocles’ letter from Asia Minor was sent to Artaxerxes.
After some time, evidently after some years, in Asia Minor,
Themistocles finally went to Persia. There he first spent one year
studying the language before his meeting with the king. This
meeting may have occured toward the end of 465 BC or early in
464 BC. As historian A. T. Olmstead argues, Xerxes may very well
have been on the throne when Themistocles arrived in Persia, but
may have died shortly afterwards, so that Themistocles, after his
year of learning the language, met Artaxerxes. In this way the
conflicting statements by the ancient historians may at least
partially be harmonized.
After his meeting with the Persian king, Themistocles settled in the
city of Magnesia, where he lived on for some years before he died.
(Plutarch's Lives, XXXI:2–5) It is completely impossible, therefore,
to date his death to 471/70 BC, as done by the Watch Tower
Society.
3. The two tablets dated to years ”50” and ”51” of
Artaxerxes
In support of the claim that Artaxerxes ruled for 51 years instead

of 41, the Watch Tower Society refers to two tablets dated to his
”50th” year and ”51st” year, respectively. The first tablet, listed as
BM 65494 in E. Leichty and A.K. Grayson, Catalogue of the
Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Vol. VII (London, 1987), is
still unpublished. The second tablet, CBM 12803 (= BE 8/1, 127),
on the other hand, was published in 1908 by Albert T. Clay in The
Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series A:
Cuneiform Texts, Vol. VIII, text 127. All authorities on Achaemenid
history agree that both of these cuneiform tablets contain scribal
errors.
As the Watch Tower Society points out, the tablet published by
Albert Clay is double-dated. The date on the tablet is given as,
”51st year, accession year, 12th month, day 20, Darius, king of
lands.” (Insight, p. 616) This text, then, seems to equate the 51st
year (evidently of Artaxerxes I; the name is not given in the text)
with the accession-year of his successor Darius II.
But once again, the Watch Tower Society does not tell the whole
truth. The reason is, that the whole truth changes the picture
completely. Many dated tablets are extant from the end of
Artaxerxes’ reign, thanks to the discovery of a cuneiform archive
from the Murashu firm. In Istanbul Murashu Texts (Istanbul, 1997),
V. Donbaz and M. W. Stolper explain that the Murashu archive is
”the largest available documentary source for Achaemenid
Babylonia in the years between Xerxes and Alexander.” (Page 4)
Nearly all of the tablets are dated to the reigns of Artaxerxes I and
his successor Darius II. The number culminates in the last two
years of the reign of Artaxerxes and the first seven years of the
reign of Darius II, as shown by the graph below, published by
Donbaz and Stolper on page 6 of the work quoted above. The
archive includes over 60 texts from the 41st year of Artaxerxes and
the accession year of Darius II, and culminates with about 120
texts dated to the 1st year of Darius II!
All Murashu texts with preserved years; numbers of texts by year.
As shown by the ancient Greek historians, the months following

upon the death of Artaxerxes was a chaotic period. His son and
successor Xerxes II was murdered by his brother Sogdianus after
only a few weeks of reign. The usurper Sogdianus then held the
throne for about seven months, after which he was killed by Darius
II in February, 423 BC. But as Sogdianus was never acknowledged
as the legitimate king, the scribes continued to date their texts to
the reign of Artaxerxes for some months after his death. It is even
possible that Artaxerxes died toward the end of his 40th year, as
some scholars argue, so that the scribes had to extend his reign
artificially to include a 41st year. This is still a question debated
among scholars.
Not until Darius II ascended to the throne in the 11th Babylonian

month (corresponding to parts of February and March, 423 BCE)
did the scribes begin to date the texts to his reign also. But to avoid
any confusion, the scribes usually double-dated the texts,
mentioning both the 41st year [of Artaxerxes] and the accession-
year of Darius II. They did this, because it was important for them
to keep an exact chronological count of the reigns, as this was their
calendar and the ”era” by which they dated various events, such as
political events, astronomical observations, and economic
transactions.
A number of such double-dated tablets have been discovered. F. X.
Kugler, on page 396 of his Sternkunde und Stemdienst in Babel, II.
Buch, II. Teil, Heft 2 (Munster 1924), presented the chronological
information on four of these tablets. Other tablets of this kind
have been found since. Ten such double-dated tablets are now
known, of which all except one equate ”year 41”, evidently of
Artaxerxes I, with the ”accession-year of Darius.” The exception is
CBM 12803, the text that has year ”51” instead of ”41”. And all
except one (BM 33342) of these ten texts belong to the Murashu
archive. The nine texts double-dated to ”year 41, accession-year of
Darius” are:
BM 54557: (= Zawadzki JEOL 34:45f.) Text from Sippar [?].
Although dated only to the accession-year of Darius II (month IX[?],
day 29), the body of the text refers to a span of time “from month V
year 41 of Ar(takshatsu ... ) to the end of month XII, year 41,
accession of Darius.” (Information on this text was received from
Prof. Matthew W. Stolper, the leading expert on the Murashu archive,
in a letter dated January 29, 1999).
Bertin 2889: Text from Babylon dated to ”day 26, month XI, year
41, accession-year of Darius.” The text is not published, but
information on the date was received by Jean-Frédéric Brunet from
Dr. Francis Joannès on July 3rd, 2003. (Mail Brunet-Jonsson,
December 22, 2003)
BM 33342: Text from Babylon dated to “month Shabatu [month
XI]; day 29; year 41, accession-year, Darius, King of Lands.”
(Matthew W. Stolper in AMI, Vol. 16, 1983, pp. 231–236) This text
does not belong to the Murashu archive.
BE 10 no. 4: (= TuM 2/3, 216) Text from Nippur dated to day 14,
month XII, year 41, accession-year of Darius II, king of the lands.
BE 10 no. 5: Text from Nippur dated to day 17, month XII,
accession-year of Darius, king of the lands. The first line says “until
the end of Adar (month XII) of year 41, accession-year of Darius,
king of the lands.”
BE 10 no. 6: Text from Nippur dated to the accession-year of
Darius. Month and day are illegible, but lines 2f. mention the whole
year “from the first month of year 41 to the end of month XII of the
accession-year of Darius.”
PBS 2/1 no. 1: Text from Nippur dated to day 22, month XII, year
41, accession-year of Darius II.
BE 10 no. 7: (= TuM 2/3, 181) Text from Nippur dated to month
I, day 2, year 1, of Darius II. Line 6 mentions receipt for produce for,
“year 41, accession-year of Darius.”
PBS 2/1 no. 3: Text from Nippur dated to month I, day 5, year 1,
of Darius II. Lines 2–3 refers to taxes for the period “up to the end
of month XII, year (4)1, (ac)cession year of Darius.” Line 13 says:
“until the end of Adar [month XII], year 41.”
Explanation of abbreviations used in the list:
AMI: Archaologische Mitteilungen aus Iran.

BE: The Babylonian Expedition of the University of Pennsylvania, Series A: Cuneiform Texts,
ed. by H. V. Hilprecht (Philadelphia, 1893–1914). Vols. 1–6 edited by Albert T. Clay in 1904.
Bertin: G. Bertin, Corpus of Babylonian Terra-Cotta Tablets. Principally Contracts, Vols. I–
VI (London, 1883). Unpublished.
BM: British Museum.
JEOL: Jaarbericht van het Vooraziatisch-Egyptisch Genootschap “Ex Oriente Lux”.
PBS: Pennsylvania. University. University Museum. Publications of the Babylonian Section
(Philadelphia, 1911 – ). The first two volumes were edited by Albert T. Clay.
TuM: Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection of Babylonian
Antiquities im Eigentum der Universität Jena (Leipzig).
All these nine texts agree in showing that Darius II acceded to the
throne in the 41st year of his predecessor. The tablets clearly show
that Artaxerxes I cannot have ruled for more than 41 years. As
stated above, the text published by Albert Clay in 1908, the only
one quoted by the Watch Tower Society, belongs to the same
category of doubled-dated texts as those quoted above, the only
difference being that it gives the predecessor of Darius a reign of
51 years instead of 41. It is quite clear that the number ”51” on that
tablet contains a scribal error. This is the only reasonable
conclusion to draw, as the only alternative is to claim that the
figure ”41” on all the other nine tablets listed above are errors.
It is difficult to believe that the Watch Tower Society’s writers were
completely ignorant of the existence of several double-dated tablets
from the accession-year of Darius. To quote only the two tablets
with scribal errors (years ”50” and ”51”) and keep silent about all
the double-dated texts that equate Darius’ accession-year with year
”41” of his predecessor is far from honest.
Albert T. Clay, who published the tablet with the erroneous figure
”51” on it, was well aware that it was a scribal error. To the right of
the erroneous figure in his published copy of the text he pointed
out that ”51” was a ”mistake for 41”:
Tablet ”CBM 12803”, published by Albert T. Clay as

No. 127 in The Babylonian Expedition of the
University of Pennsylvania, Series A: Cuneiform
Texts, Vol. VIII (Philadelphia, 1908), P1. 57.
Such an error was easy to make, as the difference between ”41”

and ”51” in cuneiform is just a small wedge—one touch with the
stylus. Such errors are not unusual. The text with the figure ”50”
instead of ”40” is just another example of the same kind of error.
Professor Matthew W. Stolper explains:
Yes, it is quite an easy error. As you may know, the sign that
indicates ”year” before the numeral ends with four closely spaced
angle-wedges. The digit ”40” in ”41” is represented by four more
closely spaced angle-wedges, in slightly different configuration. It
would take a simple slip of the stylus to add the extra wedge. –
Letter Stolper-Jonsson, January 29, 1999.
Artaxerxes’ reign astronomically fixed
The decisive evidence for the length of Artaxerxes’ rule is the
astronomical information found on a number of tablets dated to
his reign. One such text is the astronomical "diary" "VAT 5047",
clearly dated to the 11th year of Artaxerxes. Although the text is
damaged, it preserves information about two lunar positions
relative to planets and the positions of Mercury, Jupiter, Venus and
Saturn. This information suffices to identify the date of the text as
454 B.C. As this was the 11th year of Artaxerxes, the preceding
year, 455 BC, cannot have been his 20th year as the Watch Tower
Society claims, but his 10th year. His 20th year, then,must have
been 445/44 BC. (See Sachs/Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and
Related Texts from Babylonia, Vol. 1, Wien 1988, pp. 56–59.)
There are also some tablets dated to the 21st and last year of
Xerxes. One of them, BM 32234, which is dated to day 14 or 18 of
the 5th month of Xerxes’ 21st year, belongs to the group of
astronomical texts called "18-year texts" or "Saros texts". The
astronomical information preserved on this tablet fixes it to the
year 465 BC. The text includes the following interesting
information: "Month V 14 (+x) Xerxes was murdered by his son." This
text alone not only shows that Xerxes ruled for 21 year, but also
that his last year was 465 BC, not 475 as the Society holds!
There are several "Saros texts" of this type covering the reigns of
Xerxes and Artaxerxes. The many detailed and dated descriptions
of lunar eclipses from different years of their reigns establish the
chronology of this period as an absolute chronology.
Two other astronomical tablets from the reigns of Xerxes and

Artaxerxes, BM 45674 and BM 32299, contain dated observations
of the planet Venus. Again, these observations establish the
chronology of this period as an absolute chronology.
Thus we have numerous astronomical observations dated to
different parts of the reigns of Xerxes and Axtaxerxes preserved on
cuneiform tablets. In many cases, only one or two of these
observations would suffice to establish the beginning and end of
their reigns. The total number of astronomical observations dated
to their reigns, however, are about 40 or more. It is impossible,
therefore, to change their reigns even one year! The Society’s dating of
Artaxerxes’ 20th year to 455 BC is demonstrably wrong. This, of
course, also proves that their interpretation of the 70 weeks of
Daniel is wrong.
The seventy weeks of Daniel
A number of applications of the 70 weeks of Daniel have appeared
throughout the centuries. Some of them, including that of the
Watch Tower Society, have to be discarded at once, as they can be
shown to be in direct conflict with historically established dates.
They have nothing to do with reality.
If Artaxerxes’ 20th year was 445/44 instead of 455, it is still
possible to start from that year, provided that we use a "prophetical
year" of 360 days instead of the solar year of 365,2422 days. This
was demonstrated by Sir Robert Anderson in his book The Coming
Prince (first published in 1895). His application has recently been
improved upon by H. W. Hoehner in his book Chronological Aspects
of the Life of Christ (1977), pages 135ff. These authors show that the
476 years from Artaxerxes’ 20th year, 445/44 BC, to the death of
Christ ( if set at 33 A.D.) correspond to 483 years of 360 days.
(476x365,2422 is 173.855 days, and if this number is divided by 360
we get 483 years.) This is just one example of an application that at
least has the advantage of a historically established date at its start.
There is, of course, much more that can and should be said about
this subject. On the preceding pages I have just tried to summarize
a few of the more important observations. Now and then members
of Jehovah’s Witnesses and others have written to me about this
problem, and maybe this summary can be of some benefit to
others, too, who are asking about the matter. In the future I hope
to find time for writing a more detailed discussion on the subject.
PROFESSOR ROBERT R. NEWTON, “PTOLEMY’S
CANON,” AND “THE CRIME OF CLAUDIUS PTOLEMY”
The following material is adapted from the discussion on pages 44–
48 of the first and second editions of my book, The Gentile Times
Reconsidered (published in 1983 and 1986), with some updates and
additions.
PROFESSOR ROBERT R. NEWTON (who died in 1991) was a
noted physicist who has published a series of outstanding works on
the secular accelerations of the moon and the earth. He examined
in detail hundreds of astronomical observations dating all the way
from the present back to about 700 BC, in order to determine the
rate of the slowly changing of the length of the day during this
period. The best information on his research in this area is found in
his book, The Moon’s Acceleration and Its Physical Origins, vol. 1,
published in 1979. His results have more recently been further
refined by other scholars, in particular by F. Richard Stephenson.
(Historical Eclipses and Earth’s Rotation, Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1997)
Accusations against Claudius Ptolemy not new
The claim that Claudius Ptolemy ”deliberately fabricated” many of
his observations is not new. Astronomers have questioned
Ptolemy’s observations for centuries. As early as 1008 AD ibn
Yunis concluded that they contained serious errors, and by about
1800 astronomers had recognized that almost all of Ptolemy’s
observations were in error. In 1817, Delambre asked: ”Did
Ptolemy do any observing? Are not the observations that he claims
to have made merely computations from his tables, and examples
to help in explaining his theories?” – J.B.J. Delambre, Histoire de
l’Astronomie Ancienne, Paris 1817, Vol. II, p. XXV; as quoted by
Robert R. Newton in The Moon’s Acceleration and Its Physical Origins
[MAPO], Vol. I, (Baltimore and London: The Johns Hopkins
University Press, 1979), p. 43.
Two years later (in 1819) Delambre also concluded that Ptolemy
fabricated some of his solar observations and demonstrated how
the fabrication was made. (Newton, MAPO I, p. 44) More recently,
other astronomers have re-examined Ptolemy’s observations and
arrived at similar results. One of them is Professor Robert R.
Newton. In his book, The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy (Baltimore and
London: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), Newton
claims that Ptolemy fudged, not only a large body of the
394
“Ptolemy’s Canon ” 395
observations he says he had made himself, but also a number of

the observations Ptolemy attributes to other astronomers, including
some he quotes from Babylonian sources. These include the three
oldest observations recorded in Ptolemy’s Almagest dating from the
first and second years of the Babylonian king Merodach-baladan
(called Mardokempados in Almagest), corresponding to 721 and 720
BC.
Scholars disagreeing with R.R. Newton
In the ensuing debate a number of scholars have repudiated
Newton’s conclusions. They have argued that Newton’s arguments
”are marred by all manner of distortions” (Bernard R. Goldstein of
the University of Pittsburgh in Science, February 24, 1978, p. 872),
and that his case collapses because ”it is based on faulty statistical
analysis and a disregard for the methods of early astronomy”
(scholars Noel M. Swerdlow of the University of Chicago, Victor
E. Thoren of Indiana University, and Owen J. Gingerich of
Harvard University, in Scientific American, March 1979, p. 93,
American edition). Similar comments are made by Noel M.
Swerdlow, ”Ptolemy on Trial, ” in The American Scholar, Autumn
1979, pp. 523–531, and by Julia Neuffer, ”´Ptolemy’s Canon´
Debunked?” in Andrews University Seminary Studies, Vol. XVII, No. 1,
1979, pp. 39–46. An article by Owen J. Gingerich with a rebuttal by
R.R. Newton is found in the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical
Society, Vol. 21, 1980, pp. 253–266, 388–399, with a final response
by Gingerich in Vol. 22, 1981, pp. 40–44.
Scholarly support for R.R. Newton
Most of these critics, though, are historians without particular
expertise in the field of Greek astronomy. Some reviews written by
well-informed astronomers have been favorable to Newton’s
conclusions. One historian who is also well acquainted with Greek
astronomy, K.P. Moesgaard, agrees that Ptolemy fabricated his
astronomical data, though he feels it was done for some honest
reason. (K.P. Moesgaard, ”Ptolemy’s Failings,” Journal for the History
of Astronomy, Vol. XI, 1980, pp. 133–135) Rolf Brahde, too, wrote a
favorable review of Newton’s book in Astronomisk Tidskrift, 1979,
No. 1, pp. 42,43.
B.L. van der Waerden, Professor of Mathematics and an expert
on Greek astronomy, discusses Newton’s claims in his book, Die
Astronomie der Griechen (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche
Buchgesellschaft, 1988). Although he would not go as far as
Newton in his attack on Ptolemy, he agrees that Ptolemy falsified

his observations, stating: ”That Ptolemy systematically and
intentionally has falsified his observations in order to bring his
observational results in agreement with his theory have been
convincingly demonstrated by Delambre and Newton.” (p. 253)
Recent criticism of R.R. Newton
G.J. Toomer, the well-known translator of Ptolemy’s Almagest
(London: Gerald Duckworth & Co., 1984), discusses Newton’s
claim in an article published in 1988 (”Hipparchus and Babylonian
Astronomy,” in A Scientific Humanist. Studies in Memory of Abraham
Sachs, eds. E. Leichty, M. DeJ. Ellis, & P. Gerardi, Philadelphia,
1988, pp. 353–362), in which he convincingly argues that all the
observations from earlier periods recorded by Ptolemy were taken
over from the Greek mathematician Hipparchus (2nd century BC).
In 1990, Dr. Gerd Grasshoff included a lengthy section on the
accusations against Claudius Ptolemy in his work, The History of
Ptolemy’s Star Catalogue (London, Paris, Tokyo, Hong Kong:
Springer-Verlag, 1990, pp. 79–91). He concludes that Newton’s
arguments against Ptolemy are ”superficial” and ”unjustified”.
More recently, Oscar Sheynin has discussed Newton’s
accusations at some length, arguing that the reason why Ptolemy’s
observations so well agree with his theory is, not that he fabricated
them, but that he selected the observations that best fitted his theory.
Although such selectivity is not allowed in science today, it was
quite common in ancient times. For this reason Sheynin states that
Ptolemy cannot be regarded a fraud. – O. Sheynin, ”The Treatment
of Observations in Early Astronomy,” in C. Truesdell (ed.), Archive
for History of Exact Sciences, Vol. 46:2, 1993, pp. 153–192.
In summary, there seems to be at least some evidence in
support of the claims that Claudius Ptolemy was ”fraudulent” in
the way he handled his observations, either by ”trimming” the
values or by selecting those who best fitted his theory. However,
few scholars would go as far as R. R. Newton, who dismisses
Ptolemy altogether as a fraud. As Dr. James Evans notes, ”very few
historians of astronomy have accepted Newton’s conclusions in
their entirety.” – Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol. 24, Parts ½,
February/May, 1993, pp. 145–146.
R.R. Newton and ”Ptolemy’s Canon”
In a review of Newton’s book, The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy,
published in Scientific American of October 1977, pp. 79–81, it was
stated that ”Ptolemy’s forgery may have extended to inventing the

length of reigns of Babylonian kings.” This was a reference to the
so-called ”Ptolemy’s Canon”, which Newton at that time
erroneously believed had been composed by Claudius Ptolemy
himself and thus may have been affected by his ”forgery”. The
statement was quickly picked up and published in The Watchtower
magazine (December 15, 1977, p. 747). On page 375 of his The
Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, Newton also wrote: ”It follows that
Ptolemy’s king list is useless in the study of chronology, and that it
must be ignored. What is worse, much Babylonian chronology is
based upon Ptolemy’s king list. All relevant chronology must now
be reviewed and all dependence upon Ptolemy’s list must be
removed.”
Newton was unaware of the fact that ”Ptolemy’s Canon” was
not composed by Claudius Ptolemy. He was not an historian and
he was not an expert on Babylonian chronology. He also admits in
his work that he has not studied sources other than Ptolemy for the
years prior to Nebuchadnezzar. (The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, p.
375) He explains that his thoughts on the relations between
chronology and the work of Claudius Ptolemy were influenced by a
Mr. Philip G. Couture of Santee, California. In the Preface of his
book he states: ”I thank Mr. Philip G. Couture of Santee,
California for correspondence which led me to understand some of
the relations between chronology and the work of Ptolemy.” (The
Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, p. XIV) The same Mr. Couture also
induced Dr. Newton to reject the Assyrian eponym canon in his
work, The Moon’s Acceleration and Its Physical Origins. (See Vol. 1,
1979, p. 189)
What Newton probably did not know was that Mr. Couture was
and still is one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and that some of the
chronological arguments he passed on to Newton were taken from
the Watch Tower Society’s Bible dictionary, Aid to Bible
Understanding. These arguments were not only aimed at supporting
the chronology of the Watch Tower Society, but they are also
demonstrably untenable!
Correspondence with R. R. Newton
In 1978, the year after The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy had been
published, I had some correspondence with Professor Newton. In
a letter dated June 27, 1978, I sent him a shorter study I had
prepared in which the so-called ”Ptolemy’s Canon” was compared
with earlier cuneiform sources. This study briefly demostrated that
all the reigns of the Babylonian kings given in the Canon, from
Nabonassar (747–734 BC) to Nabonidus (555–539 BC), were in
complete agreement with these older sources. (This study was later
expanded and published in a British journal for interdisciplinarty
studies, the British forum for the discussion of the catastrophe
theories of Immanuel Velikovsky and others: Chronology &
Catastrophism Review, Vol. IX, 1987, pp. 14–23.) I asked Professor
Newton: ”How is it possible that Ptolemy’s astronomical data are
wrong, and yet the king list, to which they are attached, is correct?”
In his answer, dated August 11, 1978, Newton said: ”I am not
ready to be convinced that Ptolemy’s king list is accurate before
Nabopolassar [= before 625 BC], although I have high confidence
that it is rather accurate for Nabopolassar and later kings.” He also
pointed out: ”The basic point is that Ptolemy calculated the
circumstances of the eclipses in the Syntaxis from his theories, and
he then pretended that his calculated values were values that had
been observed in Babylon. His theories are accurate enough to give the
correct day of an eclipse, but he missed the hour and the magnitude.”
Thus Ptolemy’s ”adjustments” of the eclipse observations were
too small to affect the year, the month, and the day of an eclipse.
Only the hour and the magnitude were affected. Ptolemy’s
supposed ”adjustments” of the records of the ancient Babylonian
eclipses, then, didn’t change the BCE dates that had been
established for these observations. They did not change the chronology!
Further, Professor Newton was convinced that the king list was
accurate from Nabopolassar and onwards. In other words, he was
convinced that the whole Neo-Babylonian chronology from Nabopolassar
through Nabonidus (625–539 BC) was accurate! Why?
The reason was that Newton had made a very thorough study
of some of the ancient Babylonian astronomical records that were
independent of ”Ptolemy’s Canon”, including the two astronomical
cuneiform texts designated VAT 4956 and Strm. Kambys. 400.
From his examination of these two records, he had established that
the first text referred to the year 568/67 BC and the second one to
523 BC. He concluded: ”Thus we have quite strong confirmation
that Ptolemy’s list is correct for Nebuchadrezzar, and reasonable
confirmation for Kambyses.” (The Crime of Claudius Ptolemy, 1977, p.
375) These findings were further emphasized in his next work, The
Moon’s Acceleration and Its Physical Origins, vol. 1, published in 1979,
where he concludes on page 49: ”Nebuchadrezzar’s first year
therefore began in –603 [= 604 BC], and this agrees with Ptolemy’s
list.”
Therefore, to quote some statements by R. R. Newton in an
attempt to undermine the chronology established for the Neo-
Babylonian era would be to quote him out of context. It would be
to misrepresent his views and conceal his conclusions. It would be
fraudulent. Yet, this has been repeatedly done by the Watch Tower
Society and some defenders of its chronology. But Newton’s
findings refute their chronology and prove it to be false.
Summary
Whether Ptolemy falsified his observations, perhaps also some of
those of earlier astronomers, is irrelevant for the study of the Neo-
Babylonian chronology. Today, this chronology is not based upon the
observations recorded by Ptolemy in his Almagest.
Further, the claim that Ptolemy may have ”invented” the lengths
of reign in ”Ptolemy’s Canon” is based upon the erroneous view
that this king list was composed by Claudius Ptolemy. As is
demonstrated on pages 94–96 of the third edition of The Gentile
Times Reconsidered (and also briefly in the second edition), the
designation ”Ptolemy’s Canon” is ”a misnomer” (Otto Neugebauer),
as this king list according to Eduard Meyer, Franz X. Kugler and
others had been in use among Alexandrian astronomers for
centuries before the time of Claudius Ptolemy, and had been
inherited and brought up-to-date from one generation of scholars
to next.
Finally, the claim that this king list today is the basis of or principal
source for the Neo-Babylonian chronology, is false. Those who make
such a claim are either ignorant or dishonest. The plain truth is that
the king list is not needed today for fixing the chronology of this
era, although its figures for the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings
are upheld by at least 14 lines of independent evidence based on
cuneiform documents, as is demonstrated in The Gentile Times
Reconsided.
Addition in 2003:
Modern scholars who have examined the so-called Ptolemy’s
Canon (more correctly called the ”Royal Canon”) in detail agree
that the kinglist has proved to be reliable from beginning to end.
This is emphasized, for example, by Dr Leo Depuydt in his article,
”More Valuable than all Gold: Ptolemy’s Royal Canon and
Babylonian Chronology,” published in Journal of Cuneiform Studies,
Vol. 47, 1995, pp. 97–117. Quite recently, Leo Depuydt has written
another article in which he discusses the reliability of Ptolemy’s
Canon, "The Shifting Foundation of Ancient Chronology," soon to
be published in Acts of European Association of Archaeologists, Meeting
VIII.
A REVIEW OF:
ROLF FURULI: PERSIAN CHRONOLOGY AND
THE LENGTH OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE OF
THE JEWS
(OSLO: ROLF FURULI A/S, 2003)
Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews is the first of
two volumes in which Rolf Furuli attempts to revise the traditional chronology
for the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods. Furuli states that the reason for
this venture is that this chronology is in conflict with the Bible. He insists that
the Bible “unambiguously,” “explicitly,” and “definitely” shows that Jerusalem
and the land of Judah were desolate for 70 years, until the Jewish exiles in
Babylon returned to Judah as a result of the decree Cyrus issued in his first
regnal year, 538/37 BCE (pp. 17, 89, 91). This implies that the desolation of
Jerusalem in Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th regnal year took place 70 years earlier, in
607 BCE, contrary to modern historical research, which has fixed the 18th year
of Nebuchadnezzar in 587/86 BCE, a date that also agrees with the chronology
of the ancient kinglist known as “Ptolemy’s Canon.” Furuli does not explicitly
mention the 607 BCE date in this volume, perhaps because a more detailed
discussion of the Neo-Babylonian chronology is reserved for his not-yet-
published second volume.
Most chapters in this first volume, therefore, contain a critical examination
of the reigns of the Persian kings from Cyrus to Darius II. The principal claim
of this discussion is that the first year of Artaxerxes I should be moved 10 years
backward, from 464 to 474 BCE. Furuli does not mention that this is an old
idea that can be traced back to the noted Jesuit theologian Denis Petau, better
known as Dionysius Petavius, who first presented it in a work published in
1627. Petavius’ revision had a theological basis, because, if the “seventy weeks
[of years],” or 490 years, of Daniel 9:24-27 are to be counted from the 20th
regnal year of Artaxerxes (Neh. 2:1ff.) to 36 CE (his date for the end of the
period), Artaxerxes’ 20th year must be moved from 445 back to 455 BCE.
Furuli says nothing about this underlying motive for his proposed revision.
Introduction:
The hidden agenda
Furuli published this book at his own expense. Who is he? On the back
cover of the book he presents himself this way:
Rolf Furuli is a lecturer in Semitic languages at the University of Oslo. He is
working on a doctoral thesis which suggests a new understanding of the verbal
system of Classical Hebrew. He has for many years worked with translation
theory, and has published two books on Bible translation; he also has
experience as a translator. The present volume is a result of his study of the
401
chronology of the Ancient world for more than two decades.

What Furuli does not mention is that he is a Jehovah’s Witness, and that for
a long time he has produced apologetic texts defending Watchtower exegesis
against criticism. His two books on Bible translation are nothing more than
defenses of the Witnesses’ New World Translation of the Bible. He fraudulently
fails to mention that for decades he has tried to defend Watchtower chronology
and that his revised chronology is essentially a defense of the Watchtower
Society’s traditional chronology. He describes his chronology as “a new
chronology,” which he calls “the Oslo Chronology,” (p. 14) when in fact the
607 BCE date for the destruction of Jerusalem is the chronological foundation
for the claims and apocalyptic messages of the Watchtower organization, and
the 455 BCE date for the 20th year of Artaxerxes I is its traditional starting
point for its calculation of the “seventy weeks” of Daniel 9:24-27.
Despite these facts, Furuli nowhere mentions the Watchtower Society or its
chronology. Nor does he mention my detailed refutation of this chronology in
various editions of my book The Gentile Times Reconsidered (GTR; 3rd edition,
Atlanta: Commentary Press, 1998; 1st ed. published in 1983), despite the fact
that in circulated “organized collections of notes” he has tried to refute the
conclusions presented in its earlier editions. (A fourth revised and updated
edition of GTR has been prepared and will be published in 2004.) Furuli’s
silence on GTR is noteworthy because he discusses R. E. Winkle’s 1987 study
which presents mostly the same arguments and conclusions as are found in the
first edition of GTR (1983). As a Jehovah’s Witness, Furuli is forbidden to
interact with former members of his organization. If this is the reason for his
feigned ignorance of my study, he is acting as a loyal Witness—not as a scholar.
Clearly, Furuli has an agenda, and he is hiding it.
The contents of the first four chapters
Chapter 1: Pages 17-37:
In Chapter 1, Furuli claims that the Bible and the astronomical tablets VAT
4956 and Strm Kambys 400 “contradict each other” (pp. 17-28), and he
therefore questions the reliability of astronomical tablets by describing nine
“potential sources of error.” (pp. 28-37)
In Chapter 2, Furuli claims that the “most acute problem for making an
absolute chronology based on astronomical tablets” is that many, “perhaps
most positions of the heavenly bodies on such tablets, are calculated rather than
observed.” (p. 15)
In Chapter 3, Furuli makes some general comments on the Sumerian,
Akkadian, and Hebrew languages and describes some “pitfalls” in reading and
translating the ancient documents.
Furuli’s First Book 403

In Chapter 4, Furuli presents his views on “the chronological accounts of
Claudius Ptolemy” and of those of some other ancient authors (pp. 66-74),
then discusses the 70-year prophecy of Jeremiah. (pp. 75-92)
In the material that follows (Part One of this review; Parts Two and Three will
be published at a later date), I critically examine the argumentation of these four
chapters.
Acknowledgements are made to a number of scholars and knowledgeable
colleagues for their assistance in preparing this review. I choose not to mention
any names, as some of them, for various reasons, need to remain anonymous. I
am indebted to all of them for their observations, suggestions, criticism, and, in
particular, for the professional help given by two of them with proof-reading
and polishing my English and grammar.
For some works often referred to in the discussion below the following
abbreviations are used:
ADT Abraham J. Sachs and Hermann Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Related
Texts from Babylonia (Wien: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der
Wissenschaften. Vol. I – 1988, II – 1989, III – 1996, V – 2001).
CBT Erle Leichty et al, Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum,
Vols. 6, 7, and 8 (1986, 1987, and 1988). These volumes list the tablets from
Sippar held at BM.
GTR4 Carl Olof Jonsson, The Gentile Times Reconsidered, 4th ed. (Atlanta:
Commentary Press, 2004).
LBAT Abraham J. Sachs (ed.), Late Babylonian Astronomical and Related Texts.
Copied by T. G. Pinches and J. N. Strassmaier (Providence, Rhode Island: Brown
University Press, 1955).
PD Richard A. Parker and Waldo H. Dubberstein, Babylonian Chronology 626
B.C.—A.D. 75 (Providence, Rhode Island: Brown University Press, 1956).
Chapter I - “Fundamental Chronological Considerations”

Only “three principal sources” for the Neo-Babylonian and Persian
chronology?
One of Furuli’s main goals appears to be to convince his readers that there
are only three principal sources on which the chronology of the Neo-
Babylonian and Persian periods can be based. These three, he claims,
“contradict each other”:
“There are three principal sources with information regarding the
chronology of the New Babylonian and Persian kings, namely, Strm
Kambys 400, VAT 4956 and the Bible. The information in these three
sources cannot be harmonized.” (p. 21; cf. also pp. 15, 45)
And further:
“It will be shown in the course of the book that there exist just two
such independent sources which can give absolute dates for the New
Babylonian chronology, namely, VAT 4956 and Strm Kambys 400 which
already have been mentioned. … the chronology that is based on these
two diaries cannot be harmonized with the Bible, and this means that at
least one of the three sources must give erroneous information.” (p. 24)
These statements reveal a remarkable ignorance of a subject that Furuli
claims to have studied “for more than two decades.” The absolute chronology
of the Neo-Babylonian and Persian eras is fixed by about 50 astronomical
observational tablets (diaries, eclipse texts, and planetary texts). Almost all these
tablets have been published in ADT volumes I and V. And the least reliable of
them is probably Strm Kambys 400. (GTR4, ch. 2, last section). For example, there
are about 25 diaries from the reign of Artaxerxes II (404-358 BCE), 11 of
which have the royal name and regnal dates preserved. Most, if not all, of these
appear to be, not later copies, but original compilations from Artaxerxes’ reign.
(Letter H. Hunger to C. O. Jonsson, dated January 26, 2001) Therefore, to fix
the absolute chronology of the reign of Artaxerxes II or any other Persian king,
Strm Kambys 400 is needless and irrelevant. Nor is it needed to fix the reign of
Cambyses, which can be more securely fixed by other texts.
Additional comments about Strm Kambys 400 and the claim that some
astronomical tablets contradict the Bible are discussed in Part Two of this
review.
Are scholars reluctant to publish oddly dated texts?
Furuli argues against the validity of the so-called Canon of Ptolemy and
traditional chronology by using certain oddly dated cuneiform texts that
seemingly conflict with them. However, he admits that a few errors in the
ancient texts cannot be used to overthrow a chronology that is substantiated by
many other texts:

“One or two contradictory finds do not necessarily destroy a
chronology that has been substantiated by hundreds of independent
finds.” (p. 22)
On the same page he gives three examples:
(1) A tablet that, in 1878, T. G. Pinches said “would overthrow the perfect
agreement of Mr. Boscawen’s list with the Canon of Ptolemy,” adding that “I
did not intend to publish it at all.” But Furuli fails to mention that this is a tablet
that at first seemed to be dated to “year 11” of Cambyses—which contradicts
not only the Canon of Ptolemy but also Furuli’s Oslo Chronology. That is why
Furuli, too, finds it necessary to reject it.
As it happened, the odd date soon found an explanation. On the tablet, the
figure for 1 had been written over the figure for 10. It was pointed out by A.
Wiedemann (Geschichte Aegyptens, Leipzig, 1880, pp. 225f.) that this seemed to be
a scribal correction of a mistaken “year 10,” which the scribe had tried to
change to “year 1,” thus creating a date sign that easily could be misread as
“year 11.” This simple and natural explanation was subsequently accepted by all
scholars. (See my Supplement to The Gentile Times Reconsidered, Danville: Odeon
Books, 1989, page 8.) The date, then, was not odd after all.
(2) A tablet that “did not fit” PD’s “chronological scheme” and was rejected
because “the month sign is shaded, and in view of known facts this date cannot
be accepted.” But Furuli does not inform the reader that this tablet is Nabon.
No. 1054 (BM 74972), which is dated in PD to Nbn VIII/10/17 (month VIII,
day 10, year 17)—nearly one month after the fall of Babylon on VII/16/17.
In 1990, I asked Christopher Walker at the British Museum to take another
look at the date on this tablet. His collation, confirmed by other scholars,
revealed that the year number had been misread. It was actually 16, not 17. The
date of the tablet, then, was not in conflict with the chronology established for
the reign of Nabonidus. Walker says:
“On the Nabonidus text no. 1054 mentioned by Parker and Dubberstein p.
13 and Kugler, SSB II 388, I have collated that tablet (BM 74972) and am
satisfied that the year is 16, not 17. It has also been checked by Dr. G. Van
Driel and Mr. Bongenaar, and they both agree with me.” (Letter Walker to
Jonsson, Nov. 13, 1990)
Thus, Furuli’s first two tablets cannot be used as examples of “contradictory
finds” that conflict with the established chronology. This cannot be said of his
third tablet, however, which clearly contains a scribal error.
(3) BM 65494 dates itself to “Artaxerxes VI.4.50” (month VI, day 4, year
50), a date that all scholars, for strong reasons, have concluded is an error for
VI.4.40. Walker, too, points this out (which Furuli acknowledges but gives no
source reference) in an unpublished list titled “Corrections and Additions to
CBT 6-8.” This list has been worked out and kept up-to-date by Walker at the
British Museum. It has been sent to correspondents in answer to questions
asked about the dates on the tablets listed in the CBT 6-8 catalogues. (My two
versions of the list are dated in 1990 and 1996.)

On page 27, Furuli mentions another example of an oddly dated tablet—a
double-dated text from the accession year of Artaxerxes’ successor, Darius II.
The tablet dates itself to “year 51, month XII, day 20, accession year of Darius,
king of lands.” Furuli refers to this and the earlier text dated to Artaxerxes’ year
50 as examples of how scholars “have been reluctant to publish tablets that seemed to
contradict the traditional chronology.”
But the very opposite is true. The above-mentioned reluctance of T. G.
Pinches to publish the text dated to Cambyses’ 11th year was an exception. The
typical scholarly reaction to dates that conflict with the traditional chronology is
interest and attention, not suppression and reluctance to publish. When then-
unpublished lunar eclipse tablets dated to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II were
brought up in an interview in 1968, Professor Abraham J. Sachs indicated how
scholars would react to such oddly dated texts (they are now published in ADT
V). Pointing out that these eclipse tablets all confirm the traditional chronology,
he said:
“I mean if they didn’t fit it would be worth publishing immediately. I mean
dropping everything and saying this whole thing is a mess and there’s
something wrong here. But they do fit.” (Transcript, p. 12, of an
interview held with Professor A. J. Sachs at the Brown University,
Providence, R. I., on June 24, 1968, by R. V. Franz and C. Ploeger, at
that time members of the Watchtower headquarters’ Writing
Department in Brooklyn, New York; emphasis added.)
The tablet dated to year 50 of Artaxerxes I is listed by E. Leichty and A. K.
Grayson in CBT VII, p. 153, and the tablet dated to his year 51 was published
back in 1908 by A. T. Clay, in both cases evidently without any reluctance. As
noted above, the latter text is doubled-dated. There are, in fact, 10 such texts
with double dates, nine of which show that the accession year of Darius II
corresponded to Artaxerxes’ year 41. That year 51 on the above-mentioned text
is an error for year 41, therefore, cannot be seriously questioned.
On pages 27 and 28, Furuli argues that, because there were three (actually
four!) Persian kings named Artaxerxes, it is often difficult to know whether a
tablet refers to king number I, II, or III. He claims that scholars, in trying to get
the dates to tally with the traditional chronology, tend to give themselves up to
circular reasoning.
This situation, though, is not as bad as Furuli paints it. This is shown in Part
Three of this review, in which I discuss in detail the reign of Artaxerxes I.
Potential “sources of errors” in the Babylonian astronomical tablets:
Furuli is well aware that the most damaging evidence against his Oslo
Chronology is provided by the astronomical cuneiform tablets. For this reason,
it is important that he tries to weaken the reliability of these texts. Thus, on
pages 29-37, he describes nine “potential sources of error” that might
undermine the trustworthiness of the astronomical tablets. Unfortunately,
Furuli fails to draw a clear conclusion about these sources of error. Although it
is true that errors exist with respect to various aspects of ancient tablets, Furuli
fails to explain how these errors affect the accuracy of traditional Neo-
Babylonian and Persian chronology as a whole. He simply leaves the reader
vaguely to conclude that, in some unspecified way, the possibility of errors
invalidates the whole of the chronology. This is akin to someone stating,
“Scientists make errors,” then implying but not actually stating that “all science
is invalid because there are sources of error.” Thus, even though a particular
astronomical tablet might contain enough errors to be useless for chronological
purposes, it does not follow that all astronomical tablets are useless.
But this is how Furuli generally argues. He uses errors in some tablets to cast
aspersions on the reliability of tablets he does not like, such as VAT 4956.
Inconsistently, he uses the tablet Strm Kambys 400 as a basis for his Oslo
Chronology—obviously because the Watchtower Society uses it.
A good example of Furuli’s false implication is his using the demonstrated
errors in the ancient astronomical tablet known as the “Venus Tablet of
Ammisaduqa” to imply that the tablet VAT 4956 is riddled with errors. Parts
of the discussion on pages 29-37 of his book are based on an article by John D.
Weir, “The Venus Tablets: A Fresh Approach,” in Journal for the History of
Astronomy, Vol. 13:1, 1982, pp. 23-49. What are these Venus Tablets?
The Venus Tablet of Ammisaduqa
Weir’s article discusses the well-known and much-discussed Venus Tablet of
Ammisaduqa. This tablet belongs to a particular series of some 70 tablets about
celestial omens called Enuma Anu Enlil (EAE). The Venus Tablet is no. 63 in
this series. It contains records of observations of the first and last visibilities of
Venus made in the reign of Ammisaduqa, the penultimate king of the first
dynasty of Babylon. This king probably reigned at least 1000 years before the
Neo-Babylonian era. The fragmentary copies of the Venus tablet, found in
Ashurbanipal’s library in Nineveh (Kouyunjik), are very late. The earliest pieces
date from the reign of Sargon II (721-705 BCE). ( H. Hunger & D. Pingree,
Astral Sciences in Mesopotamia, Leiden, etc.: Brill, 1999, p. 32)
During the past hundred years, many attempts have been made to date the
first dynasty of Babylon with the aid of the Venus Tablet, but no consensus has
been formed. The reign of Ammisaduqa has been variously placed all the way
from the late 3rd millennium down to the 7th century BCE. In 1929 and 1941,
Professor Otto Neugebauer “demonstrated the impossibility of using the
Venus Tablet to date the First Dynasty of Babylon.” (Hunger & Pingree, op. cit.,
pp. 37, 38) One reason this is impossible is that the extant copies bristle with
copying errors. “The data set is the worst I ever have encountered as a
statistician,” said Professor Peter Huber, explaining that “at least 20% to 40%
of the dates must be grossly wrong.” (Peter Huber et al, Astronomical Dating of
Babylon I and Ur III [= Monographic Journals of the Near East, Occ. Papers 1/4],
Malibu, 1982, p. 14)
Weir points to several sources of error connected with the attempts to date
the fragmentary pieces of the Venus Tablet. But it would not be fair to
presuppose that the same sources of error also apply to VAT 4956 and other
important tablets on which the absolute chronology of the Neo-Babylonian and
Persian eras is based. These later tablets belong to the archive of about 1300
astronomical observational texts found in the city of Babylon, texts that contain
thousands of observations recorded from the period ca. 750 BCE—75 CE.
In the discussion below, the subtitles are taken from Furuli’s summary of
the nine supposed “sources for potential errors” listed in his Table 1 on page
37.
12,000-foot mountain range might preclude observations
According to Furuli, one problem for the ancient Babylonian astronomers
was the mountain range to the east of Babylon:
“To the east of Babylon there is a mountain range rising to about
12,000 feet above sea level, while the area to the west of the city is a flat
desert. … it is obvious that the high mountains to the east of Babylon
would prevent some observations.” (p. 29)
Furuli then quotes Weir’s discussion of the change of the arcus visionis caused
by “hills, mountains, trees and so on.” But the Zagros Mountains to the east of
Babylon create no serious problems. The higher parts of the range begin about
230 kilometers east of Babylon with Kuh-e Varzarin at about 9500 feet above sea
level. Mountains “about 12,000 feet above sea level” lie considerably farther
away. Due to the distance and the curvature of the earth, they are not visible
from Babylon, at least not from the ground, as can be testified by anyone who
has been there. Professor Hermann Hunger, for example, says:
“I have been there [in Iraq], three years, of which two months were
spent in Babylon. There are no mountains visible from Babylon.”
(Communication Hunger to Jonsson dated December 4, 2003)
It is possible, of course, that an observer atop the 90-meter-high
Etemenanki ziggurat in Babylon (if the observations could have been made
from there) could have seen a very thin, irregular line of mountains far to the
east, although this, too, is doubtful. This might have affected the arcus visionis to
some degree (the smallest angular distance of the sun below the horizon at the
first or last visibility of a heavenly body above the horizon), which in turn could
have changed the date of the first and last visibility of a heavenly body by a day
or two. Parker and Dubberstein were well aware of this uncertainty, stating that
“it is possible that a certain number of dates in our tables may be wrong by one
day, but as they are purely for historical purposes, this uncertainty is unimportant.” (PD, p.
25; emphasis added) PD’s tables were based on Schoch’s calculated values for
the arcus visionis which, by an examination of 100 Venus observations dating
from 462 to 74 BCE, Professor Peter Huber found to be “surprisingly
accurate.” (Weir, op. cit., pp. 25, 29)
Furthermore, this is a problem with astronomical texts that report only
phenomena close to the horizon, as does the Venus Tablet. (Weir, pp. 25-47)
Observations of lunar and planetary positions related to specific stars and
constellations would not be affected. And it is these observations, which are
usually higher in the sky and not in the horizon, that are the most useful for
chronological purposes. As noted in GTR4, ch. 4, A-1, the astronomical tablet
VAT 4956 records about 30 such lunar and planetary positions, dated to
various days and months in the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, thus fixing that
year as 568/67 BCE with absolute certainty.
Another problem Furuli mentions is related to the place of observation. He
states that it “is assumed that the observations … were made in Babylon; if they
were made in another locality this may influence the interpretation of the
observations.” (p. 32) He then quotes from Weir’s discussion of the
observations on the Venus Tablet of Ammisaduqa, which according to his
calculations might have been made at “a latitude of 1½ degree north of
Babylon.” This would be about 170 kilometers north of Babylon.
Again, this problem applies to the Venus Tablet, the fragmentary copies of
which were found in the ruins of Nineveh, but it does not apply to the archive
of ca.1300 astronomical observational texts found in the city of Babylon. As
shown by modern calculations, these observations must have been made in, or
in the near vicinity of, Babylon. (Cf. Professor A. Aaboe, “Babylonian
Mathematics, Astrology, and Astronomy,” The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol.
III:2, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 276-292)
The crudeness of observations: Each zodiacal sign covers 30 degrees
On page 32 Furuli mentions another potential source of error:
“One problem is the crudeness of the observations. Because the
tablets probably were made for astrological reasons, it was enough to
know the zodiacal sign in which the moon or a certain planet was found
at a particular point of time. This does not give particularly accurate
observations.”
By this statement Furuli creates a false impression that the lunar and
planetary positions recorded on the Babylonian astronomical tablets are given
only in relation to zodiacal signs of 30 degrees each. He supports this by quoting
a scholar, Curtis Wilson, who in a review of a book by R. R. Newton made
such a claim, stating that, “The position of the planet is specified only within an
interval of 30o.” (C. Wilson in Journal of the History of Astronomy 15:1, 1984, p. 40)
Wilson further claims that this was the reason why Ptolemy, “when in need
of earlier observations of these planets turns not to Babylonian observations
but to those of the Alexandrians of the third century B.C., which give the
planets’ positions in relation to stars.” (C. Wilson, “The Sources of Ptolemy’s
Parameters,” Journal for the History of Astronomy, Vol. 15:1, 1984, pp. 40, 41)
But anyone with even a cursory acquaintance with the Babylonian
astronomical tablets knows that Wilson’s claim—repeated by Furuli—is false.
Although it is true that many positions recorded on the tablets are given with
reference to constellations along the zodiacal belt, the great majority of the
positions, even in the earliest diaries, are given with reference to stars or
planets. The division of the zodiacal belt into signs of 30 degrees each took
place later, during the Persian era, and it is not until “toward the end of the 3rd
century B.C.” that “diaries begin to record the dates when a planet moved from
one zodiacal sign to another.” (H. Hunger in N. M. Swerdlow [ed.], Ancient
Astronomy and Celestial Divination, London: The MIT Press, 1999, p. 77. Cf. B. L.
Van der Waerden, “History of the Zodiak,” Archiv für Orientforschung 16,
1952/1953, pp. 216-230) During the entire 800-year period from ca. 750 BCE
to ca. 75 CE, the Babylonian astronomers used a number of stars close to the
ecliptic as reference points. As Professor Hermann Hunger explains in a work
also used by Furuli:
“In order to give the position of the moon and the planets a number of
stars close to the ecliptic are used for reference. These have been called
‘Normalsterne’ [Normal Stars] by Epping, and the term has remained in
use ever since.” (H. Hunger in ADT, Vol. I, p. 17; emphasis added)
On pages 17-19, Hunger lists 32 such normal stars known from the tablets.
Noel Swerdlow states: “By far the most numerous observations of planets in
the Diaries are of their distances ‘above’ or ‘below’ and ‘in front of’ or ‘behind’
normal stars and each other, measured in cubits and fingers.” (N. M. Swerdlow,
The Babylonian Theory of the Planets, Princeton, New Jersey, 1998, p. 39)
Such detailed observations are shown by VAT 4956, in which about two-
thirds of the lunar and planetary positions recorded are given in relation to normal
stars and planets. And, in contrast to positions related to constellations, where the
moon or a planet usually is just said to be “in front of,” “behind,” “above,”
“below,” or “in” a certain constellation, the records of positions related to
normal stars also give the distances to these stars in “cubits” (ca. 2–2.5 degrees)
and “fingers” (1/24 of the cubit), as Swerdlow points out. Although the
measurements are demonstrably not mathematically exact, they are considerably
more precise than positions related only to constellations. As Swerdlow
suggests, the measurements “may have been made with something as simple as
a graduated rod held at arm’s length.” (Swerdlow, op. cit. p. 40)
By parsing all the astronomical diaries in the first two volumes of
Sachs/Hunger’s ADT, Professor Gerd Grasshoff “obtained descriptions of
3285 events, of which 2781 are complete without unreadable words or broken
plates. Out of those are 1882 topographical events [i.e., positions related to
stars and planets], 604 are lunar observations called Lunar Six … and 295 are
locations of a celestial object in a constellation.” (Gerd Grasshoff, “Normal
Stars in Late Astronomical Babylonian Diaries,” in Noel M. Swerdlow [ed.],
Ancient Astronomy and Celestial Divination, London: The MIT Press, 1999, p. 107)
Thus, two-thirds of the positions are related to stars or planets, whereas only
about 10 percent are related to constellations.
In further support of his claim about the “crudeness of the observations”
recorded on the Babylonian tablets, Furuli gives a lengthy quotation from B. L.
van der Waerden. Unfortunately, Furuli has grossly misinterpreted van der
Waerden’s statements.
Van der Warden is discussing, not the crudeness of the observations, as Furuli
claims, but the crudeness of the calculations that the Babylonian astrologers
performed for the position of the moon at a point of time when the zodiacal
sign in which the moon stood could not be determined by observation, either because
of bad weather or because it was in daytime, when the stars are not seen. These
calculated positions had to be deduced from observed lunar positions near such
a point of time. The observation that van der Waerden quotes from VAT 4956
to show what was required for such calculations is exactly a lunar position
related to a normal star, not just to a zodiacal sign:
“At the beginning of the night of the 5th the moon overtook by 1
cubit eastwards the northern star at the foot of the Lion [= Beta Virginis].” (B.
L. van der Waerden, Science Awakening II, 1974, p. 185)
Furuli, then, has totally misunderstood van der Waerden’s discussion,
because (1) he is speaking about the crudeness of (astrological) calculations, not
about observations, and (2) the kind of observations needed for such calculations
(which he shows by reference to VAT 4956) is detailed because the lunar
position is given in relation to a star, with both distance and direction specified. Although
van der Waerden’s example happens to contain a scribal error (see below under
I-B-4), the information given is definitely not crude. It is specific and precise.
The writing of the original tablet on the basis of observational notes
A further source of error, according to Furuli, is “the process of writing
down the data.” His discussion of this focuses on the astronomical tablet VAT
4956, the “diary” dated to the 37th year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. Furuli
explains:
“The tablet itself is a copy made a long time after the original was
made, but even the original was not made at the time the observations
were made. The tablet covers a whole year, and because clay hardly can
be kept moist for 12 months, the observations must have been written
down on quite a lot of smaller tablets, which were copied when the
original was made.” (pp. 30, 31)
Furuli describes the procedure correctly, and it is well known to
Assyriologists. But Furuli adds in parentheses, “(provided that the data were
not later calculated and there never was an ‘original tablet’.)” This theory—that
Babylonian scholars at a later time calculated the information recorded on the
astronomical diary VAT 4956 and dated it to the 37th year of
Nebuchadnezzar—is false because many of the phenomena reported on the
tablet were impossible to retrocalculate.
Because Furuli repeats and elaborates this theory in Chapter 2, I will refute
his claims in connection with my comments on that chapter. It is sufficient to
point out that scholars agree that VAT 4956 is a faithful copy of the original,
which is proven by modern computations of the positions recorded on the
tablet. The copying errors are few and trivial, as pointed out in GTR4, ch. 4, A-
1. (See further below under I-B-4.)
I am aware of only one scholar who has tried to overcome the evidence
provided by VAT 4956, namely, E. W. Faulstich, founder and director of the
Chronology-History Research Institute in Spencer, Iowa, USA. Faulstich
believes it is possible to establish an absolute Bible chronology without the aid
of extra-Biblical sources, based solely on the cyclical phenomena of the Mosaic
law (sabbath days, sabbath and jubilee years) and the cycle of the 24 sections of
the levitical priesthood. One consequence of his theory is that the whole Neo-
Babylonian period has to be moved backward one year. Because this conflicts
with the absolute dating of the period based on the astronomical tablets,
Faulstich argues that VAT 4956 contains information from two separate years
mixed into one. This idea, however, is based on serious mistakes. I have
thoroughly refuted Faulstich’s thesis in the unpublished article, “A critique of
E.W. Faulstich’s Neo-Babylonian chronology” (1999), available from me upon
request.
The copying and redaction of the original tablet
This “source of error” is related to the previous one. As Furuli points out,
VAT 4956 is a later copy in which the copyist tried to modernize the archaic
terminology of the original tablet. This procedure, Furuli states, “may very well
cause errors.”
Copying errors do exist, but they usually create few problems in tablets that
are fairly well preserved and detailed enough to be useful for chronological
purposes. As discussed in GTR4, ch. 4, A-1, the dated lunar and planetary
positions recorded in VAT 4956 evidently contain a couple of scribal errors.
These errors, however, are minor and easily detected by modern computations
based on the recorded observations.
Thus, on the obverse (front) side, line 3 has day 9, which P.V. Neugebauer
and E. F. Weidner pointed out in 1915 is a scribal error for day 8. Similarly,
obverse, line 14 (the line quoted by van der Waerden above), has day 5, which
is obviously an error for day 4. The remaining legible records of observed lunar
and planetary positions, about 30, are correct, as is demonstrated by modern
calculations. In their recent examination of VAT 4956, Professor F. R.
Stephenson and Dr. D. M. Willis conclude:
“The observations analyzed here are sufficiently diverse and accurate
to enable the accepted date of the tablet—i.e. 568-567 B.C.— to be
confidently confirmed.” (F. R. Stephenson & D. M. Willis in J. M. Steele & A.
Imhausen (eds.), Under One Sky. Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient
Near East, Munster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002, pp. 423-428; emphasis added)
Unknown length of the month—29 or 30 days
The next source of error in Furuli’s list is “the unknown length of the
month” in the Babylonian calendar:
“In some instances we do know which months of a particular year in
the reign of a particular king had 30 and which had 29 days, in most
cases we do not know this. … our Babylonian calculation can be up to
one day wrong according to the Julian calendar.” (p. 33)
As I pointed out earlier under I-B-1, this is unimportant for chronological
purposes. Parker and Dubberstein were there quoted as stating that “it is
possible that a certain number of dates in our tables may be wrong by one day,
but as they are purely for historical purposes, this uncertainly is unimportant.”
(PD, p. 25)
Often, when there is an uncertainty of one day, the corresponding Julian day
for a dated Babylonian position of the moon or an inner planet can be
determined exactly by modern computations. This is particularly true of the

moon because it moves 13 degrees a day along the ecliptic, which means that its
position in the sky changes considerably in one day.
Further, as Professor Peter Huber points out, “the Late Babylonian
astronomical texts consistently indicate the month-length by stating whether
the moon became visible on ‘day 30’ or on ‘day 1’.” This practice of indicating
whether the previous month had 30 or 29 days is also consistently used in VAT 4956. (P. J.
Huber et al, Astronomical Dating of Babylon I and Ur III. Monographic Journals of the
Near East, Occasional Papers 1/4, June 1982, p. 7)
Contradicting Furuli’s claim, Gerd Grasshoff, after his careful analysis of the
2781 well-preserved observation reports in the diaries published in ADT, Vols.
I and II (see above under I-B-2), concluded:
“After having completed the successful interpretation of the
observation reports, the analysis shows that 90% of the beginnings of
the months are correctly predicted with an arcus visionis model, the rest
differs only by one day.” (G. Grasshoff, op. cit., p. 109)
A shift in the speed of the earth’s rotation
Another source of error, according to Furuli, is the gradual change in the
speed of the earth’s rotation. On page 33, he again quotes from Weir’s article
about the Old Babylonian Venus Tablet of Ammisaduqa. Weir, in turn, quotes
Huber, who explains that extrapolating the known rotation rates from the Neo-
Babylonian period to the present, back to the preceding 1000-year period, is
“beyond safe ground.”
But Furuli’s quotation is irrelevant because Weir and Huber are discussing
the 1000-year period that preceded Neo-Babylonian times. Weir and Huber both
know that the change in the speed of the earth’s rotation has been established
back to, and even somewhat beyond, the Neo-Babylonian period. This
deviation (called Delta-T) has been known for a long time, although the value
has been gradually refined. The best and most up-to-date examination of the
deviation, based on hundreds of dated observations of lunar eclipses all the way
back to the 8th century BCE, is that of Professor F. Richard Stephenson in
Historical Eclipses and Earth’s Rotation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1997). (See also GTR4, appendix for chapter 4, section 2.)
The rate of increase of the length of a day due to slowing down of the
earth’s rotation, back to the 8th century BCE, has been fixed at an average of
1.7 milliseconds per century (1.7 ms/c; Stephenson, op cit. pp. 513, 514; cf. New
Scientist, 30 January 1999, pp. 30-33). For this period, therefore, we are on “safe
ground.” Furuli can hardly be unaware of this. Today, the gradual change in the
rate of the earth’s rotation is definitely not a significant source of error when
using astronomical tablets from the Neo-Babylonian and Persian eras to
calculate the chronology of these periods.
The interpolation of intercalary months to compensate for the difference

between the solar and the lunar year
Arguing that the interpolation of intercalary months in the Babylonian luni-
solar calendar might be another potential source of error, Furuli (p. 34) quotes
Drs. Ben Zion Wacholder and David B. Weisberg, who say:
“As Professor Abraham Sachs pointed out in a communication to us,
some of the readings of the intercalary months recorded in Parker and
Dubberstein’s tables may not be quite reliable, while a handful are
admittedly hypothetical. But even assuming the essential correctness of
Parker and Dubberstein’s tables, Professor Sachs maintains, the
supposition of a 19-year cycle prior to 386 B.C.E. may be reading into
the evidence something which possibly is not there.” (Ben Zion
Wacholder, Essay on Jewish Chronology and Chronography, New York, 1976,
p. 67)
Nothing in this statement is not also admitted by Parker and Dubberstein,
as can be seen in Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A.D. 75 (1956), pp. 1-9. As
Wacholder and Weisberg further demonstrate in their work, the development
of the 19-year standard scheme of intercalary months was a gradual process
begun in the 7th century. The final stage took place in the 5th and early 4th
centuries, when the seven intercalary months of the 19-year cycle were fixed in
years 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 17, and 19. This process is also clear in PD.
Furuli concludes: “This means that calculations based on the Julian calendar
can be wrong as much as 44 days or even more if the intercalary months were
not added regularly.” (p. 35) This conclusion is based on the unlikely
supposition that sometimes four years could pass before an intercalary month
was added. But the weight of evidence, based on the economic and the
astronomical texts, shows that this never happened after 564 BCE. (See the
updated tables of documented intercalary months presented by Professor John
P. Britton in J. M. Steele & A. Imhausen (eds.), Under One Sky, Münster: Ugarit-
Verlag, 2002, pp. 34-35.)
On page 35, Furuli again uses Weir’s discussion of the Venus Tablet of
Ammisaduqa, this time as a basis for his claim that “a ‘best fit’ scheme is
accepted.” This is undoubtedly true of scholars who have used the Venus
Tablet of Ammisaduqa in their attempts to date the Hammurapi dynasty, but to
imply that such a best fit scheme is also used to fix the absolute chronology of
the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods by means of VAT 4956 and other
astronomical tablets—as if this were a last resort—is dishonest because it is
simply not true.
Different calendars used at different times
Furuli notes that different calendars were used in antiquity by different
peoples at different times. This, of course, is true. But because the use of the
Babylonian luni-solar calendar in the Neo-Babylonian and Persian eras is well
known, it is difficult to see how these other calendars can be “sources of
potential error” in the examination of the Babylonian astronomical tablets.
Furuli’s argument is a straw man.
Furuli mentions that the Egyptians “may have used two calendars” and
states that this might be a problem in “connection with the Aramaic
Elephantine Papyri.” (p. 36) These papyri are not astronomical texts. But,
interestingly, some of them are double-dated in the sense that dates are given
both in the Babylonian calendar and the Egyptian civil calendar. Because these
texts are dated to the reigns of Persian kings in the 5th century BCE, they are
useful to determine the chronology of the period and are discussed in a later
part of this review.
The human factor—and modern researchers
Furuli mentions “the human factor” that might cause “the misreading of a
tablet due to lack of capacity.” (p. 37) This is clearly a potential source of error.
Many odd dates found in works about the tablets published during the past 120
years are due to this factor. It is important, therefore, when such odd dates are
encountered in modern works, to have the original tablet collated afresh.
Strangely, Furuli uses many such dates uncritically and without collation. Some
examples of this have already been given above under I-A-2 and others are
presented in later parts of this review.
Chapter II - ”The Litmus Test of the Absolute Chronology”

Using astronomical tablets for establishing absolute dates
In this chapter, Furuli discusses using astronomical tablets to establish an
absolute chronology. In view of the varied quality and state of preservation of
the Babylonian astronomical tablets, not all are usable for chronological
purposes. Accordingly, Furuli states that each tablet must meet “two
fundamental requirements.” What are they?
Furuli’s criteria for the chronological use of astronomical tablets
The first requirement is the following:
“A. The positions of the heavenly bodies must be observed by the
eye of a scribe and written down at the same time; and they must not
only represent backward calculations made at a much later time.”
This criterion is quite in order. The value of the next requirement,
however, is dubious:
“B. The name of the ruling king must have been written on the
tablet at the time when the observations were made.”
One problem with this criterion is that it is unrealistic. Furuli admits that:
“because clay hardly can be kept moist for 12 months, the
observations must have been written down on quite a lot of smaller
tablets, which were copied when the original was made.” (p. 30)
Modern scholars who take notes on paper face a similar task of collating
their notes. Suppose a scholar is reviewing a book, and on page one of his notes
he records the name of the book. Then he scribbles various comments on
items of interest. The notes run to many pages, but he does not record the title
of the book on every page. When he is finished reading, perhaps months later,
he collates and condenses the scribbled notes and writes a neat summary. Does
the fact that he failed to write the book’s title on every single page of the notes
invalidate the summary? Of course not. In like manner, if the name of a ruling
king is not written down on “smaller tablets, which were copied when the
original was made,” it certainly does not invalidate the observations transferred
to the final tablet, which is subsequently viewed as the original. Furuli’s
criterion B, then, is absurd.
It is transparently obvious that Furuli invented criterion B to disqualify
tablets that could otherwise be used to invalidate his Oslo Chronology. Usually,
the royal name is given only at the beginning of each tablet. But if a tablet is
damaged and the beginning part is missing, the date connected with each
observation recorded is given as the regnal year, the month, the day, and
perhaps the part of the night, with no royal name. However, the observations
might well be so detailed that the observed events can still be identified and
dated to particular Julian years. This is often enough to identify the ruler, even
if his name is missing. A couple of examples serve to illustrate this.
The planetary tablets No. 54 and No. 56
Two tablets that do not meet Furuli’s second requirement (B) are LBAT
1393 and LBAT 1387+1486+1388, published as Nos. 54 and 56 in Hunger’s
ADT, Vol. V. Both are planetary texts that unequivocally overthrow Furuli’s
alternative reigns for Darius I and Artaxerxes I. Furuli gratuitously dismisses
both tablets (pp. 37, 118, 211, and 227) for erroneous, specious, and illusory
reasons. I examine his statements in detail later in this review.
Text No. 54 records observations of Jupiter dated to several regnal years of
a king whose name is not preserved. The preserved regnal year numbers are 23
on the obverse side and 8, 19, 20, 31, and 32 on the reverse side. The ruler
whose reign is treated on the reverse side must have had a long reign because
the last preserved regnal year is 32. The observations recorded for these five
years can be safely dated to years 514, 503, 502, 491, and 490 BCE. The
observations on the obverse side dated to year 23, however, are too badly
damaged to be usable.
The second text, No. 56, records about 80 preserved positions of Venus,
half of which are related to Normal Stars. The data are arranged in 8-year-
groups and 8 columns. The positions are dated to about 20 different regnal
years (most of them fully legible or identifiable as part of the overall
arrangement) that can be fixed to specific Julian years within the 70-year period
from 463/2 to 393/2 BCE. The first king in this period must have had a very
long reign because the highest preserved regnal year for him is 39. The
observations recorded for this year can be dated to 426/5 BCE. The reason the
royal names are missing in both texts is that these parts of the tablets are
broken.
How tablets 54 and 56 make mincemeat of Furuli’s Persian chronology

All Julian dates pointed to by tablets 54 and 56 fall within the reigns of
Darius I, Artaxerxes I, Darius II, and Artaxerxes II, not only according to the
traditional chronology but also according to Furuli’s Oslo Chronology. These tablets,
therefore, can be used to challenge his alternative chronology for these reigns.
It turns out that Furuli’s attempts to push the reign of Darius I one year
forward and the reign of Artaxerxes I 10 years backward are effectively blocked
by these two tablets. The Jupiter observations dated in year 32, for example,
clearly belong to year 490 BCE, not year 489 as required by Furuli’s revised
chronology. In fact, none of the observations dated to specific months and
days in the Babylonian luni-solar calendar can be moved forward or backward
in the way Furuli’s revisions require.
Jupiter’s period of revolution is close to 12 years, which means that on average
its position among the stars changes about 30 degrees a year. However, the
apparent movement among the stars displays stationary points and even
reversals of motion. Tablet 54 illustrates this by saying that in year 31, month
VI, on day 28, Jupiter “became stationary in [the constellation of] Gemini.”
This was exactly the position it held on October 4, 491 BCE, so this date
corresponds to day 28 of month VI in the Babylonian calendar. A year later,
Jupiter had moved about 30 degrees to a new position between the
constellations Leo and Cancer. The recorded position, then, does not allow the
31st year of Darius I to be moved one year forward. The Jupiter phenomena do
not repeat themselves at the same date within the lunar month for another 71 years,
the fact of which the Babylonian astronomers were fully aware. Therefore,
tablet 54 cannot be assigned to any reign other than that of Darius I. The
Jupiter positions in tablet 54 dated to the other four regnal years just as
inexorably block any attempt to change the absolute chronology established for
Darius’ 36-year reign.
Venus, with a period of revolution of only 224.7 days, returns to its position
in relation to various stars and constellations in less than a year. However, it
does not return to the same position at the same time of the year—not after one year or
after 10 years. Such returns occur at 8-year intervals, after 13 revolutions
(8x365.2422 = 13x224.7). The observations on tablet 56, then, which are dated
to specific regnal years, months and days, cannot be fitted into a chronology for
the reign of Artaxerxes I that is moved 10 years backward.
It might be argued that the observations on the two tablets could belong to
kings whose reigns fell in entirely different centuries. But such alternatives are
limited to kings whose reigns lasted at least 32 years (the highest preserved
regnal year in the Jupiter text No. 54) and 39 years (the highest preserved regnal
year in the Venus text No. 56).
Within the period to which all extant Babylonian observational astronomical
cuneiform texts belong (except for the Venus tablet of Ammisaduqa)—i.e.,
from the middle of the 8th century BCE to the 1st century CE—only five kings
are known to have ruled that long or longer: the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal
(42 years), the Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar (43 years), and the Persian
kings Darius I (36 years), Artaxerxes I (41 years), and Artaxerxes II (46 years).
Another possibility is that the regnal years could refer to years in the Seleucid
era (counted from 312/11 BCE).
By using a modern astro-program (Chris Marriott’s SkyMap Pro 10), I have
checked all the alternatives to the reigns of Darius I and Artaxerxes I—and also
the alternative chronologies for these reigns suggested by Furuli’s Oslo
Chronology—and found them all to be impossible. The planetary observations
combined with the regnal years and the dates in the Babylonian luni-solar
calendar fit only the traditional chronologies established for the reigns of
Darius I and Artaxerxes I.
Attempts to invalidate tablets 54 and 56
Tablets 54 and 56 do not meet Furuli’s second requirement (B), but he
attempts to undermine the strength of their evidence in other ways.
On page 37, Furuli refers to tablet No. 54 (LBAT 1393) and states that there
“may be different factors, which contribute to the misreading of a tablet due to
lack of capacity.” He quotes a statement about tablet 54 by Hunger:
“The following reconstruction of the tablet was proposed by C.B.F.
Walker, who notes that any discrepancies between the years attested on
this tablet and the dates reported by A. Sachs in LBAT, p. xxix are to be
explained by the fact that the tablet was not baked and cleaned until
1978.” (ADT, Vol. V, p. 158)
Isolated from context, this seems to indicate that the translation of the
tablet was a mere proposed reconstruction and that it might have been misread
“due to lack of capacity.” This seeming indication is wrong.
Walker’s reconstruction is not an attempted translation of the preserved part
of the tablet. It is a suggested reconstruction of the chronological scheme of the
original, undamaged tablet, which might have covered all the 48 regnal years
from 536/5 to 489/8 BCE arranged as a series of 12-year cycles. The
reconstruction is shown in a table on page 159 of ADT V. The actual
transliteration and translation of the tablet, with its preserved dates,
observations, etc., follows on pages 160-165, after the table.
The regnal years that Sachs had read on the tablet (LBAT, 1955, p. xxix)
before it was baked and cleaned in 1978 were not misreadings that conflict with
the dates read after the cleaning. The “discrepancies” referred to are additional
dates that became legible after the cleaning, dates that increase the
chronological value of the tablet. The way Furuli refers to this tablet is
thoroughly misleading.
Furuli mentions tablet No. 56 in three places in his book, on pages 118, 211,
and 227. One reason for this spread seems to be that the tablet consists of three
pieces, LBAT 1387, 1388, and 1486 (also listed by Hunger as A, B, and C),
which Furuli tends to deal with separately and in different places in his book.
The first two pieces (A + B) contain much information, so much in fact, that
Hunger’s translation of them covers 10 large pages in ADT, Vol. V. Almost all
the observations preserved on the two pieces are dated to various regnal years
of Artaxerxes I, the only exception being one dated to year 6 of his successor,
Darius II. Piece C, on the other hand, is a very small fragment, and Hunger’s
translation of it covers only half a page. No regnal year numbers are preserved
on it. Hunger writes (ADT , p. 172) that the observations recorded on it
probably refer to years 5 and 12 of Artaxerxes II (400 and 393 BCE).
Furuli focuses exclusively on piece C in his description of tablet 56 on page
211, implying that Hunger’s description of this little fragment applies to the
whole text:
“The planetary text consisting of the three pieces LBAT 1387, 1486
and *1388 is supposed to list Venus data between -462/61 and -392/91.
This text is quite fragmentary. One scholar made this comment: ‘of C,
the obverse probably refers to Artaxerxes II year 5, the reverse to year
12. The astronomical information preserved fits this date, especially a
close encounter of Venus and a Leonis in month III of Art II year 5.’
These words are rather cautious, indicated by the adverb ‘probably.’ As a
matter of fact, neither Venus nor any other planet is mentioned on C, Obv. and
Rev. An interpreter may feel there are clues for identifying Venus, but none are
mentioned. So there are problems with this text in connection with the making
of an absolute chronology.”
Furuli does not talk about the extensive information in pieces A and B,
leaving the reader with the impression that the entire Venus tablet is as
fragmentary and problematic as piece C. In a discussion on page 118, he makes
some comments about piece A (1387) but these, too, are aimed at undermining
the strength of the text. He erroneously claims that on this tablet “years 15, 27,
35 are clearly visible, but no other years,” whereas in fact eight regnal years are
visible on the text, namely, years 7, 15, 23, 27, 31, 35, 39 (of Artaxerxes I), and
year 6 (of his successor Darius II). For example, Furuli points out that in T. G.
Pinches’ copy of the tablet published by Sachs in 1955, “the number ‘7’ is
shaded and not clearly seen.” But as Sachs explains (LBAT, p. vii), Pinches
copied from tablets that usually had not been oven-fired, and that “it is to be
expected that improved readings will result from oven firing.” Hunger’s
translation indicates that number 7 is now clearly seen on the tablet, which may
be a result of this. The observations recorded for year 7 in months I, II, III, IV,
V, and VI all fit the 7th year of Artaxerxes I, 458 BCE. Further, Furuli fails to
mention that number 7 is required by the arrangement of the data in 8-year-
groups. It is followed horizontally in the next columns by year numbers 15, 23,
31, 39, and year 6. The 8-year intervals, of course, refer to the periodicity of
Venus positions.
About the same number of years (in the reign of Artaxerxes I) paired at 8-
year intervals are visible in piece B (1388)—years 4, 5, 12, 13, 20, 21, 28 and
2[9]. On page 227, Furuli says that piece B is in conflict with the Oslo
Chronology, but his only explanation is that “the regnal years written by the
scribe need not be correct.” This desperate theory is discussed in section II-C
below.
Tablets 54 and 56 are disastrous for Furuli’s revised Persian chronology, and
he knows it. That is why he wants to get rid of them by every possible
expedient. And that is also why he wants to undermine the trustworthiness of

the astronomical tablets in general by indicating that they probably mainly contain
calculations, not actual observations.
Are most astronomical positions calculated rather than observed?
The “most acute problem for making an absolute chronology based on
astronomical tablets,” Furuli claims, is that many, “perhaps most positions of
the heavenly bodies on such tablets, are calculated rather than observed.” (p.
15)
Is it possible that the Babylonian astronomers could retrocalculate all or
most of the phenomena recorded on astronomical tablets? Are there
indications in the recorded data that they did just that?
As discussed in GTR4, Ch. 4, Babylonian astronomers recognized the
various cycles of the sun, the moon, and the five planets visible to the naked
eye. It is clear that at an early stage they were able to predict or retrocalculate
certain phenomena, such as the occurrences of lunar eclipses and certain
planetary positions. Does this mean, then, that all or most of the phenomena
recorded on the astronomical tablets might have been computed rather than
observed, as Furuli claims?
Phenomena that Babylonian astronomers were able to calculate
In support of the idea that most of the recorded positions of the heavenly
bodies on the astronomical tablets might have been calculated rather than
observed, Furuli presents on page 39 three isolated quotations. All but the first
of the references and footnotes are confused, incomplete, or wrong.
The first quotation, taken from Bertel L. van der Waerden’s work, Science
Awakening (Vol. II, 1974, pp. 281, 282), deals with the ability of the Babylonian
astronomers to calculate the time that a planet entered a certain zodiacal sign or
the position it held when it could not be observed because of clouds or because
it was too near to the sun. These calculations presuppose that Babylonian
astronomers had worked out theories for dating and locating certain recurring
planetary phenomena and had tables at hand that listed planetary positions at
regular intervals. Such lists, which were termed “ephemerides” by Professor
Otto Neugebauer, are called “cardinal tables” by van der Waerden. All extant
tables of this kind are late, almost all dating from the 3rd to the 1st centuries
BCE.
The next quotation, erroneously ascribed to van der Waerden, is actually
from Otto Neugebauer’s three-volume work, Astronomical Cuneiform Texts (1955,
Vol. II, p. 281). Neugebauer’s work does not deal with the observational tablets
but is exclusively devoted to the arithmetical astronomical texts (mainly the tables
of ephemerides mentioned above) from the last few centuries BCE. It is in his
discussion of such texts that Neugebauer points to “the minute role played by
direct observation in the computation of the ephemerides,” a statement that
Furuli greatly stresses by repeating it in extra bold type in a box on the page.
What does Neugebauer really mean?
To be able to work out theories about the regular occurrence of planetary

phenomena, the Babylonians needed numerous observations of the planets
over long periods. Such observations were provided by the astronomical
archives available since the middle of the 8th century BCE. When planetary
theories were finally worked out, planetary tables could be used for calculating
planetary positions when direct observations were not possible. Astronomical
observational tablets, therefore, such as diaries and planetary texts, contain
observations as well as occasional calculations. This is pointed out by van der
Waerden in Furuli’s 3rd quotation.
In this quotation, van der Waerden speaks of the difficulty of deciding
“whether text data were observed or calculated.” Furuli does not explain that
van der Waerden is discussing a text that Furuli, on page 128, claims to be “the
tablet which is most important for Persian chronology, Strm Kambys 400.” Van
der Waerden’s statement is particularly applicable to this text, which seems to
contain mainly calculations. Some scholars even question whether it records any
observations.
It is clear that Babylonian astronomers could calculate a number of
astronomical phenomena. At an early stage, they were using the Saros cycle for
calculating and predicting the occurrences of lunar eclipses. As shown by the
later ephemeride tables, they also learned how to calculate and predict the
occurrences of certain periodic planetary phenomena such as first and last
visibilities, stationary points, and retrogradations. But does this mean that they
were able to calculate or predict all the different astronomical phenomena
reported on the observational tablets?
Phenomena the Babylonian astronomers were unable to calculate
Although the Babylonian astronomers were able to calculate and predict
certain astronomical events, the observational texts—diaries, planetary texts,
and eclipse texts—contain reports of several phenomena and circumstances
connected with the observations that could not have been calculated.
That the diaries usually record real observations is shown by their reports of
climatological phenomena. For example, the scribes repeatedly report when bad
weather prevented astronomical observations. We often find reports about
“clouds and rain of various sorts, described in detail by numerous technical
terms, as well as fog, mist, hail, thunder, lightning, winds from all directions,
often cold, and frequent ‘pisan dib’, of unknown meaning but always associated
with rain.” (Professor N. M. Swerdlow, The Babylonian Theory of the Planets,
Princeton University Press, 1998, p. 18) Other recorded phenomena were
rainbows, solar halos and river levels. None of these could have been
retrocalculated much later. What, then, about the astronomical phenomena?
Discussing the various planetary phenomena recorded in the texts,
Swerdlow observes:
“Conjunctions of planets with the moon and other planets, with their
distances, could neither be calculated by the ephemerides nor predicted
by periodicities.” (Swerdlow, op. cit., p. 23)
Swerdlow further explains:

“The distances of planets from normal stars could be predicted,” but
“there was no way of predicting distances of the moon from planets or
of planets from each other.” (ibid., p. 173)
Note that VAT 4956 records a number of such— for the Babylonian
astronomers— unpredictable and incalculable phenomena.
What about the lunar eclipse reports? Could they have been computed at a
later date? In referring to the 18-year texts (the “Saros cycle texts”), Furuli uses
the term “Saros tablets,” but he does not make it clear whether he is referring
to all extant 18-year tablets (about a dozen) or to a particular group of such
texts. On page 40, he mentions two sets of tablets that use the 18-year Saros
scheme. The first, he says, covers the period from 747 to 315 BCE. His
footnote 51 shows that the set consists of lunar eclipse tablets LBAT 1413–
1417 and 1419 (= Nos. 1–4 in Hunger, ADT, Vol. V). The other “set” he
mentions is actually just one tablet that scholars generally refer to as the “Saros
Tablet,” BM 34576 (= No. 34 in ADT, Vol. V). It covers the 468-year period
from 567 to 99 BCE.
But Furuli does not explain that the first of his two “sets” is a series of
observational texts that record both observed and predicted lunar eclipses at 18-
year intervals, whereas the Saros Tablet belongs to a small group of five
theoretical texts that do not record any lunar eclipse observations at 18-year
intervals but contain only tables of royal names and dates at 18-year intervals.
(See John M. Steele in ADT, Vol. V, pp. 390-393.) The Saros Tablet does show
some traces of a possible eclipse report, but this appears at the bottom of the
reverse side after the 18-year table. It is written at right angles to the main text
and is clearly separated from it.
Despite this basic difference between the observational and theoretical 18-year
tablets, Furuli seems to regard all of them as “hypothetical tablets,” which is
incorrect. In addition, his use of the plural term “Saros tablets” is confusing, as
he does not clearly explain which 18-year texts he is referring to apart from the
Saros Tablet, BM 34576.
With respect to the eclipse observations reported on the lunar eclipse
tablets, including the Saros cycle tablets (discussed in GTR4, Ch. 4, C), the
Babylonian astronomers were certainly able to predict and retrocalculate the
occurrences of lunar eclipses, but they were unable to predict or calculate a
number of important details about them. This is discussed by Dr. John M.
Steele in his work, Observations and Predictions of Eclipse Times by Early Astronomers
(Dordrecht, Boston, and London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000) and in
the article, “Eclipse Prediction in Mesopotamia.” (Archive for History of Exact
Sciences, Vol. 54, 2000, pp. 421-454)
Commenting on the claim that the eclipse records on the lunar eclipse
tablets might be retrocalculations by Babylonian astronomers in the Seleucid
era, Steele explains:
”You were absolutely right when you argued that the Babylonians
could not have retrocalculated the early eclipse records. The Saros cycle
could have been used to determine the date of eclipses, even centuries
earlier, but none of the Babylonian methods could have allowed them to
calculate circumstances such as the direction of the eclipse shadow, the
visibility of planets during the eclipse, and certainly not the direction of
the wind during the eclipse, which we find in early reports (e.g. Text No
3 in Hunger’s latest book states that the eclipse shadow crossed the
moon’s surface in a southerly direction during the eclipse in Bel-ibni’s 1st
year [Obv, I, 2-5], and Obv II, 1-7 says that the west wind blew during
the eclipse of BC 686 Oct 15). Although the Babylonians could calculate
the time of the eclipses, they could not do so to the same level of
accuracy as they could observe—there is a clear difference of accuracy
between eclipses they said were observed and those they say were
predicted (this is discussed in my book), which proves that the ‘observed’
eclipses really were observed.
It is true that the Saros Canon texts published most recently by Aaboe et al
in 1991 are retrocalculated—but they are theoretical texts and should be
considered separately from the observational material of the Diaries and the
eclipse texts in Hunger’s book. The observational material alone is enough to
confirm Parker & Dubberstein’s chronology, with only very minor, and non-
cumulative, corrections.” (Communication Steele to Jonsson, March 27, 2003)
Most of the contents of the observational texts are observations
Although the observational texts, due to particular circumstances such as
bad weather, occasionally contain calculated events, most of the entries are
demonstrably based on actual observations. That this is the case with the
Diaries is directly indicated by the Akkadian name engraved at the end and on
the edges of these tablets: natsaru sha ginê, which means “regular watching.”
(Sachs/Hunger, ADT, Vol. I, p. 11)
Scholars who have examined these tablets in detail agree that they contain
mostly genuine observations. Professor Hermann Hunger gives the following
description of the various kinds of astronomical data recorded in the Diaries:
“Lunar Six [i.e., the time differences between the settings and risings
of the sun and the moon just before and after opposition]; planetary
phases, like first and last visibility … conjunctions between planets and
the so-called Normal Stars … eclipses; solstices and equinoxes;
phenomena of Sirius. Toward the end of the 3rd century B.C., Diaries
begin to record the dates when a planet moved from one zodiacal sign
into another. The rest of the Diaries’ contents is non-astronomical.”
Hunger adds:
“Almost all of these items are observations. Exceptions are the solstices,
equinoxes, and Sirius data, which were computed according to a scheme
... furthermore, in many instances when Lunar Sixes, lunar or solar
eclipses, or planetary phases could not be observed, a date or time is
nevertheless given, marked as not observed. Expected passings of
Normal Stars by the moon are sometimes recorded as missed because of
bad weather, but never is a distance between moon and Normal Star
given as computed.” (Hermann Hunger in N. M. Swerdlow (ed.), Ancient

Astronomy and Celestial Divination, London: The MIT Press, 1999, pp. 77,
78; emphasis added)
Steele similarly concludes:
“Most of the contents of the Diaries represent observations; however, where
observations were unavailable, for example because of bad weather or
because an event was expected to occur at a moment when the heavenly
body was below the horizon, then predictions were entered in their
place. In addition, some data recorded in the Diaries, such as solstices
and equinoxes, were always predicted.” (John M. Steele, “Eclipse
Prediction in Mesopotamia,” Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Vol. 54,
2000, p. 429; emphasis added)
Whether an entry is based on observation or calculation is often directly
stated in the text itself. In the eclipse reports, this is usually indicated by the
terminology. Steele explains:
“As a general rule, eclipse predictions can be distinguished from
observations by the terminology used: sin AN-KU10 denotes an
observed eclipse of the moon, whereas the opposite order, AN-KU10 sin,
refers to a predicted lunar eclipse (for solar eclipses sin is replaced by
šamáš). Furthermore, predicted eclipses are usually described as being šá
DIB meaning that they would be omitted when the luminary was below
the horizon, or ki PAP NU IGI meaning ‘watched for, but not seen’
when the anticipated eclipse failed to appear.” (ibid., p. 429)
In summary, Furuli’s claim that “perhaps most positions of the heavenly
bodies on such tablets, are calculated rather than observed” is groundless. It is
refuted by statements in the tablets themselves and by the fact that they contain
data that the Babylonians were unable to calculate. These circumstances are
diametrically opposed to the suggestion that the data in the astronomical diary
VAT 4956 might have been calculated later so that possibly “there never was
an ‘original tablet’.” (Furuli, p. 30)
Furuli elaborates on this mistaken idea on page 40. Pointing out that VAT
4956 and Strm Kambys 400 “have the characteristics of being copies,” he then
goes on to consider “possible ways that such copies could be made by a scribe
in the 2nd century B.C.E.” He imagines that a scribe could make up such
tablets by using “three different schemes that were at his disposition:” 1) a
scheme of 18-year Saros cycles; 2) a scheme of regnal years of consecutive
kings going backward in time, and 3) a scheme of intercalary months. Then he
states: “By a combination of these three schemes, no observation was
necessary, but a sophisticated chronology could be made for hundreds of years
backward in time.”
As was demonstrated above, the theory that VAT 4956 and other
observational texts could have been made up at a much later time is nothing
but a wild imagining. The idea is just wishful thinking based on insufficient
knowledge of the astronomical tablets.
A theory of desperation
If the entries on the observational tablets—diaries, and lunar and planetary
tablets—record mostly demonstrably genuine observations, and if the
Babylonian astronomers were unable to compute and retrocalculate many of
the astronomical and other data reported, how, then, is it possible for anyone to
wriggle out of the evidence provided by these tablets?
Because the tablets often contain so many detailed observations dated to
specific regnal years that they can be safely fixed to particular Julian years, the
only escape is to question the authenticity of the regnal year numbers found on the
tablets.
This is what Furuli does. He imagines that “a scribe could sit down in the
2nd century and make a tablet partly of some phenomena covering many years,
partly on the basis of theory (the three schemes) and partly on the basis of
tablets from a library” that might show real observations. Then, upon discovery
that the dates on the library tablets conflicted with the theoretical data, “these
erroneous data could be used to ‘correct’ the correct data of his library tablet, to
the effect that the tablet he was making would contain wrong data of regnal
years.” (Furuli, p. 41)
Furuli indicates that not only the dates on the lunar and planetary tablets but
also the dates on the diaries might have been tampered with by the Seleucid
scholars in the same way. Referring again to the fact that the earliest extant
diaries are copies, he says:
“But what about the regnal year(s) of a king that are written on such
tablets? Have they been calibrated to fit an incorrect theoretical
chronological scheme, or have they been copied correctly?” (Furuli, p.
42)
Furuli realizes, of course, that his Oslo Chronology is thoroughly
contradicted by the Babylonian astronomical tablets. That is the reason he
proposes, as a last resort, the theory that these tablets might have been redated
by Seleucid scholars to bring them into agreement with their own supposed
theoretical chronology for earlier times. Is this scenario likely? What does it
imply?
The scale of the supposed Seleucid chronological revisions
To what extent does Furuli’s Oslo Chronology differ from the traditional
chronology? In a chronological table on pages 219-225 covering the 208 years
of the Persian era (539–331 BCE), Furuli shows, reign by reign, the difference
between his chronology and the traditional one. It turns out that the only
agreement between the two are the dating of the reigns of Cyrus and
Cambyses—the period from the fall of Babylon (539 BCE) to 523/2 BCE, a
period of 17 years. By giving Bardiya one full year of reign after Cambyses,
Furuli moves the whole 36-year reign of Darius I one year forward, as
mentioned earlier. Then he moves the reigns of Darius’ successors Xerxes and
Artaxerxes I 10 years backward by adding 10 years to the reign of the latter,
creating a coregency of 11 years between Darius I and Xerxes.
But Furuli also assigns a one-year reign to the usurper Sogdianus between
Artaxerxes I and Darius II. The effect of this is that the remaining reigns up to
331 BCE are all moved one year forward. The end result is that Furuli’s Oslo
Chronology is at variance with the traditional chronology for the Persian era for
191 of its 208 years, or for 92 percent of the period.
But this is not all. As mentioned in the introduction, Furuli wants to add 20
extra years to the Neo-Babylonian period somewhere after the reign of
Nebuchadnezzar—between 562 and 539 BCE. The effect of this—what Furuli
calls the “domino effect”—is that not only the reign of Nebuchadnezzar but all
the reigns of his predecessors are moved backward 20 years.
Because the Babylonian astronomical archive starts with the reign of
Nabonassar, 747-734 BCE, Furuli’s Oslo Chronology is at variance with the
traditional chronology for most, if not the whole, of the Babylonian era from
747 to 539 BCE. This means that the disagreement between the two runs to
more than 90 percent of the 416-year period from 747 to 331 BCE. This also
means that the Oslo Chronology is contradicted by more than 90 percent of the
astronomical observational texts—diaries, eclipse texts, and planetary texts—
dated to this period. Because these tablets record thousands of observations
dated to particular regnal years, months, and days within this period, we begin
to get some idea of the scale of the chronological revisions the Seleucid
scholars must have engaged in—according to Furuli’s theory. Yet, this is only a
fraction of the full scope of the necessary revisions.
The scope of the original astronomical archive
It should be kept in mind that the archive of ca. 1300 nonmathematical and
principally observational astronomical cuneiform tablets is only a fraction of
the scope of the original archive available to the Seleucid scholars. In a lecture
held at a conference in 1994, Professor Hunger explained:
“To give you an idea of how much was originally contained in that
archive, and how much is still preserved, I made a few rough estimates.
From well preserved Diaries, I found that in each month about 15 lunar
and 5 planetary positions, both in relation to Normal Stars, are reported.
Also, every month the so-called lunar Six are recorded. Each year will in
addition contain 3 Sirius phases, 2 solstices and 2 equinoxes, at least 4
eclipse possibilities or eclipses, and about 25 planetary phases. Together,
this results in about 350 astronomical observations per year. In 600
years, 210,000 observations are accumulated. Now I do not know
whether the archive was ever complete to this extent. Sometimes copies
of older Diaries indicate that things were missing in the original. But on
the whole, this is the order of magnitude. By counting the number of
reasonably (i.e., not completely, but more than half) preserved months, I
arrived at ca. 400 months preserved in dated Diaries (undated fragments
do not help for the purposes of this lecture). If we compare this to a
duration of 600 years for the archive, we see that we have preserved ca. 5% of
the months in Diaries.” (H. Hunger, “Non-Mathematical Astronomical
Texts and Their Relationships,” in N. M. Swerdlow (ed.), Ancient
Astronomy and Celestial Divination, London: The MIT Press, 1999, p. 82;
emphasis added)
If only five percent of the original Babylonian astronomical archive is
preserved today, the scale of the chronological revisions Furuli thinks Seleucid
copyists engaged in becomes apparent. To bring their whole archive into
harmony with their supposed theoretical chronology, they would have had to
redate thousands of tablets and tens of thousands of observations. Is it likely
that they believed so strongly in a supposed theoretical chronology that they
bothered to redate four centuries’ worth of archives containing thousands of
tablets? The idea is absurd.
We can also ask why the Seleucid scholars would work out a theoretical
chronology for earlier centuries when a reliable chronology for the whole
period back to the middle of the 8th century could easily be extracted from the
extensive astronomical archive at their disposal. Is it not much more realistic to
conclude that their chronology was exactly the one found in the inherited
archive of tablets, an archive that had been studied and expanded by successive
generations of scholars up to and including their own?
It should be noted that, to make any claims at all about dates in his Oslo
chronology, Furuli must rely on the dating of the tablets that the Seleucids
supposedly revised. But if one assumes that his chronology is valid, then so
must be the dates recorded on the tablets—which destroys his claim that the
Seleucids revised the tablets. Thus, Furuli’s argument is internally inconsistent
and cannot be correct.
Another problem is what became of the original pre-Seleucid tablets. A
necessary consequence of Furuli’s theory is that almost all extant tablets should
reflect only the erroneous theoretical chronology of the Seleucid scholars, not
what Furuli regards as the original and true chronology—the Oslo Chronology.
In his view, therefore, all or almost all extant tablets can only be the late revised
copies of the Seleucid scholars. Thus, on page 64, he claims: “As in the case of
the astronomical diaries on clay tablets, we do not have the autographs of the
Biblical books, but only copies.” This is certainly true of the Biblical books, but
is it true of the astronomical diaries? Is there any evidence to show that all the
astronomical tablets preserved today are only copies from the Seleucid era?
Are all extant tablets late copies from the Seleucid era?
It is certainly true that some of the earliest diaries, including VAT 4956, are
later copies. They frequently reflect the struggle of the copyist to understand
the ancient documents they were copying, some of which were broken or
otherwise damaged. Twice in the text of VAT 4956, for example, the copyist
added the comment “broken off,” indicating he was unable to decipher some
word in the original. Often the documents used archaic terminology that the
copyists tried to modernize. What about diaries from later times?
As an example, there are about 25 diaries from the reign of Artaxerxes II
(404-358 BCE), 11 of which not only preserve the dates (year, month, day) but
also the name of the king. (Sachs/Hunger, ADT, Vol. I, pp. 66-141) Some of
them are extensive and contain numerous observations (e.g., nos. –372 and –
366). None of these tablets show any of the above-mentioned signs of being
later copies. Is it likely, then, that they, or at least some of them, are originals?
This question was sent to Professor Hunger a few years ago. He answered:
“In my opinion, the diaries from the time of Artaxerxes II can all be
from his reign. You know that the larger diaries are all copies in the
sense that they are collections of smaller tablets which covered shorter
periods. But that does not mean that they were copied much later. To
me it would make most sense if after every half a year the notes were
copied into one nice exemplar. I had a quick look through the edition
and did not find any remarks like ‘broken’ which are an indication that
the scribe copied an older original. So I would answer your question ‘is it
likely’ by ‘Yes’.” (Hunger to Jonsson, January 26, 2001)
These tablets, therefore, do not reflect any “theoretical chronology”
supposedly invented by the later Seleucid scholars. The tablets might very well
be original documents. We cannot take it for granted that they are late copies
from the Seleucid era. And the same holds true, not only for the diaries from
the reign of Artaxerxes II but for most of the observational tablets dating from
before the Seleucid era.
Even if some of the diaries and other tablets dated to the earliest centuries
are later copies, it is not known how late these copies are, or whether they were
copied in the Seleucid period or earlier. One interesting example is the lunar
eclipse tablet LBAT 1420 (No. 6 in Hunger’s ADT, Vol. V). This tablet
contains annual records of lunar eclipses dated to the first 29 years of
Nebuchadnezzar. (See GTR4, Ch. 4, C-3) Steele says of it that “this text was
probably compiled not long after its final entry in –575 [= 576 BCE].” (Archive
for History of Exact Sciences, Vol. 54, 2000, p. 432) But even if the compilation
was made in the mid-6th century BCE, the question still is whether the tablet is
a copy or not. If it is a copy, how late is it? Steele explains:
“In answer to your question, there is nothing conclusive in the text
that points to a date of composition as the mid-sixth century. However,
some of the terminology points to an early date, for example, the
inclusion of US ‘(time-)degrees’ after the timings is rare in late texts (the
unit is usually just implied by the context), and the facts that the
predicted eclipses have no times and the general lack of many details of
the observed eclipses are also suggestive of an early date. There is no
evidence for the modernizing of terminology, but because the
observations are quite brief there are not many occasions where
modernizing could have taken place (it is easier to spot in things like star
names and the ways in which the moon and planets are said to be near
certain stars, neither of which appear in this text). For these and other
reasons, the text feels to me like it is contemporary with the material it
contains.
Now that all refers to the date on which the text was composed, not
the date of the tablet. We have no idea whether this is an original text or
one copied in the Seleucid period. (The appearance of a ‘variant’ time in
Obv. I, 4’, which I failed to mention in my book, does not necessarily

imply the text has been copied–it could just be that the scribe who
compiled the text had reports of this eclipse from 2 different observers.)
If it is a copy, then I think it is a straight copy, with no attempt to change
or modify the text.
Because almost none of the diaries and other observational texts have
colophons, we can never be sure whether texts are copies or originals.”
In conclusion, the theory that Seleucid scholars worked out an erroneous
hypothetical chronology for earlier times that they systematically embodied into
the astronomical tablets they were copying cannot be supported by the available
facts. It is not based on historical reality and is a desperate attempt to save
cherished but false dates.
Chapter III - ”The languages and script of the original documents”

Linguistic pitfalls
In this chapter, Furuli says little about chronology. He starts by describing
some of the basic features of the Akkadian, Aramaic, Hebrew, and Sumerian
languages, with a view to discussing “to which extent the signs and peculiarities
of a language may be the cause of some of the contradictory chronological
evidence that we find.” (p. 47) He gives Akkadian the most space and gives the
other three languages just a few paragraphs.
On pages 49-56, Furuli provides general information about Akkadian signs
for words, syllables, and numbers. In the middle of this discussion, on pages
52-54, he attempts to identify Marduk, the chief god of Babylon, as a
deification of Nimrod. This is an old theory suggested by Julius Wellhausen in
the late 19th century and subsequently picked up by many others, including
Alexander Hislop in The Two Babylons (1916, 2nd ed. 1959, footnote on p. 44). It
was adopted for some time by the Watchtower Society, which presented it in
the book “Babylon the Great Has Fallen!” God’s Kingdom Rules! (1963, pp. 33, 34)
with arguments similar to those Furuli quotes from The International Standard
Bible Encyclopaedia, The Encyclopaedia Britannica, The Jewish Encyclopedia, and The
Two Babylons. The theory was included in the Watchtower Society’s Bible
dictionary Aid to Bible Understanding (1971, p. 668) but was dropped in the
revised 1988 edition, Insight on the Scriptures (Vol. 2, p. 974). It was still briefly
mentioned in The Watchtower magazine of April 1, 1999, on page 11.
On the modern reading and understanding of Akkadian, Furuli feels that,
although, generally speaking, “we can have confidence in the translations of
cuneiform tablets that have been published in English, German, French and
other languages … it is important to be aware of the pitfalls” (p. 56). The
pitfalls Furuli lists are: (1) the difficulty of piecing together broken tablets, (2)
the reconstruction of only partially legible signs, (3) the changed meaning of
some signs through time, (4) the confusion of similar signs, and (5) the
difficulty of correctly reading very small single signs. (p. 58)
Modern Akkadian scholars who have spent decades examining cuneiform

tablets are aware of these and other pitfalls, but Furuli’s experience in this area
seems to be limited. Although he says that he is “able to read and work with
original documents in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Akkadian” (p. 14), he
seems to have examined the majority of the tablets he discusses or refers to
only second or third hand, by consulting published copies, transcriptions,
transliterations, and translations in works written by other scholars—some of
which date from the late 19th century. That is evidently why, in the
Introduction, Furuli says he is “interested to be informed about tablets where
collation indicate [sic] errors in the published transliterations or transcriptions.”
(p. 14, ftn. 5; cf. also p. 58, ftn. 67) If such tablets are used in a scholarly work
in support of a revised chronology, the collations should precede, not follow,
publication. This stipulation is particularly important for a work that the author
claims is aimed at replacing Parker and Dubberstein’s classical study from 1956
on Babylonian Chronology.
For many years, I have asked modern Akkadian scholars to collate original
tablets with odd dates in published translations, including a number of those
used by Furuli and his coreligionists in support of their alternative chronology,
often with disastrous results for the suggested revisions. Therefore, when Furuli
claims that “scores of tablets have been published with anomalous dates,
particularly in the New Babylonian Empire” (p. 58), it would be interesting to
know which tablets he is referring to and to what extent he has had their dates
collated afresh.
The mysterious Marduk-shar-usur
As one example of “possible reading errors,” Furuli refers on page 60 to a
Neo-Babylonian tablet that Chad W. St. Boscawen found in 1877 among the
Egibi tablets that had just arrived at the British Museum from Iraq. The tablet
was dated to day 23, month 9 (Kislev), year 3 of a Neo-Babylonian king, whose
name Boscawen first read as Marduk-sar-uzur.
Boscawen placed the name in a separate Addenda of a paper that was read
before The Society of Biblical Archaeology in London on June 5, 1877. At a
discussion held the following month (not the next year, as Furuli writes), on
July 3, 1877, Boscawen stated that, on further examination, he had arrived at
the conclusion that Marduk-sar-uzur “is a variant name for Nergal-sar-uzur”
(i.e., Neriglissar). He explained:
“When we have some 2,000 tablets to go through, and to read names,
which, as everyone who has studied Assyrian knows, is the most difficult
part, because it is not easy always to recognize the same name, as it may
be written four or five different ways, you may judge it is an arduous
task. I have copied two apparently different names; but afterwards found
them to be variants of the same name.” (Transactions of the Society of Biblical
Archaeology (TSBA), Vol. VI, 1878, p. 78 and pp. 108-111)
Attempting to extend the Neo-Babylonian period (as required by the
Watchtower Society’s chronology), Furuli had argued in an earlier paper that
Marduk-shar-usur must have been an extra, unknown king who ruled for at
least three years during the Neo-Babylonian period. I discussed this idea at
length in Supplement to The Gentile Times Reconsidered (1989), pp. 20-24. (See also
the comments on Marduk-shar-usur in GTR4, App. for Ch. 3, ftn. 24.) Because
Boscawen did not give the BM number of the tablet, it could not be identified
and collated at that time. But in his new book, Furuli identifies the tablet as BM
30599, a transliteration and translation of which is published as No. 83 in
Ronald H. Sack’s Neriglissar—King of Babylon (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1994, pp. 224, 225). Furuli’s identification seems convincing: The date
on BM 30599 is the same as that given by Boscawen, “month Kislev, 23rd day,
in the third year.” Boscawen further adds that “the contracting parties are
Idina-Marduk son of Basa, son of Nursin; and among the witnesses, Dayan-
Marduk son of Musezib.” (TSBA VI, p. 78) The same individuals also appear
on BM 30599 (the latter not as a witness but as an ancestor of the scribe). Sack,
however, reads the royal name on the tablet not as Marduk-shar-usur but as Nergal-
šarra-usur (transliterated dU+GUR-LUGAL-SHESH).
But Furuli seems unwilling to give up the idea that an unknown Neo-
Babylonian king named Marduk-shar-usur might have existed. Not only does
he argue that the cuneiform signs for Nergal and Marduk can be confused but
also that this “can work both ways,” so that “it is possible that Boscawen’s
reading was correct after all” and also that it cannot be excluded that some of
the tablets ascribed to Nergal-shar-usur should have been read as Marduk-shar-
usur. (p. 62)
To determine whether such confusion is possible, I sent an email message
to C. B. F. Walker at the British Museum and asked him to collate the original
tablet (BM 30599). In his answer, he states:
“I have just taken BM 30599 out to check it, and I do not see how
anyone could read the name as anything other than dU+GUR-LUGAL-
SHESH. A reading Marduk-shar-usur would seem to be completely
excluded. Our records show that the tablet was baked (and cleaned?) in
1961, but it had been published by T G Pinches in the 5th volume of
Rawlinson’s Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, plate 67 no. 4 in a copy
which clearly shows dU+GUR. It was also published by Strassmaier in
1885 (Die babylonischen Inschriften im Museum zu Liverpool: Brill, Leiden,
1885) no. 123, again clearly with dU+GUR. So the reading cannot be put
down to our cleansing the tablet in 1961, if we did.” (Walker to Jonsson,
October 15, 2003)
An anonymous Jehovah’s Witness scholar from South America, who has
been investigating this subject, has since written to a number of Assyriologists
around the world about the matter. None of the 11 scholars who responded
agree with Furuli’s suppositions. One of them, Dr. Cornelia Wunsch in
London, who also personally collated the original tablet, pointed out that “the
tablet is in good condition” and that there is “no doubt about Nergal, as
published in 5R 64,4 by Pinches. More than 100 years ago he already corrected
the misreading by Boscawen.” She also explains that “Boscawen was not a great
scholar. He relied heavily on the notes that G. Smith had taken when he first
saw the tablets in Baghdad.” (Cf. GTR4, Ch. 3, B-3a, ftn. 67)
Clearly, Furuli has been trying to make too much of Boscawen’s misreading
of this tablet, partly because he had not collated, or asked anyone to collate, the
original tablet before he published his book and evidently also, as shown by his
comments, because his knowledge of Akkadian is insufficient.
A second witness to a Neo-Babylonian king Marduk-shar-usur?
In further support of the possible existence of a king named Marduk-shar-
usur, Furuli refers to “another tablet from New Babylonian times (BM 56709)
dated on the 12th day, month x, in the 1st year of a king whose name starts
with Marduk, but where the rest is broken. This king is unknown.” (p. 61) This
text is listed in the Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum (CBT),
Vol. 6 (London: The Trustees of the British Museum, 1986, p. 215). In an
unpublished list of “Corrections and additions to CBT 6-8” (Mon, Mar 18,
1996), which Walker keeps at the British Museum, Walker gives the following
comments on the text:
“56709 Marduk-[…] 12/–/1 Dated at Borsippa. CT 55, 92 (not CT 56,
356).
The tablet is probably early Neo-Babylonian.”
Note the word “probably” and the words “early Neo-Babylonian.” This is a
suggestion. Furthermore, scholars often use the term “Neo-Babylonian” to
describe a more extended period than 625-539 BCE. The Assyrian Dictionary, for
example, starts the period at about 1150 BCE and ends it in the 4th century
BCE. (see GTR4, Ch. 3, ftn. 1) Maybe this is how Walker uses the term here.
The names of about a dozen Babylonian kings between ca. 1150 and 625 BCE
begin with Marduk-, including Marduk-apla-iddina II (the Biblical Merodach-
Baladan, Isa. 39:1, who ruled in Babylon twice, 721-710 and 703 BCE), and
Marduk-zakir-shumi II (703). Thus, as the royal name is only partially legible
and we don’t know exactly to which period the tablet belongs, it is useless for
chronological purposes.
The examples above show how important it is to have the original tablets
collated before using seemingly odd dates or royal names found in published
translations to support chronological revisions. They also show that such
readings should be done by experienced scholars who are linguistically
competent.
Chapter IV - “Old chronological accounts of the New Babylonian kings”

Chapter 4 consists of two parts. In the first part, pp. 66-75, which I will call
part A, Furuli reviews some of the ancient secondary and tertiary sources that
contain information about Neo-Babylonian kings and their reigns. In the
second part, pp. 75-92, which I will call part B, he discusses six of the Biblical
passages that mention a period of 70 years, claiming that they all refer to the
same period—namely, a period of complete desolation of Judah and Jerusalem
during the Jewish exile in Babylonia. This accords with the view of the
Watchtower Society.
Secondary and tertiary sources

Furuli’s presentation of the secondary and tertiary sources for the Neo-
Babylonian chronology seems to be based mainly on the surveys of R. P.
Dougherty in Nabonidus and Belshazzar (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1929, pp. 7-10) and Ronald. H. Sack in Neriglissar—King of Babylon (Neukirchen–
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1994, pp. 1-22). Most of the ancient authors that
Furuli mentions lived hundreds of years after the Neo-Babylonian era, and their
writings, which are preserved only in very late copies, often give distorted royal
names and regnal years. Most of these sources, therefore, are useless for
chronological purposes. (See GTR4, Ch. 3, A). This can be seen in Furuli’s table
on page 74, in which he lists the concordant chronology for the Neo-
Babylonian era given by Berossus (3rd century BCE) and Ptolemy’s Royal
Canon, together with the conflicting figures of Polyhistor (1st century BCE),
Josephus (1st century CE), the Talmud (5th century CE), Syncellus (c. 800 CE),
and, strangely, a totally corrupt kinglist from 1498 CE. Putting such distorted
sources in the same table with Berossus and the Ptolemaic Canon—the two
most reliable chronological sources for the Neo-Babylonian era next to the
cuneiform documents themselves—suggests that the sources are equally
unreliable and should not be trusted. That this is the purpose of the table is
obvious from Furuli’s comments on its conflicting figures:
“The spread of numbers in the table shows that different
chronologies regarding the New Babylonian kings existed from old times,”
and “that there were many different traditions describing the New Babylonian
chronology.” (pp. 74, 75; emphasis added)
But this is not really what Furuli’s table shows. Rather, it demonstrates to
what extent figures can change through time and can be distorted by being
quoted and copied time and again by various authors and copyists over a period
of nearly 2000 years.
Furuli starts by stating that “the modern model of the New Babylonian and
Persian chronology was not constructed on the basis of Babylonian sources,
but rather on the basis of secondary or tertiary sources from other places.” (p.
66) But this statement is a distortion because it suggests that the new
foundation of chronology is the same as the old one. Furuli should have added
that, in the latter half of the 19th century, the thousands of Babylonian
cuneiform documents found in Mesopotamia that became available to scholars
enabled them to construct a new foundation for Neo-Babylonian chronology
directly on primary sources. Furuli has committed the fallacy known as
“suppressed evidence” because his argument fails to consider relevant facts.
Berossus on the Neo-Babylonian reigns
Berossus’ Neo-Babylonian chronology, says Sack, “most closely
corresponds to that of the cuneiform documents.” (Sack, op. cit., p. 7) Furuli
quotes this statement on page 67, but on the next page he mentions some of
the mythological material and errors in Berossus’ discussion of earlier
Babylonian periods. The obvious purpose of this is to call into question
Berossus’ statements about Neo-Babylonian chronology. This is a form of ad
hominem argument called “poisoning the well,” in which someone presents
unfavorable information (true or false) about an opponent to suggest that any

claim he makes is probably false. In other words, it is an attempt to bias the
audience.
The only difference between Berossus’ writings and contemporary Neo-
Babylonian cuneiform sources is that Berossus assigns Labashi-Marduk a reign
of nine months instead of two or three. Referring to this difference, Furuli
quotes Sack’s statement that “it is hardly likely (in view of his overall accuracy)
that Berossus could have been incorrect in his figures for the reign of this latter
monarch.” Sack does not mean that Berossus’ figure of nine months is correct
but that, in view of Berossus’ overall accuracy, his original figure for Labashi-
Marduk must have been correct. He holds that the figure nine is most likely a
scribal error arising during manuscript transmission. He concurs with the
explanation of Parker and Dubberstein that the Greek letter theta (used for
number 9) is most likely a mistake for an original letter beta (used for number
2). These two letters are rather similar and could easily be confused in ancient
handwritten manuscripts. Sack states:
“This position seems all the more sensible since the earliest text from
the reign of Nabonidus (May 25, 556 BC) is clearly dated nearly a full
month prior to the latest document bearing the name of Labashi-Marduk
(June 20, 556 BC).” (R. H. Sack, op. cit., 1994, p. 7)
Furuli fails to inform the reader of Sack’s clarifications.
In a further attempt to undermine confidence in Berossus’ information
about the Neo-Babylonian reigns, Furuli quotes Berossus’ English translator
Stanley Mayer Burstein, who points out that “the Babyloniaca contains a number
of errors of simple fact of which, certainly, the most flagrant is the statement
that Nabopolassar ruled Egypt.” (p. 67) But is this error really that flagrant?
Berossus does not say that Nabopolassar conquered Egypt after Necho’s defeat at
Harran; instead he describes the Pharaoh as a rebellious satrap “who had been
posted to Egypt, Coele-Syria, and Phoenicia.” Posted [or placed, tetagménos]
how?
Assyria controlled Egypt in the 7th century BCE, and Ashurbanipal installed
Psammetichus I (664-610 BCE) as a vassal ruler in Memphis. Under
Psammetichus’ long rule, Egypt gradually gained independence and finally
became an ally of Assyria against Babylon. After the Babylonians finally crushed
the Assyrian empire in 609 BCE (despite Egypt’s assistance), the Babylonians
regarded former Assyrian territories as their inheritance, even though some
territories immediately started to fight for independence. From the Babylonian
point of view, then, the defeated Pharaoh Necho would be regarded as a
rebellious satrap because, on retreating from Harran in 609 BCE, Necho
appropriated the Hattu area (Syria-Palestine) in the west. The Jewish historian
Dr. Menahem Stern gives the following comments about Berossus’ statement:
“From the point of view of those who regarded the neo-Babylonian
empire as a continuation of the Assyrian, the conquest of Coele-Syria
and Phoenicia by the Egyptian ruler might be interpreted as the rape of
Babylonian territory.” (M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and
Judaism, Vol. I, Jerusalem: Jerusalem Academic Press, 1974, p. 59)
Flavius Josephus’ conflicting statements

Furuli’s discussion of Flavius Josephus’ information about the Neo-
Babylonian chronology is not reliable because it is partially based on an
obsolete text of Josephus’ works. He starts by quoting Josephus’ distorted
figures for the Neo-Babylonian reigns at Antiquities X,xi,1-2:
“Nabopolassar 29 years, Nebuchadnezzar 43 years, Amel-Marduk 18
years, Neriglissar 40 years.” (p. 69)
Furuli got these figures from William Whiston’s antiquated translation of
1737, which was based on a text that is no longer accepted as the best textual
witness. Had he consulted a modern translation of Josephus’ Antiquities, he
would have discovered that Nabopolassar, at least, is correctly given 21—not
29—years. (See, for example, Ralph Marcus’ translation in the Loeb Classical
Library.)
Furuli believes that Josephus mentions the wrong figure elsewhere. Still
following Whiston’s obsolete translation, he states in footnote 90 on page 69:
“In Against Apion, sect. 17 [error for I,19], Nabopolassar is ascribed
29 years, but this is a quote from Berossus. Josephus does not mention
Nabopolassar and the length of his reign elsewhere.”
This statement, too, is wrong. Against Apion I,19, like Antiquities X,xi,1,
assigns Nabopolassar 21 years, according to all modern textual editions of
Against Apion.*
* Excursion: The best textual editions of Josephus’ Against Apion are those of
Benedictus Niese in Flavii Iosephi Opera, Vol. V (Berlin: Weidmann, 1889), Samuel
Adrianus Naber in Flavii Iosephi Opera Omnia, Vol. VI (Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1896),
H. St. J. Thackeray in Josephus (= Vol. 38:1 in the Loeb Classical Library, London:
William Heinemann, and New York: G. P. Putnamn’s Sons, 1926), and Théodore
Reinach & Léon Blum, Flavius Josèphe Contre Apion (Paris: Société d’Èdition “Les
Belles Lettres,” 1930). William Whiston’s translation was based on manuscripts that
go back to one from the 12th century preserved in Florenz, Codex Laurentianus plut.
lxix 22, usually referred to as L. Although this is the oldest preserved Greek
manuscript of Against Apion, the best textual witness of Josephus’ excerpts from
Berossus in I,19 is Eusebius’ quotations from Josephus’ Against Apion in his
Preparation for the Gospel, Book IX, Chapter XL, and also in the Armenian version of
his Chronicle, 24,29 and 25,5. Both works give Nabopolassar 21 years. This figure is
further supported by the Latin translation (”Lat.”) of Against Apion made in the 6th
century. (C. Boysen, Flavii Iosephi Opera ex Versione Latina Antiqua VI:II [= Vol.
XXXVII in the Vienna Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum], 1898, p. 30. See
also the comments on the textual witnesses by Alfred von Gutschmid in his
“Vorlesungen über Josephus’ Bücher,” published in Kleine Schriften [ed. by Franz
Rühl], Band 4, Leipzig, 1893, pp. 500, 501). Josephus’ Antiquities X,xi,1 clearly gives
Nabopolassar a reign of 21 years. The figure 29 given in Codex Laurentianus (L) from
the 12th century (on which all later manuscripts are based) is, therefore,
demonstrably a late distortion that is corrected in all modern textual editions of
Against Apion and Antiquities. (See also the comments by Thackeray, op. cit., pp. xviii,
xix.)
At the end of page 69, Furuli quotes two widely separated sections from
Against Apion. The first is taken from Against Apion I,19 (§§ 131,132), in which
Josephus is referred to as saying that, according to Berossus,
“ [Nabopolassar] sent his son Nabuchodonosor with a large army to
Egypt and to our country, on hearing that these people had revolted, and
how he defeated them all, burnt the temple at Jerusalem, dislodged and
transported our entire population to Babylon, with the result that the city
lay desolate for seventy years until the time of Cyrus, king of Persia.”
The remarkable thing about this statement is that it places the burning of
the temple in the reign of Nabopolassar. But it actually took place 18 years later
during the 18th year of his son and successor Nebuchadnezzar. The result is
that Josephus, who here regards the 70 years as a period of desolation, starts
the period in the last year of Nabopolassar (i.e., in 605 BCE). Furuli is quoting
from Thackeray’s translation in the Loeb Classical Library and, in a footnote at
the bottom of the page, quotes Thackeray: “The burning of the temple, not
mentioned in the extract which follows, is presumably interpolated by
Josephus, and erroneously placed in the reign of Nabopolassar.” Clearly,
Josephus’ application of the 70 years in this passage is based on a serious
distortion of his sources. He seems to have confused events concerning
Jerusalem in the last year of Nabopolassar’s reign with events in the 18th year
of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign.
Furuli’s next quotation, which he places directly after the first, is taken from
Against Apion I,21 (§ 154), and begins:
“This statement is both correct and in accordance with our books.”
This might give a reader the impression that Josephus is still speaking of the
70-year-long desolate state of Jerusalem in Furuli’s preceding quotation. But, as
stated above, the two quotations are from widely separated sections. Josephus
is referring to his lengthy quotation from Berossus in the immediately
preceding section (I,20, §§ 146-153), in which Berossus gives the length of all
the Neo-Babylonian kings from Nebuchadnezzar to Nabonidus:
Nebuchadnezzar 43 years, Awel-Marduk 2 years, Neriglissar 4 years, Labashi-
Marduk 9 months, and Nabonidus 17 years. It is this chronology Josephus
refers to when he immediately goes on to say that it “is both correct and in
accordance with our books.” (Against Apion I,21, § 154) He then explains why it
is correct:
“For in the latter [the Scriptures] it is recorded that Nabuchodonosor
in the eighteenth year of his reign devastated our temple, that for fifty
years it ceased to exist, that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus the
foundations were laid, and lastly that in the second year of the reign of
Darius it was completed.”
According to Berossus’ figures, there were ca. 49 years from
Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year until the end of Nabonidus’ reign. Because the
foundation of the temple was laid in the 2nd year of Cyrus (Ezra 3:8), Josephus’
statement that the temple had been desolate for “fifty years” is in agreement
with Berossus’ chronology. (For the textual evidence supporting the figure 50
in Against Apion, see GTR4, Ch. 7, A-3, ftn. 30.)
It is obvious that Josephus, in his works, repeatedly presents confusing and

erroneous statements about the Neo-Babylonian reigns and conflicting
explanations of the period of Jerusalem’s desolation. It is only in his latest
discussion, in which he quotes Berossus’ figures, that his statements can be
shown to roughly agree with reliable historical sources.
The chronology of Ptolemy’s Canon—centuries older than Ptolemy
How important are the writings of Claudius Ptolemy (2nd century CE) for
the chronology established for the Neo-Babylonian era? Furuli assigns them a
decisive role:
“One of the most important sources for the present New Babylonian
chronology is Claudius Ptolemy (2nd century C.E.). As one author
expressed it: ‘The data from the Almagest provide the backbone for all
modern chronology of antiquity’.” (p. 70)
The author quoted is Professor Otto Neugebauer, who until his death in
1990 was a leading authority on the astronomical cuneiform tablets. What did
he mean? Did he mean that the ancient astronomical observations that Claudius
Ptolemy presented in Almagest still are the principal or perhaps even the sole
basis for the absolute chronology scholars have established for the Neo-
Babylonian and Persian periods? As will be demonstrated below, definitely not.
Recurring themes in Furuli’s book are (1) that the Neo-Babylonian and
Persian chronology builds on the writings of Claudius Ptolemy, (2) that
Claudius Ptolemy was a fraud who falsified the ancient observations he used,
and (3) that, therefore, the chronology established for those ancient periods is
false. As early as page 13, Furuli claims:
“The modern view of the chronology of the old world builds on the
writings of Claudius Ptolemy. Twenty-five years ago the geophysicist R.
R. Newton argued that Ptolemy was a fraud because he claimed he made
observations when instead he made calculations backwards in time.”
But Furuli’s thesis is a straw man, an argument without substance. No
informed scholar today holds that the writings of Claudius Ptolemy are now the
basis of the chronology established for the Ancient Near East. True, Parker and
Dubberstein stated half a century ago that they had used the Ptolemaic Canon
and some other classical sources as a general basis for their Babylonian
chronology. But they went on to explain that they checked, confirmed, and
improved this chronology by using Babylonian cuneiform texts such as
chronicles, kinglists, economic texts, and astronomical tablets. (PD, 1956, p. 10)
Furthermore, Claudius Ptolemy did not originally create the Ptolemaic
Canon—he merely reproduced an existing list of kings. As Professor Neugebauer
(the author quoted by Furuli) once pointed out, the common name of the
kinglist, “Ptolemy’s Canon,” is a misnomer. This has been known for a long time.
F. X. Kugler and Eduard Meyer, for example, pointed out long ago that the list
had been in use for centuries before Ptolemy. (For additional details and
documentation about this, see GTR4, Ch. 3, A-2.)
Strangely, but apparently unknowingly, Furuli accepts this, in contradiction

to his strawman arguments. In the Introduction, he notes that the Ptolemaic
scheme “fits perfectly with the theoretical eclipse scheme of Saros cycles and
intercalary months” (pp. 13, 14), that is, the chronology of the cuneiform
tablets from the Seleucid era (312-64 BCE) that list dates at 18-year intervals for
earlier periods. In a later discussion of a group of such Saros texts, Furuli points
out (p. 97) that the group of tablets he refers to gives an unbroken series of
dates at 18-year intervals from year 31 of Darius I (491 BCE) down into the
Seleucid era. He notes that the chronology of these tablets, if correct, would
rule out his Oslo Chronology (with its Darius/Xerxes co-regency and its 51-
year reign of Artaxerxes I). The chronology of the 18-year texts, Furuli admits,
is the same as that of Ptolemy’s Canon:
“It is quite clear that Ptolemy did not invent his chronology of kings,
but that he built on an already accepted chronology. This chronology
was evidently the one the scribe(s) of the Saros tablets used.” (p. 98)
The question, then, is: Because the chronology of Ptolemy’s Canon for the
Neo-Babylonian and Persian eras existed hundreds of years before Claudius
Ptolemy, how can Furuli claim that “the modern view of the chronology of the
old world builds on the writings of Claudius Ptolemy”? This claim is not true
today, and Furuli knows it. Obviously, Ptolemy inherited his chronology from
earlier generations of scholars, although he might have added to it by updating
it to his own time, as scholars had done before him and as others continued to
do after him. (GTR4, p. 94, note 12 with reference) Of course, this fact makes
Furuli’s attempt to bias his readers against Ptolemy’s Canon irrelevant to the
the question of chronology.
When Furuli speaks of “the writings of Claudius Ptolemy” as the basis of
the chronology of the old world, he reveals a remarkable ignorance of the
contents of these writings. Of Ptolemy’s greatest and best known work, for
example, Furuli says,
“his work Almagest (Ptolemy’s canon) has tables showing Assyrian,
Babylonian, Persian and Greek kings together with the years of their
reigns.” (p. 70)
Almagest contains no such things. Strangely, Furuli seems to believe that
Almagest is identical to Ptolemy’s Canon. In Almagest, a work originally published
in 13 volumes, Ptolemy summed up all the astronomical and mathematical
knowledge of his time. How Furuli can confuse Almagest with Ptolemy’s Canon,
a chronological table covering about a page (GTR4, Ch. 3, A-2), is puzzling.
True, the dates of events and ancient observations found in Almagest agree
with the chronology of the Canon and, like the Canon, it dates events from the
beginning of the so-called “Nabonassar Era” (747 BCE). But Almagest never
contained the Ptolemaic Canon with its chronological tables. This kinglist was included in
another work by Claudius Ptolemy known as the Handy Tables.
Furuli discusses at length (pp. 70-73) Professor Robert R. Newton’s claim
that Claudius Ptolemy was a fraud, concluding that this is a problem because
“researchers since the Middle ages … have viewed Ptolemy’s historical and
chronological statements as truth and nothing but the truth. This is the reason
why Ptolemy’s statements are the very backbone of the modern New
Babylonian chronology.” (p. 73) But Furuli admits that the chronology of
Ptolemy’s Canon existed hundreds of years before Ptolemy, so how can
accusations against Ptolemy be a problem? Whether he was a fraud or not is
irrelevant to the evaluation of the reliability of the Ptolemaic Canon, which also, and more
correctly, is called the Royal Canon. (See GTR4, Ch. 3, A-2, ftn. 21.)
Ptolemy’s Canon—the foundation of ancient chronology?
So what about Neugebauer’s statement that “the data from the Almagest
provide the backbone for all modern chronology of antiquity?” The answer is
that Furuli quotes it out of context. It appears in Neugebauer’s work, A History
of Ancient Mathematical Astronomy, Part Three (Berlin/Heidelberg,/New York:
Springer-Verlag, 1975, p. 1071), in a section in which Neugebauer describes
“The Foundations of Historical Chronology.” In this section, he uses the word
“modern” in the broader sense (i.e., the period since the breakthrough of
modern astronomy in the 16th century). In the very next sentence, Neugebauer
mentions the “modern scholars” who he says used Ptolemy’s dates as a basis
for their chronology: Copernicus (1473-1543), Scaliger (1540-1609), Kepler
(1571-1630), and Newton (1643-1727).
Neugebauer’s statement, then, refers to the situation that has prevailed
during the past 400 years. But he further explains that, more recently, securely
established chronological data of ancient observations have been obtained from
the “great wealth of observational records assembled in Babylonia during the
last three or four centuries B.C.” These data have enabled scholars to check the
Canon and confirm its reliability. (Neugebauer, pp. 1072, 1073)
Some years earlier, in a review of A. J. Sachs (ed.), Late Babylonian
Astronomical and Related Texts (LBAT) (1955), Neugebauer emphasized the
importance of the Babylonian astronomical texts for the Mesopotamian
chronology. Of their value for establishing the chronology of the Seleucid era,
for example, he explained:
“Since planetary and lunar data of such variety and abundance define
the date of a text with absolute accuracy—lunar positions with respect to
fixed stars do not even allow 24 hours of uncertainty which is otherwise
involved in lunar dates—we have here records of Seleucid history which
are far more reliable than any other historical source material at our
disposal.” (Orientalistische Literaturzeitung, Vol. 52, Berlin, 1957, p. 133)
A similar confirmation of the Ptolemaic chronology has been established for
earlier periods. The editor of the above-mentioned work, Professor Abraham J.
Sachs, who was a leading authority on the astronomical texts and also a close
friend and colleague of Neugebauer, explains how the cuneiform sources have
provided an independent confirmation of Ptolemy’s kinglist back to its very
beginning, thus establishing the absolute chronology of the Babylonian,
Persian, and Seleucid eras. In the statement quoted below, Sachs speaks of
Ptolemy’s kinglist as “Theon’s royal list” because it has traditionally been held
that the mathematician Theon (4th century CE) included the kinglist in his
revision of Ptolemy’s Handy Tablets. This view has recently been questioned, so
“Theon’s royal list” could be as much a misnomer as is “Ptolemy’s Canon.”

(Cf. Dr. Leo Depuydt in the Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 47, 1995, p. 104)
Apart from this detail, Sachs makes the following comparison between the
kinglist and the cuneiform sources:
“The absolute chronology of the Babylonian first group of kings is
easy to establish because, as has been mentioned, Ptolemy quotes the
report of an eclipse in the time of king Mardokempados. Even more
important, this absolute chronology has been independently confirmed
by cuneiform texts from Babylon which contain astronomical
observations. These number more than 1000 pieces of day-to-day
astronomical observations of positions and phases of the Moon,
Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn, beginning around 650 B.C.
and continuing, in increasingly dense numbers, into the first century
before the beginning of our era. Thanks to these astronomical diaries, numerous
overlaps with the royal list in Theon’s Handy Tables have been established, always in
agreement. In other cases, the lengths of the reigns of individual kings in
Theon’s royal list can be confirmed by the careful study of the dates
given in contemporaneous economic and administrative texts found in
Babylonia; this is possible because for parts of the period covered by the
royal list, we have so many of these texts that they average out to one
every few days. In this way – namely, by using Theon’s royal list,
Babylonian astronomical diaries, and Babylonian dated tablets—one is able
to establish with confidence the absolute chronology back to the middle of the eighth
century B.C., i.e. the reign of king Nabonassar of Babylon.” (A. J. Sachs,
“Absolute dating from Mesopotamian records,” Philosophical Transactions
of the Royal Society of London, Ser. A, Vol. 26, 1971, p. 20; emphasis added)
As Professor Sachs points out in this statement, the Royal Canon has been
gradually replaced in recent times as the foundation of ancient chronology by
the many native sources from Babylonia, in particular by the great number of
astronomical cuneiform documents, which provide “numerous overlaps” with
the Royal Canon, “always in agreement,” thereby replacing it at these many
points. The earlier role of the Royal Canon as the foundation of ancient
chronology has dwindled to a fraction of the period it covers. At some points,
it is still needed as a trusted complement because of its proven reliability.
Depuydt, a renowned Egyptologist and specialist on ancient chronology who
has been examining the history and reliability of the Royal Canon for a long
time, aptly describes the shifting foundation of the chronology of antiquity:
“To the extant that the Canon’s veracity is proven as the foundation
of first millennium B.C.E. chronology, to that extent the Canon will also
become superfluous as a foundation. And even more remarkably, to the
extent that its veracity is not proven, for those parts it remains
fundamental to first millennium B.C.E. chronology.” (Leo Depuydt,
“The Shifting Foundation of Ancient Chronology,” forthcoming in Acts
of European Association of Archaeologists, Meeting VIII)
It is a remarkable fact that Ptolemy’s kinglist has never been shown to be

wrong. Depuydt emphasizes this in the article quoted above:
“Is there any chance that the Canon is false? For four centuries now,
the Canon has been put through countless contacts with countless
individual sources. To my knowledge, no one has ever found any serious
reason to suspect that the Canon is not true. A kind of common sense
about the Canon’s veracity has therefore grown over the centuries. This
common sense guarantees, in my opinion, that the Canon will remain
fundamental to ancient chronology.”
Furuli’s “summary” of the secondary and tertiary sources
On page 92, Furuli gives a summary of the secondary and tertiary sources he
has presented:
“In opposition to the Bible, Berossus, Polyhistor, Ptolemy and
Syncellus II make room for only about 50 years of exile with the country
laying desolate, while Josephus, the Talmud, Syncellus I, and
Antiquitatum all agree on 70 years.”
This is a strange summary. True, the chronologies of Berossus and Ptolemy
both indicate that Jerusalem lay desolate for 48 years, whereas the figures of
Syncellus II indicate 50 years. But the figures of Polyhistor indicate a desolation
period of 58 years. And the claim that “Josephus, the Talmud, Syncellus I, and
Antiquitatum all agree on 70 years” is almost totally wrong:
(1) Josephus’ figures in Antiquities. X.xi.1-2 imply that Jerusalem lay desolate
for 100 years. True, at some other places Josephus assigns 70 years to the
period, but in one of them, as we saw, he dates the desolation of Jerusalem to
the 21st year of Nabopolassar. And, in his final statement about the period, he
says that the desolation lasted for 50 years.
(2) The Talmud does not support Furuli. The figures he quotes from it—45
regnal years for Nebuchadnezzar, 23 for Amel-Marduk, and no figures for the
remaining kings—do not indicate any 70-year period. The chronological treatise
in the Talmud known as Seder Olam, in fact, states that Judah lay desolate for
only 52 years. This treatise is one of the oldest parts of the Talmud, supposedly
written by Rabbi Yose in the 3rd century CE. (C. Milikowsky, Seder Olam, Vol.
2, University Microfilm International, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1981, pp. 535,
543)
(3) The figures that Furuli quotes from the late kinglist Antiquitatum assign
30 years of reign to Nebuchadnezzar, 3 to Amel-Marduk, 6 to Nergal-shar-
ussur, and none to Labashi-Marduk and Nabonidus. These figures do not point
to any 70-year period, either.
(4) The figures of Syncellus I indicate a 67-year period of desolation.
Furuli’s statement that these four sources “all agree on 70 years,” then, is
demonstrably false.
The Biblical 70 years

Furuli begins this section by stating that “the one who connects a particular
number with the exile, is the prophet Jeremiah.” (p. 75) Earlier, on page 15,
Furuli claimed that “some of the texts unambiguously say that Jerusalem was a
desolate waste during these 70 years.” And on page 17 he stated that “the Bible
… says unambiguously that Jerusalem and the land of Judah were a desolate waste
without inhabitants for a full 70 years.”
But this is not what Jeremiah says. The prophet directly applies the 70 years
to the length of Babylon’s dominion over the nations, not to the length of the desolation
of Jerusalem and the Jewish exile. This is in remarkable agreement with the
established facts of history. Babylon’s supremacy in the Near East began with
the final shattering of Assyrian power in 610/609 BCE and ended with the fall
of Babylon 70 years later in 539 BCE, exactly as Jeremiah had stated:
“these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”—
Jeremiah 25:11 (NIV)
“When seventy years are completed for Babylon, I will come back to
you and fulfill my gracious promise to bring you back to this place.”—
Jeremiah 29:10 (NIV)
These texts clearly apply the 70-year period to Babylon, not to Jerusalem.
Furuli even admits this, stating that “the text does not say explicitly that it refers
to an exile for the Jewish nation. If we make a grammatical analysis in 25:11, we
find that ‘these nations’ is the grammatical subject, and in 29:10, ‘Babylon’ is
the patient, that is, the nation that should experience the period of 70 years.” (p.
75)
Attempting to evade this undesirable conclusion, Furuli turns to the 70-year
passages at Daniel 9:2 and 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21, stating that “the writers of
Daniel and 2 Chronicles understood the words of Jeremiah to imply a 70-year
exile for the Jewish nation.” After quoting the New International Version (NIV)
for these two texts, he claims:
“As the analysis below shows, the words of Daniel and the
Chronicler are unambiguous. They show definitely that Daniel and the
Chronicler understood Jeremiah to prophesy about a 70-year period for
the Jewish people when the land was desolate.” (p. 76)
Because Daniel and the Chronicler lived after the end of the exile, they
knew its real length and “could interpret Jeremiah’s words correctly,” Furuli
argues. Then he states:
“A fundamental principle of interpretation which is universally
accepted, is to interpret an ambiguous passage in the light of an
unambiguous passage. In our case we have two unambiguous passages,
namely, Daniel 9:2 and 2 Chronicles 36:21, which apply the 70 years of
the desolate condition to Jerusalem. To start with the seemingly
ambiguous words of Jeremiah 25:10 is to turn the matter upside down,
because the mentioned principle is abandoned.” (p. 76)
The principle of interpretation Furuli refers to is correct. But does Furuli

correctly use it? Is it really true that the passages at Daniel 9:2 and 2 Chronicles
36:21 are unambiguous, whereas the statements of Jeremiah are ambiguous? A
critical examination of Furuli’s linguistic analyses of the passages reveals that
the opposite is true. To start with the brief references to Jeremiah in Daniel and
2 Chronicles, as Furuli does, is really to “turn the matter upside down” and
abandon “the mentioned principle.” This will be shown in the following
discussion.
The 70 years at Daniel 9:2
In his discussion of Daniel 9:2, Furuli first presents a transliteration of the
text, accompanied by a word-for-word translation. It is followed by a fluent
translation, which turns out to be the Watchtower Society’s New World
Translation (NWT, Vol. V, 1960; the rendering is the same in the revised 1984
edition). According to this version, Daniel “discerned by the books the number
of years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the
prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] 70 years.”
This rendering might have been changed in a new, not-yet-published,
revised edition of the NWT. In the revised Swedish edition of the NWT
published in 2003, the text has been changed to say that Daniel “discerned in
the books the number of years which according to the word of Jehovah, that
had come to Jeremiah the prophet, would be completed concerning the
desolate state of Jerusalem, namely, seventy years.”
Note in particular that the phrase “for fulfilling the devastations of
Jerusalem” has been changed to read “be completed concerning the desolate
state of Jerusalem.” This brings the rendering of the text in close agreement
with that of the Danish linguist quoted below.
Although Furuli repeatedly claims that Daniel unambiguously states that
Jerusalem would be desolate for 70 years, he feels the statement needs to be
explained. He says:
“A paraphrase of the central part of Daniel 9:2 could be: ‘God gave
Jerusalem as a devastated city 70 years to fill.’ There is no ambiguity in
the Hebrew words.” (p. 77)
But if Daniel’s statement is as clear and unambiguous as Furuli claims, why
does he feel it needs an exposition in the form of a paraphrase? Furuli’s
paraphrase, in fact, gives the text a meaning that neither follows from his
grammatical analysis nor is obvious in the translation he quoted.
The fact is that neither Jeremiah nor Daniel say that God “gave Jerusalem
… 70 years to fill,” nor does Daniel say that “the desolation of Jerusalem would
last 70 years,” as NIV renders the clause. Both examples are paraphrases (cf.
GTR4, Ch. 5, C-3) aimed at giving the text a specific interpretation. Another
paraphrase, based on a careful grammatical analysis of the text, points to a
different understanding. The well-known Hebrew scholar and Bible
commentator Dr. Edward J. Young translates the last part of the passage as “to
complete with respect to the desolations of Jerusalem seventy years,” adding:
“The thought may be paraphrased: ‘With respect to the desolation of

Jerusalem, 70 years must be completed’.” (E. J. Young, The Prophecy of
Daniel, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1949, pp. 183, 184)
In view of Daniel’s reference to and dependence on the statements of
Jeremiah (25:12; 29:10-12), the text could as well be understood to mean that,
with respect to the desolate state of Jerusalem, the predicted 70 years of
Babylonian dominion must be completed before the exiles could return to
Jerusalem to bring its desolation to an end. The grammar clearly allows this
meaning. There is no reason to believe that Daniel reinterpreted the clear
statements of Jeremiah, as is required by Furuli’s interpretation of the text.
It is obvious that Daniel links the 70 years to the desolate state of Jerusalem.
The whole discussion in GTR4, Ch. 5, C is based on this. But the fact that
Daniel links or ties the one period to the other is not the same as equating or
identifying the one with the other. To link and to equate are two different things.
In GTR4, Ch. 5, C-3, ftn. 33, the following literal translation of Daniel 9:2 is
quoted, based on a detailed grammatical analysis of the text by a Danish
colleague of mine, who is a professional linguistic scholar with an intimate
knowledge of Biblical Hebrew:
“In his [Darius’] first regnal year, I, Daniel, ascertained, in the
writings, that the number of years, which according to the word of
JHWH to Jeremiah the prophet would be completely fulfilled, with
respect to the desolate state of Jerusalem, were seventy years.”
The linguist ended his analysis of Daniel’s statement by making the
following precise distinction:
“This statement in no way proves that Jerusalem itself would lay
desolate for 70 years, only that this time period would be fulfilled before
the city could be freed and rebuilt.”
Other knowledgeable and careful Hebraists have made the same distinction.
In a lengthy comment about Daniel 9:2, Professor Carl F. Keil pointed to the
dependence of the wording of Daniel 9:2 on Jeremiah 25:9-12 and explained:
“With lemal’ot (to fulfil) the contents of the words of Jehovah, as given
by Jeremiah, are introduced. lechorbot does not stand for the accusative: to
cause to be complete the desolation of Jerusalem (Hitzig), but le signifies
in respect of, with regard to. This expression does not lean on Jer. xxix.
10 (Kran.), but on Jer. xxv. 12 (‘when seventy years are accomplished’).
charabôt, properly, desolated places, ruins, here a desolated condition. Jerusalem
did not certainly lie in ruins for seventy years; the word is not thus to be interpreted,
but is chosen partly with reference to the words of Jer. xxv. 9, 11. Yet the
desolation began with the first taking of Jerusalem, and the deportation
of Daniel and his companions and a part of the sacred vessels of the
temple, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim (606 [error for 605] B.C.).
Consequently, in the first year of the reign of Darius the Mede over the kingdom
of the Chaldeans the seventy years prophesied of by Jeremiah were now full, the period
of the desolation of Jerusalem determined by God was almost expired.” (C. F. Keil,
Commentary on the Old Testament, Vol. IX, pp. 321-322; emphasis added)
Keil, one of the greatest Hebrew scholars of the 19th century, regarded this
as a fully possible understanding of the text and quite in harmony with the
grammar of Daniel 9:2. The explanation presented in GTR4 is, in fact, almost
identical to Keil’s.
Thus, Furuli’s repeated claim that Daniel unambiguously states that
Jerusalem was desolate for 70 years does not follow from his own grammatical
analysis. Nor does it agree with the observations of careful Hebraists and
linguistic scholars.
2 Chronicles 36:20, 21: Which event fulfilled the 70 years?
Furuli begins by presenting a transliteration of 2 Chronicles 36:21,
accompanied by a word-for-word translation and followed by the NWT
rendering of the text:
“21 to fulfill Jehovah’s words by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the
land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolate it kept
sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.”
Note that this verse starts with a subordinate clause and, more specifically,
with a purpose clause: “to fulfill ...”. What event would fulfill “Jehovah’s words
by the mouth of Jeremiah?” To know this it is necessary to examine the main
or principal clause. But Furuli ignores the main clause, which is found in verse
20. This verse says:
“20 Furthermore, he [Nebuchadnezzar] carried off those remaining
from the sword captive to Babylon, and they came to be servants to him and
his sons until the royalty of Persia began to reign;”
The verse reflects the prophecies of Jeremiah about the servitude. The
writer of Chronicles clearly has the prediction at Jeremiah 27:7 in mind:
“And all the nations shall serve him, and his son, and his grandson,
until the time of his own land comes.”
After the fall of Assyria in 610/609 BCE, all the nations in the Near East
were destined to serve the Babylonian king, his son, and his grandson as
vassals. As Jeremiah explains in the next verse (27:8), the nation that refused to
serve the king of Babylon was to be destroyed. The Bible as well as secular
history show that after the battle at Carchemish in 605 BCE Nebuchadnezzar
subjugated the nations of the Hattu area (Syria-Palestine) and forced them to
become tribute-paying vassals.
But the kings of Judah revolted and threw off the Babylonian yoke, which
finally, two decades after the initial conquest, brought about the predicted
destruction of their land and capital. The Jewish servitude, therefore, came to
mean less than 20 years of vassal service interrupted by repeated rebellions. The rest
of their servitude, about 49 years, had to be spent in exile in Babylonia.
In his allusion to Jeremiah 27:7, the Chronicler does not mention “all the
nations” but focuses only on the Jewish remnant that had been brought captive
to Babylon after the desolation of Jerusalem. Until when would they have to
serve the king of Babylon? As Jeremiah had said, “until the time of his own
land comes,” which the Chronicler, who wrote after the fulfillment, could make
specific—”until the royalty of Persia began to reign”—that is, until 539 BCE.
The Persian conquest of Babylon brought the 70 years of servitude to an end,
in fulfillment of Jeremiah’s prophecy, as the Chronicler goes on to point out in
the next verse—the verse quoted and discussed by Furuli out of context:
“21 to fulfill Jehovah’s words by the mouth of Jeremiah, until the
land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolate it kept
sabbath, to fulfill seventy years.”
Which of “Jehovah’s words by the mouth of Jeremiah” were fulfilled by the
termination of the servitude through the Persian takeover in 539 BCE? It
cannot have been the words in the middle of the verse—”until the land had
paid off its sabbaths. All the days of lying desolate it kept sabbath”—because
these statements are found nowhere in the book of Jeremiah. They are actually
references to Leviticus 26:34, 35. If, for a moment, we disregard these
interposed statements, the Chronicler’s explanation of Jeremiah’s 70-year
prophecy becomes clear:
“they came to be servants to him and his sons until the royalty of
Persia began to reign; to fulfill (lemallôt) Jehovah’s words by the mouth of
Jeremiah, … to fulfill (lemallôt) seventy years.”
The obvious meaning is that the cessation of the servitude under Babylon
by the Persian takeover in 539 BCE fulfilled the 70-year prophecy of Jeremiah.
The Chronicler does not reinterpret Jeremiah’s statements to mean 70 years of
desolation for Jerusalem, as Furuli claims. On the contrary, he sticks very
closely to Jeremiah’s description of the 70 years as a period of servitude under
Babylon, and he ends this period with the fall of Babylon, exactly as Jeremiah
had predicted at Jeremiah 25:12 and 27:7.
2 Chronicles 36:20, 21: What about the sabbath rest of the land?
Why, then, did the Chronicler insert the statements from Leviticus 26:34, 35
about the sabbath rest of the land? Evidently because they explained why the
land of the Jews finally had been depopulated and left completely desolated.
According to Leviticus 26, this would be the ultimate punishment for their
impenitent transgressions of the law, including the statute about the sabbath
rest of the land. Jehovah said he would “lay the land desolate” and let the Jews
be scattered “among the nations.” (Leviticus 26:32, 33) This would make it
possible for the land to enjoy its sabbaths:
“Then the land will enjoy its sabbaths all the days of the desolation,
while you are in your enemies’ land; then the land will rest and enjoy its
sabbaths.”—Leviticus 26:34, NASB.
The Chronicler’s statement that the Jewish remnant in Babylon (in their
“enemies’ land”) came to be servants to the kings of Babylon “until (ad) the
royalty of Persia began to reign,” then, also implied that they served these
Babylonian kings “until (ad) the land had paid off its sabbaths. All the days of
lying desolate it kept sabbath.” (2 Chronicles 36:21) As noted above, the
desolation of Judah and Jerusalem and the final deportation of “those
remaining from the sword captive to Babylon” (v. 20) occurred about two
decades after the servitude of “all the nations” had begun. The desolated state
of the land, therefore, did not last 70 years but somewhat less than 50 years.
Strictly speaking, the desolation of the land did not cease until the exiles had
returned to Judah in the late summer or early autumn (Ezra 3:1) of (most likely)
538 BCE (GTR4, Ch. 3, note 2). So we must conclude that either the exiles in
some way continued to serve the king of Babylon until 538 or that the sabbath
rest of the land ended in 539 BCE.
The first option seems impossible to defend. How could the exiles have
continued to serve the king of Babylon for another year after the fall of the
empire and the dethronement of the king in 539 BCE? Is it possible, then, that
the sabbath rest of the land ended in 539 BCE?
It is quite possible that the Chronicler did not regard the year of the return
(538 BCE) as the last year of the sabbath rest of the land. It is important to
observe that, according to the directions at Leviticus 25:4, 5, the land should
have complete rest during a sabbatical year:
“You shall not sow your field or prune your vineyard. You shall not
reap the aftergrowth of your harvest or gather the grapes of your
untrimmed vines.”
The sabbatical years were reckoned on a Tishri-to-Tishri basis. (Leviticus
25:9) The Jewish remnant that returned in 538 BCE arrived late in the summer
or early in the autumn, well before the month of Tishri (as is clearly indicated at
Ezra 3:1), which began on September 16/17 that year (PD, p. 29). Because they
needed food for the winter, it seems likely that they immediately started making
preparations to obtain food. They could harvest olives and fruits such as grapes
from untrimmed vines. Grapes were valuable food because they were dried as
raisins and used as winter food. Thus, if it is correct that they harvested food
upon their return (which seems likely), the last year of sabbath (complete) rest
for the land cannot have been 538 but must have been the year that had ended
immediately before Tishri 1 of 539 BCE. This could explain why the Chronicler
ends the sabbath rest of the land and the servitude of the exiles at the same
time (i.e., when the Persian kingdom came to power in the autumn of 539
BCE).
2 Chronicles 36:20, 21: The Hebrew preposition ad—while or until?
Furuli, of course, disagrees with the discussion above. His thesis is that the
period of the desolation and sabbath rest of the land were identical to the 70-
year period of Jeremiah. In his analysis, he is trying to force the Chronicler’s
statements to conform to this theory.
This seems to be the reason why he argues that the Hebrew preposition ad
in the clause, “until (ad) the land had paid off its sabbaths” ... “is better
rendered while than as until.” (p. 79) This allows him to reconstruct the verse as
two parallels that say:
“in order to fill the words spoken by Jeremiah, while the land kept sabbath.
in order to fill seventy years, it kept sabbath while it was desolate.”
Furuli adds:
“As a linguist I know by experience that language is ambiguous. But
the words of Daniel 9:2 and 2 Chronicles 36:21 are remarkably clear and
unambiguous.”
It is difficult to see how this is true even of Furuli’s retranslation and
reconstruction of the verse. As stated earlier, his analysis of verse 21 ignores the
contextual connection with verse 20, in which we find the same preposition ad
used in the clause “until (ad) the royalty of Persia began to reign.” Because both
clauses with ad are aimed at explaining when the servitude ended, the
translation of ad as “until” is the most natural in both verses. To render ad as
“while” in verse 20, for example, would make it say that the Jewish remnant
became servants of the king of Babylon “while the royalty of Persia began to
reign,” a statement that is not only historically false but nonsensical.
Most translations, therefore, render the preposition ad as “until” in both
clauses. There are none, as far as I know, that render it “while” in the passage.
The reason is not only that this is excluded by the context but also by the fact
that ad seldom takes the meaning “while.” (The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius
Hebrew and English Lexicon,1978, p. 725)
Furuli’s attempt to assign the meaning “while” to ad is a case of the fallacies
of argumentation known as “special pleading” and “assuming the conclusion.”
For his argument to work, he needs ad to mean “while;” otherwise his entire
Oslo chronology falls apart.
Jeremiah 25:9-12: 70 years of servitude—for whom?
In his discussion of Jeremiah 25:9-12, Furuli focuses on verse 11, which
says:
“And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of
astonishment, and these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”—
Jer. 25:11 (NIV)
As was pointed out earlier, Furuli starts his discussion of the 70-year
prophecy by admitting that Jeremiah applies the 70 years to Babylon, not to
Jerusalem. As he states on page 75:
“If we make a grammatical analysis in 25:11, we find that ‘these
nations’ is the grammatical subject, and in 29:10, ‘Babylon’ is the patient,
that is, the nation that should experience the period of 70 years.”
Having concluded (falsely, as has been shown above) that Daniel 9:2 and 2
Chronicles 36:21 unambiguously state that Judah and Jerusalem lay desolate for
70 years, Furuli realizes that the meaning of Jeremiah 25:11 has to be changed
to be brought into agreement with his conclusion.
The clause “these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years” is
very clear in Hebrew:
weâbdû haggôyîm hâêlleh et-melech bâbel šivîm
šânâh
and-will-serve-they the-nations these king [of] Babel seventy
year
As Furuli points out (p. 82), the particle et before melech bâbel (”king of
Babel”) is a marker indicating that melech bâbel is the object. The word order is
typical in Hebrew: verb-subject-object. There are no grammatical problems
with the clause. It simply and unambiguously says that “these nations will serve
the king of Babel seventy years.” Furuli, too, admits that “this is the most
natural translation.” (p. 84) How, then, can Furuli force it to say something
else?
Furuli first claims that “the subject (‘these nations’) is vague and
unspecified.” Actually, it is not. It simply refers back to “all these nations round
about” referred to in verse 9. Furuli goes on to state that the subject in the
clause might not be “these nations” in verse 11 but “this land” (Judah) and “its
inhabitants” in verse 9. Verse 11, therefore, really says that it is only the
inhabitants of Judah, not “these nations,” that will serve the king of Babylon 70
years. How, then, is the occurrence of “these nations” in the clause to be
explained? Furuli suggests that they might be part of the object, the king of
Babel, who “would be a specification of” these nations. The clause could then
be translated:
“and they will serve these nations, the king of Babel, seventy years” (p. 84)
Furuli also suggests that the particle et might not here be used as an object
marker but as a preposition with the meaning “with.” Based on this
explanation, the clause could even be translated:
“and they will serve these nations together with the king of Babel
seventy years” (p. 84)
These reconstructions are not supported by any Bible translations. Not only
are they far-fetched, they are refuted by the wider context. The prediction that
the nations surrounding Judah would serve the king of Babylon is repeated in
Jeremiah 27:7 in a way that is impossible to misunderstand:
“And all the nations must serve him and his son and his grandson
until the time even of his own land comes.”
The immediate context of the verse proves conclusively that “the nations”
referred to include all the non-Jewish nations in the Near East. Furuli’s
linguistic acrobatics, therefore, are unnecessary, mistaken, and another case of
special pleading.
Jeremiah 25:9-12: Is the Septuagint version to be preferred?

Furuli attempts to marshal support from the Septuagint version (LXX),
stating that “we know that the Septuagint translators who worked with the
book of Jeremiah in the third or second century B.C.E. used a different Vorlage
than that of the Masoretic text [MT], perhaps a shortened form of the book.”
(Furuli, p. 84)
But this is not something “we know.” It is a theory suggested by some
scholars, but there is no consensus about it. It has become popular because it is
supposedly supported by a very fragmentary piece of a Hebrew scroll found
among the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), 4QJerb. The fragment contains parts of
Jeremiah 9:22-10:21; 43:3-9, and 50:4-6. It partially follows LXX only at
Jeremiah 10 by omitting verses 6-8 and inserting verse 9 in the middle of verse
5. It also contains several MT readings and also some unique readings. For
these reasons, it cannot be said that this fragment reflects the Vorlage of LXX—
if there ever was such a thing. As argued by M. Margaliot (”Jeremiah X 1-16: a
re-examination,” Vetus Testamentum, Vol. XXX, Fasc. 3, 1980, pp. 295-308),
there are strong reasons to believe that the LXX variations at chapter 10 are
secondary and that MT here has the superior and authentic text.
Interestingly, the five fragments of Jeremiah found among the Dead Sea
Scrolls together contain parts of 29 of the 52 chapters of the book. These
mainly follow MT (with some deviations), and this is also true of the preserved
parts of chapter 25 (verses 7-8, 15-17, and 24-26). (See David L. Washburn, A
Catalog of Biblical Passages in the Dead Sea Scrolls, Atlanta: Society of Biblical
Literature, 2002, pp. 128-133)
The LXX rendering of Jeremiah 25:11 makes the Jews servants among the
nations for 70 years:
“And all the land shall be a desolation; and they shall serve among the
nations seventy years.”
Strangely, the LXX leaves out all references to Babylon and King
Nebuchadnezzar in Jeremiah 25:1-12. This creates a problem because when
Jehoiakim had read and burned the scroll containing the prophecy a few
months after it had been given, he asked Jeremiah, also according to Jer-LXX:
“Why is it that you have written on it, saying: ‘The king of Babylon will
come without fail and will certainly bring this land to ruin and cause man
and beast to cease from it?” (Jeremiah 36:29)
Evidently the original scroll contained references to the king of Babylon,
which strongly indicates that Jer-MT rather than Jer-LXX represents the
original text of Jeremiah 25:1-12.
For additional comments about the LXX version of Jeremiah, see GTR4,
Ch. 5, A, ftn. 8.
Jeremiah 29:10: The meaning of the 70 years for Babylon

Jeremiah 29:10 explicitly states that the 70 years refer to Babylon, not
Jerusalem:
“This is what the LORD says: ‘When seventy years are completed for
Babylon [lebâbel] I will come to you and fulfill my gracious promise to
bring you back to this place [i.e., to Jerusalem].” (NIV)
Furuli notes that most Bible translations render the preposition le as “to” or
“for” and that only a very few (usually older) translations render it as “at” or
“in.” (Furuli, p. 85) Of the latter, he mentions six: NWT, KJV, Harkavy,
Spurrell, Lamsa, and the Swedish Church Bible of 1917.
Alexander Harkavy’s edition from 1939 contains the Hebrew text together
with an English translation. Furuli does not seem to have noticed that Harkavy
states in the preface that the English translation is the Authorized Version, that is,
the KJV. George Lamsa’s translation has been strongly criticized because of its
heavy dependence on the KJV. Also in Jeremiah, chapter 29, he almost
slavishly follows KJV. His “at Babylon,” therefore, means nothing. I have not
been able to check Helen Spurrell’s translation. It was published in London in
1885, not 1985, as Furuli’ Bibliography erroneously shows, so it is not a
modern translation.
The Swedish Church Bible of 1917 has recently been “replaced” by two new
translations, Bibel-2000 and Folkbibeln (1998). Both have “for Babylon” at
Jeremiah 29:10. In answer to my questions, the translators of both translations
emphasized that lebâbel at Jeremiah 29:10 means “for Babylon” not “at” or “in”
Babylon. Remarkably, even the new revised Swedish edition of the NWT has
changed the earlier “in Babylon” in the 1992 edition to “for Babylon” in the
2003 edition.
Because the rendering “for Babylon” contradicts the theory that the 70 years
refer to the period of Jerusalem’s desolation, Furuli needs to defend the notably
infrequent rendering “at” or “in” Babylon. He even claims that the preposition
“for” gives the 70 years “a fuzzy meaning:”
”If ‘for’ is chosen, the result is fuzziness, because the number 70 then
looses all specific meaning. There is no particular event marking their beginning
nor their end, and the focus is wrong as well, because it is on Babylon rather
than on the Jews.” (p. 86)
This is an incredible statement and another example of Furuli’s special
pleading. It is difficult to believe that Furuli is totally ignorant of the fact that
both the beginning and the end of Babylon’s supremacy in the Near East were
marked by revolutionary events—the beginning by the final crushing of the
Assyrian empire and the end by the fall of Babylon itself in 539 BCE. Surely he
must know that, according to secular chronology, exactly 70 years passed
between these two events. Modern authorities on the history of this period
agree that the definite end of Assyria occurred in 610/609 BCE. In GTR4, Ch.
5, G-2, for example, four leading scholars were quoted to this effect: viz.
Professor John Bright and three leading Assyriologists, Donald J. Wiseman, M.
A. Dandamaev, and Stefan Zawadski. It would be easy to multiply the number.
Another example is Professor Klas R.Veenhof, who comments about the end
of Assyria on pages 275 and 276 of his book Geschichte des Alten Orients bis zur
Zeit Alexanders des Grossen (Göttingen, 2001). He describes how the last king of
Assyria, Assuruballit II, after the destruction of the capital Nineveh in 612
BCE, retreated to the provincial capital Harran, the last Assyrian stronghold,
where he succeeded in holding out for another three years, supported by Egypt.
Veenhof writes:
“It was to no advantage that Egypt supported Assyria; the Babylonian
and Median armies took the city in 610 B.C., and in the following year
[609] they warded off their last defensive attempt. Therewith a great
empire was dissolved.” (Translated from German)
Realizing that the year 609 marks the natural starting point of the “seventy
years for Babylon,” Professor Jack Finegan writes on pages 177 and 178 in the
revised edition of his well-known Handbook of Biblical Chronology (Peabody,
Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998):
“In Jeremiah 29:10 the promise of the Lord is to bring the people
back ‘when seventy years are completed for Babylon.’ In the history of
the ancient Orient the defeat in 609 B.C. of Ashur-uballit II, ruler in the
western city of Haran of the last remnant of the Assyrian empire, by
Nabopolassar of Babylon, marked the end of that empire and the rise to
power of the Babylonian empire (§430). Then in 539 Cyrus the Persian
marched in victory into Babylon (§329) and the seventy years of Babylon
and the seventy years of Jewish captivity were ‘completed’ (709 [printing
error for 609] - 539 = 70).”
Certainly, no one acquainted with Neo-Babylonian history can honestly
claim that the 70 years “for Babylon” have a “fuzzy meaning” because no
particular events mark the beginning and end of the period.
Jeremiah 29:10: The Septuagint and Vulgate versions
Furuli next points out that “the Septuagint has the dative form babylôni” but
with “the most natural meaning being ‘at Babylon’.” The statement reveals a
surprising ignorance of ancient Greek. As every Greek scholar will point out,
the natural meaning of the dative form babylôni is “for Babylon.” It is an exact,
literal translation of the original Hebrew lebâbel, which definitely means “for
Babel” in this text, as will be discussed below. True, at Jeremiah 29:22 (LXX
36:22) the dative form babylôni is used in the local sense, “in Babel,” but we may
notice that it is preceded by the Greek preposition en, “in,” to make this clear:
“And from them a malediction will certainly be taken on the part of
the entire body of exiles of Judah that is in Babylon (en babylôni)”
Furuli further refers to the rendering of the Latin Vulgate, in Babylone, which
means, as he correctly explains, “in Babylon.” This translation most probably
influenced the KJV of 1611, which in turn has influenced several other earlier
translations. The point is that all translations derived from or influenced by the
Vulgate, such as the KJV, are not independent sources.
Jeremiah 29:10: The Hebrew preposition l e (lamed )

The preposition le is the most common preposition in the Hebrew Old
Testament. According to a recent count, it occurs 20,725 times, 1352 of which
are found in the book of Jeremiah. (Ernst Jenni, Die hebräischen Prepositionen.
Band 3: Die Präposition Lamed, Stuttgart, etc.: Verlag Kohlhammer, 2000, p. 17)
What does it mean at Jeremiah 29:10? Since the first edition of my book on the
Gentile times (GTR) was published in 1983, this question has been asked of
dozens of qualified Hebraists around the world. I contacted some and so did
some of my correspondents. Although some of the Hebraists explained that le
in a few expressions has a local sense (”in, at”), in most cases it does not, and
they unanimously reject this meaning at Jeremiah 29:10. Some of them are
quoted in GTR4 (Ch. 5, B-2).
Furuli disagrees with their view. He believes that because le is used in a local
sense in some expressions at a few places it is likely used in this sense also in
Jeremiah 29:10. He argues:
”Can it really be used in the local sense ‘at’? It certainly can, and The
Dictionary of Classical Hebrew lists about 30 examples of this meaning, one of
which is Numbers 11:10, ‘each man at (le) the entrance of his tent’. So, in each
case when le is used, it is the context that must decide its meaning. For example,
in Jeremiah 51:2 the phrase lebâbel means ‘to Babylon’, because the preceding
verb is ‘to send’. But lirûshâlâm [the letters li at the beginning of the word is a
contraction of le+yod] in Jeremiah 3:17 in the clause, ‘all the nations will gather
in Jerusalem’ has the local meaning ‘in Jerusalem’, and the same is true with the
phrase lîhûdâ in Jeremiah 40:11 in the clause, ‘the king of Babylon had left a
remnant in Judah’.” (p. 86)
Well and good, but do these examples allow lebâbel at Jeremiah 29:10 to be
translated “in” or “at Babylon”? Is this really a likely translation? Is it even a
possible one? This question was sent to Professor Ernst Jenni in Basel,
Switzerland, who is undoubtedly the leading authority today on Hebrew
prepositions. So far, he has written three volumes on three of the Hebrew
prepositions, be (beth), ke (kaph), and le (lamed). In Die hebräischen Prepositionen.
Band 3: Die Präposition Lamed (Stuttgart, etc.: Verlag Kohlhammer, 2000), he
devotes 350 pages to the examination of le. His answer of October 1, 2003 was:
“As I recently have received an inquiry from Germany concerning
Jer. 29,10 (likewise in connection with a theory of Jehovah’s Witnesses),
I can answer you relatively quickly.
My treatment of this passage is found in the Lamed-book p. 109
(heading 4363). The rendering in all modern commentaries and
translations is ‘for Babel’ (Babel as world power, not city or land); this is
clear from the language as well as also from the context.
By the ‘local meaning’ a distinction is to be made between where?
(‘in, at’) and where to? (local directional ‘to, towards’). The basic meaning
of l is ‘with reference to’, and with a following local specification it can
be understood as local or local-directional only in certain adverbial expressions
(e.g., Num. 11,10 [Clines DCH IV, 481b] ‘at the entrance’, cf. Lamed pp.
256, 260, heading 8151). At Jer. 51,2 l is a personal dative (‘and send to
Babel [as personified world power] winnowers, who will winnow it and
empty its land’ (Lamed pp. 84f., 94)). On Jer. 3,17 ‘to Jerusalem’ (local
terminative), everything necessary is in Lamed pp. 256, 270 and ZAH 1,
1988, 107-111.
On the translations: LXX has with babylôni unambiguously a dative
(‘for Babylon’). Only Vulgata has, to be sure, in Babylone, ‘in Babylon’,
thus King James Version ‘at Babylon’, and so probably also the New
World Translation. I hope to have served you with these informations
and remain with kind regards,
E. Jenni.”
[Translated from the German. Emphasis added.]
In view of this specific and authoritative information, Furuli’s arguments for
a local meaning of le at Jeremiah 29:10 can be safely dismissed.
What about the 70 years at Zechariah 1:12 and 7:5?
That the 70-year texts at Zechariah 1:12 and 7:5 refer to a period different
from the one in Jeremiah, Daniel, and 2 Chronicles is demonstrated in detail in
GTR4, Ch. 5, E-F. There is no need to repeat the argumentation here; most
readers have access to this work. Furuli’s attempt to equate the 70 years in
Zechariah with the 70 years of Jeremiah, Daniel, and the Chronicler evades the
real problem.
According to Zechariah 1:12, Jerusalem and the cities of Judah had been
denounced for “these seventy years.” If this denunciation ended when the Jews
returned from the exile after the fall of Babylon, as Furuli holds, why does our
text show that the cities still were being denounced in the second year of
Darius, 520/519 BCE? Furuli has no explanation for this, and he prefers not to
comment on the problem.
The same holds true of Zechariah 7:4, 5. How can the 70 years of fasting
have ended in 537 BCE, as Furuli claims, when our text clearly shows that these
fasts were still being held in the fourth year of Darius, 518/517 BCE? Furuli
again ignores the problem. He just refers to the fact that the Hebrew verbs for
“denounce,” “fast,” and “mourn” are all in the Hebrew perfect, stating that,
“There is nothing in the verbs themselves which demands that the 70 years
were still continuing at speech time.” (p. 88) True, but they do not demand the
opposite, either. The verb forms in the passage prove nothing.
But the context does. It clearly shows that the cities were still being
denounced “at speech time,” in 519 BCE, and that the fasts were still being
held “at speech time,” in 517 BCE, about 70 years after the siege and
destruction of Jerusalem in 589-587 BCE. That is why this question was raised
in 519 BCE: Why is Jehovah still angry at Jerusalem and the cities? (Zechariah
1:7-12) And that is also why this question was raised in 517 BCE: Shall we
continue to hold these fasts? (Zechariah 7:1-12) Furuli’s interpretation (which
echoes the Watchtower Society’s) implies that the denunciation of the cities and
the keeping of the fasts had been going on for about 90—not 70—years,
directly contradicting the statements in the book of Zechariah.
Is Furuli’s 70-year desolation of Jerusalem supported by archaeology?

In note 126 on page 91, Furuli indicates that his theory of a 70-year-long
desolation period for Jerusalem is supported by archaeological findings. He
quotes from an article written by Ephraim Stern, “The Babylonian Gap,” in
Biblical Archaeology Review (Vol. 26:6, 2000, pp. 45-51, 76). Stern points out:
“For roughly half a century—from 604 B.C.E. to 538 B.C.E.—there
is a complete gap in evidence suggesting occupation.” (pp. 46-47)
This would indicate a gap of about 68 years. But Furuli fails to explain that
the destruction that Stern dates to 604 BCE is the one caused by the
Babylonian armies at their first capture of Judah and the surrounding nations in
Nebuchadnezzar’s accession and first regnal years. This is evidently the
destruction that Jeremiah, too, refers to at 25:18 and which he, too, dates to the
first year of Nebuchadnezzar in 25:1. Evidently the country was widely
devastated by the Babylonian army on its first swing through Judah. (See the
comments on this in GTR4, Ch. 5, A-1, ftn. 10.) Of the destruction of
Jerusalem 18 years later—which Stern dates to 586 BCE—Stern writes: “The
evidence of this destruction is widely confirmed in Jerusalem excavations.” (p.
46) A careful examination of Stern’s article shows that there is nothing in it that
supports Furuli’s views of the 70 years. This is also true of Stern’s more recent
article on the same subject, “The Babylonian Gap: The Archaeological Reality,”
published in the Journal for the Study of the Old Testament (JSOT), Vol. 28:3 (2004),
pp. 273-277.
The Biblical 70 years—Furuli’s “different approach”
In the last few pages of chapter 4, Furuli describes his approach to the
Biblical prophecies on the 70 years as “different.” Different how? It is different,
he says, because he allows the Bible to take precedence over secular historical
sources. He attempts to show this by comparing his approach with the
discussion of the 70 years written by the Seventh Day Adventist scholar Ross
E. Winkle. Furuli brings up Winkle’s discussion, he says, because he is the only
scholar known to him who uses a linguistic approach to the 70-year passages:
“The only person I am aware of who has discussed the prophecies of
the exile from a linguistic point of view and in a scholarly way is a
scholar writing in an Adventist periodical.” (p. 89)
This is a gross overstatement. I have many commentaries and articles that
discuss these passages from a linguistic point of view. Nevertheless, Winkle’s
discussion is excellent. It was published in 1987 in the scholarly SDA
publication Andrews University Seminary Studies (AUSS,Vols. 25:2 and 25:3). As a
subscriber to that journal, I read Winkle’s articles in 1987 and was surprised to
find out how remarkably similar most of his observations and conclusions were
to my own, published four years earlier in GTR1. (See the comments on this in
GTR4, Ch. 5, G-2, ftn. 57.)
Furuli explains that the difference between Winkle’s approach and his own
is that Winkle “interprets the words of Daniel and the Chronicler in the light of
his understanding of the traditional chronology. I, on the other hand, start with
the words of Daniel and the Chronicler, which I argue are unambiguous, and
choose the understanding of Jeremiah 25 and 29 which accords with the words
of Daniel and the Chronicler: the traditional chronology is not taken into
account at all.” (p. 90) Furuli then makes some comments about Winkle’s
analysis of 2 Chronicles 36:20-22, concluding that it is “forced” and
“unnatural” because his basis “is a faith in the traditional chronology.” (p. 91)
This is not a fair description of either Winkle’s approach or of Furuli’s own.
In this review of the first four chapters of Furuli’s book, we have seen a
number of insurmountable difficulties that his Oslo Chronology creates not
only with respect to the extra-Biblical historical sources but also with the Bible
itself.
The amount of evidence against Furuli’s revised chronology provided by the
cuneiform documents—in particular the astronomical tablets—is enormous.
Furuli’s attempts to explain away this evidence are of no avail. His idea that
most, if not all, of the astronomical data recorded on the tablets might have
been retrocalculated in a later period is demonstrably false. Furuli’s final,
desperate theory that the Seleucid astronomers—and there were many—
systematically redated almost the whole astronomical archive inherited from
earlier generations of scholars is divorced from reality.
With respect to the Biblical passages on the 70 years, we have seen to what
extremes Furuli has been forced to go in his attempts to bring them in
agreement with his theory. He has been unable to prove his repeated claim that
the 70-year passages in Daniel and 2 Chronicles unambiguously state that
Jerusalem was desolate for 70 years. His linguistic interpretation of 2 Chronicles
36:21 is misconstrued because he ignores the main clause in verse 20, which
plainly makes the servitude end at the Persian conquest of Babylon in 539 BCE.
Furuli’s linguistic rerenderings of the passages in Jeremiah are no better. To
reconcile Jeremiah 25:11 with his theory, he admits that he must discard “the
most natural translation” of the verse. And to bring Jeremiah 29:10 into
agreement with his theory, he must reject the near-universal rendering “for
Babylon” in favor of the unsupportable “in Babylon” or “at Babylon”—
translations rejected by all competent modern Hebraists.
Furuli’s approach, then, is not Biblical but sectarian. As a conservative
Jehovah’s Witness “scholar”, he is prepared to go to any length to force the
Biblical passages and the historical sources into agreement with the Watchtower
Society’s Gentile times chronology—a chronology that is the foundation
cornerstone of the movement’s claim to God-given authority. As I have amply
documented in this review, this sectarian agenda forces Furuli to invent
incredible explanations of the relevant sources, Biblical as well as extra-
Biblical.
A Discussion of the Biblical Material in the Book Persian
Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews,
by Rolf Furuli (RF), Oslo 2003.
By Kristen Jørgensen (2004)
[Editor’s note: Kristen Jørgensen is a professional Danish
linguist with a sound knowledge of the Biblical languages.]
This recent book purports to be a scientific treatment of the subject given in

the title, by a Norwegian scholar introducing himself as a lecturer of Semitic
languages at Oslo University. The greater part of it consists of a discussion of
ancient Middle East chronology based on astronomical observations found on
clay tablets and in other old written sources. However, the only part to be
discussed here is the material found in chapter four, on pages 75-92, and in the
abstract on page 15. A close reading of this chapter creates serious doubts
about the intentions of the author, however, as his aim seems merely to prove
his sectarian views about the title theme. Right from the outset it points in that
direction, as evidenced both by the subtitles and the skewed argumentation, so
as not to speak of the various errors and mistakes. Before going into the main
text we may take a look at the abstract:
The ‘Abstract’
This short paragraph is nothing less than presumptuous: to present categorical
statements from the outset along with an unproven conclusion must be
regarded as very poor method as seen from a scholarly viewpoint. Indeed, an
abstract at the beginning of a thesis is supposed merely to present the theme
and the problems to be treated, maybe even outlining the methods to be used
in solving them. Any discussion of the final results should be left to a summary
at the end, as exemplified in so many learned works. RF’s claim that there are
six Bible passages mentioning ‘a Babylonian exile of 70 years’ is erroneous:
there is no such passage anywhere in the entire Bible! Consequently, the rest is
to all practical purposes quite false, simply because God’s inspired Word, the
Bible, nowhere states explicitly how long that period was to last but leaves it to
the reader to figure it out from the historical facts - and they fully support the
view that the exile lasted for no more than half a century. Indeed, it is not mere
tradition but diligent Bible scholarship in conjunction with the findings of
archaeology, history and chronology which leads one straight to this sound
conclusion, a fact which has been substantiated by much competent Bible
research over the years.
The Bible ... The subtitle on page 75 repeats the erroneous claims already
made and so needs no further comment. However, RF’s continued
presentation of false information without the giving of proper evidence reveals
his purpose: he evidently wants his readers to believe these claims before any
proof is presented! This is the method of propagandists, not of honest scholars
who are weighing all possibilities carefully before making a decision. Now, as to
Leviticus 26, partially quoted by RF, it is evident that punishment for idolatry in
Israel was not just a possibility, it was a sure thing, but it is not so sure that
Exodus 20:5 implies the same idea; after all, it says nothing about an exile and
457
the mention of later generations may as well refer back to Genesis 15:13-16,
whence we learn that at that time the sins of the Amorites had not yet reached
their full measure, and so no action would be taken against them just then.
In the latter part of the first paragraph RF tells us that ‘the captivity of the Jews
in Babylon is spoken of as an exile’, which is hardly news, but of the three
scriptures referred to containing the term gâlût (which may be translated
‘captivity’, or ‘exile’, even ‘exiles’ or ‘captives’ collectively) one is slightly off:
Jeremiah 52:32 should be 52:31.
The final clause of this paragraph is also deceptively formed: Jeremiah 25:11
does not connect the 70 years with the exile but with the servitude of ‘these
nations’ under Babylon, and 29:10 clearly applies them to Babylon and to no
one else! Actually, RF admits as much in the very first clause after the
quotations, saying, ‘... but the text does not say explicitly that it refers to an exile
for the Jewish nation’! Of course it doesn’t, for that simply would not have
been true. Aside from the poor syntax of parts of these paragraphs this
statement is a gem by which the author actually casts aspersions on his own
argumentation right from the outset! His grammatical analysis ‘of’ (not ‘in’)
Jeremiah 25:11 is defective: he ignores the first clause in which the subject is
‘this whole country’, ‘will become’ is the verbal, and ‘a desolate wasteland’ is the
subjective complement. Then, of course, ‘these nations’ is the subject of the
latter clause, and ‘will serve’ is the verbal, while ‘Babylon’ is what is usually
called the direct object (the term ‘patient’ used by the author belongs to the so-
called ‘Case Grammar’ and is not commonly used in connection with Hebrew
which lost its case endings in antiquity. However, his use of it makes no
difference whatsoever for the analysis of this Hebrew text). Moreover, he states
quite correctly that according to the grammatical analysis ‘“Babylon“... is the
nation that should experience the period of 70 years’, after which he blows it by
falsely claiming that, ‘Nevertheless, the writers of Daniel and 2 Chronicles
understood the words of Jeremiah to imply a 70-year exile for the Jewish
nation’! Now, it may be said with absolute certainty that they could not have
understood Jeremiah’s words to imply anything like that, simply because the
prophet never stated that with even a single word anywhere and so, if anyone
‘understood’ them in that way it would be either a gross error or, even worse, a
deliberate misrepresentation of the inspired message. Barring extreme
sloppiness on the part of the writer, the latter may well be the case!
Really, it boggles the mind to try to fathom this claim, that two inspired
spokesmen of Almighty God should have misrepresented the inspired words of
another faithful servant of God, an inspired prophet who served in Jerusalem
during one of the most turbulent periods of her history and who was faithful in
performing the task which Jehovah had entrusted to him, despite all the
difficulties and hardships he had to suffer for 40 years in Jerusalem and some
time later in Egypt! This is a harsh treatment of Jeremiah, as well as of Daniel
and the Chronicler who evidently had no difficulty in understanding Jeremiah’s
words, as is obvious from a close reading of the scriptures in question. By the
way, the quotation from 2 Chronicles at the bottom of page 75 is not merely
from 36:20, but includes verse 21, even though it is not marked as such.
Sham Scholarship 459
Actually, RF’s entire argumentation in this part of the chapter rests on a

falsehood, a sly deception: His statement on page 76 that it ‘turns the matter
upside down’ to begin with what he calls the ‘ambiguous words’ of Jeremiah
25:10, is all wrong! Things are just the other way around: the one turning
matters topsy-turvy is RF by his claiming that Jeremiah’s inspired words are
‘ambiguous’, which they are not - indeed, there is absolutely nothing
‘ambiguous’ or erroneous in the prophecies of Jeremiah about the fate of Judah
and Jerusalem at the hand of the Babylonians. Apparently, RF has invented this
postulate as an excuse for seeking a different explanation of these matters.
Moreover, here he also shows that he is aware of the problems he is creating
for himself, because after claiming falsely that the land was desolate for 70 years he
says, ‘Whereas we at first glance do not understand Jeremiah 25:11 this way,
there need not be any problem here.’ No, in this he is right, for all problems
disappear if we ignore his attempts to twist the truth of God’s Word. This will
be further elucidated in the analysis to be set forth here.
No ambiguity in God’s Word
Nonetheless, he persists in his false claims: after his quotations from 2
Chronicles and Daniel he claims that the words of these two writers are
‘unambiguous’ and since they ‘lived after the exile was terminated, ... they knew
the real length of it.’ This is correct, of course, only it does not prove his
contention for, as stated, Jeremiah’s words are as unambiguous as theirs, and
since he received his prophetic message from Jehovah God by inspiration, it
was utterly correct in all details. The entire argumentation found in this
paragraph and the next two is false to the core: while it is true that in certain
uninspired writings it may be possible to explain ambiguous passages by means
of unambiguous ones dealing with the same subject matter, this principle is not
applicable here, since none of the inspired scriptures dealt with are ambiguous!
The only reason why the author claims that (thus far with no evidence at all) is
that he clearly has an axe to grind, namely to gain support for the age-old claims
of certain sectarian expositions made long ago by people who knew altogether
far too little about the ancient history of Israel and her neighbouring countries
and of the chronology of that period to deal correctly and scholarly with such
matters. Even today their successors haven’t learned to do it properly but stick
stubbornly to their ancient falsehoods!
At this stage a few words may be said about these early sectarian matters, about
which even RF may know too little: When young Charles Taze Russell, the
founder of the movement of the Watchtower people (to whom RF belongs),
known since the 1870’s as the Bible Students, but since 1931 as the Jehovah’s
Witnesses, published his dogma about the ‘Gentile Times’ of Luke 21:24 as
being a period of 2,520 years, counting from 606 BCE (much later tacitly
‘corrected’ to 607!) to 1914 CE, he based this dating on an incorrect chronology
used by certain small Adventist groups with which he had been associated for
some time and from whom he had learned most of his views about ‘the last
days’ and the beginning of ‘the millennium’, and evidently he did not try to
find out what real scholars had to say about these subjects. Indeed, if he had
done so, he might have learned that even before he was born historians had
figured out a better chronology for Judah and the Neo-Babylonian empire, as
may be seen in Dr. Alfred Edersheim’s History of the Jewish Nation from the late
19th century, in which he cites dates for the destruction of Jerusalem from
several learned works, the earliest one of which is Dr.G.B.Winer’s Biblisches
Realwörterbuch from 1847-48 (published four years before Russell was born!),
which gives the year as 588 BC, while a scholar named Clinton has 587, exactly
like modern scholars nowadays! So why did not Mr Russell look to the
competent scholars of his day for the correct date? That would have saved him
from many a mistake and his followers from the long series of disappointments
which they have suffered over the years down till this very day!
The 70 years, the desolation of the land and Daniel 9:2
Well, back to pages 76, 77 of RF’s book where we find another slanted subtitle,
after which he goes on to Daniel 9:2, making an analysis of the Hebrew text,
giving a literal rendering of it and quoting the New World Translation for good
measure (in this he cuts a corner by writing ‘70’ instead of ‘seventy’). The
Hebrew is transliterated, but his system does not seem to conform to any of the
well-known standard systems: it employs the letter [æ], which is only used in
Danish and Norwegian, never in English texts; also, he does not transliterate
the divine name as Jehovah orYahweh as is usual in English-language publications,
but uses the Jewish substitute ‘adônay (‘‘my lord’), which is not really a
transliteration. There are other irregularities in his system, but let this suffice for
the moment.
Strangely enough, in his grammatical analysis he does not deal with the Hebrew
text but with the secondary English rendering, except for the tiny preposition le,
which he somehow maltreats together with the verb with which it is connected.
Also, it is incomplete, as he omits the initial time adverbial (bishenat ‘achat
lemâlekho, ‘in year one of his reign’) and the rest is defective - e.g., the subject in
the first part of the sentence is not just ‘Daniel’, but in Hebrew‘ani Dâniêl,
rendered in NW ‘I myself Daniel’, the inclusion of the personal pronoun ‘ani
(‘I’) showing that the subject is emphatic - Daniel had checked matters for
himself in ‘the Scriptures’. He also omits the quite important adverbial
bassepârim (‘in the Scriptures’) which shows that the aging Daniel did not waste his
time but checked the inspired Scriptures at once when the time was up. The
definition of the direct object (DO) is somewhat incorrect, too: first come the
core words mishpar hashânim (‘number of years’), followed by an embedded
relative clause,‘asher hâyâh debhar-YHWH ‘el-Yirmiyâh-hanâbhî (‘which gave word
of Yahweh to Jeremiah the prophet’). Finally, the last part of the DO is the
clause lemall’ôt lechorebhôt Yerûshalâyim shibhim shanâh, in which lemall’ôt is the
infinitive, le being the infinitive marker and the verb mal’e (‘to fill, fulfill,
complete’) is in the timeless and intensive piel conjugation (‘in order to fully
complete’), while lechorebhôt Yerûshâlayim is a prepositional phrase functioning as
an adverbial (‘in regard to/for Jerusalem’s desolations’), and lastly, shibhim
shanâh, (‘seventy years’) is the direct object. RF’s analysis of the word lemall’ôt,
i.e., that ‘the preposition plus infinitive serves as a temporal accusative whose
adjunct is 70 years’, for which he refers to Ronald J. Williams’ Hebrew Syntax An
Outline (2nd ed. Toronto U.P. 1976, p. 48, § 268) for proof, is in error; indeed, if
he had studied the paragraph referred to and the references from it in detail he
would have noted that le does not function in that way except when directly
connected with a term expressing some time element, as in Williams’ examples,
e.g. 2 Chronicles 11:17, leshanim shalosh (‘for three years’).
Thus, the prepositional phrase lechorebhôt Yerûshalâyim, ‘for desolations of
Jerusalem’ functions as an adverbial indicating the purpose intended, namely to
fix the absolute end of the desolations of Jerusalem, i.e., when the 70 years ‘for
Babylon’ were to end. As for RF’s little comparison with a ‘simpler clause’, it is
really of no value at all, and that goes for his paraphrase, too. The framed
statement in bold-faced type is rather irrelevant: true, there is no need to take
the word chorebhôt (fem. plur., construct) to signify several desolations of
Jerusalem, but neither is it logical to apply it to ‘the many ruins of the city’,
because in Hebrew the so-called plural form may also signify fulness, intensity,
magnitude, extension and similar concepts, according to the context, and here it
is most likely used to show that the full and complete desolation of Jerusalem
would end exactly at the time designated by Jehovah himself, as made known
through his prophet Jeremiah. (Cf. Johs. Pedersen, Hebræisk Grammatik,
Copenhagen 1926, pages 197, 198, § 115) However, we ought to note that RF
correctly connects the complete desolation of Jerusalem with the final conquest
by the Chaldeans (in 587 BC, not 607), but he errs again when he stubbornly
sticks to a ‘period of 70 years’ for the Jewish exile, even though he is not able to
present any real evidence, simply because there is none. Let us just see how
NASB renders Daniel 9:2:
in the first year of his reign I, Daniel, observed in the books the number of
the years which was revealed as the word of the LORD to Jeremiah the
peophet for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy
years. – Cf. also RV, ASV, RSV, AAT, Moffatt, Amplified, Rotherham.
Please note the fine wording ‘for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem,
namely seventy years’: here the emphasis is placed where it belongs, namely on
the latter part of the period of desolations, when it is to be completed. Here many
others have failed in exactly the same way as RF, taking the period of seventy
years to signify the total number of years of the exile; a clear example of this
grammatical error in a modern translation may be seen in The Good News Bible:
In the first year of his reign, I was studying the sacred books and thinking
about the seventy years that Jerusalem would be in ruins, according to what
the LORD had told the prophet Jeremiah. – Cf. also NEB, NAB, and
NASB.
Interestingly, the GN-Bible renders some of the parts excellently, such as ‘I was
studying the sacred books’, because no doubt that was what Daniel was doing;
naturally, this high official of the Babylonian government had copies of the
sacred books for his own private use, including the prophecy of Jeremiah, thus
being able to make sure of these things, for which he had waited a lifetime! But
modern scholars who do not really believe in the inspiration and the complete
integriity of the Bible unfortunately distort parts of it, as may be seen in the
translations here referred to.
2 Chronicles 36:21
Going on to this scripture (pp.78-80), RF transliterates-cum-translates the
Hebrew in the same imperfect way as before, quoting the quite imprecise NWT
to boot; indeed, if he had used the more recent NIV he might have imparted a
better understanding to his readers. For the sake of completeness we may begin
with verse 20 which gives us the necessary background knowledge (NIV):
He [Nebuchadnezzar] carried into exile to Babylon the remnant who
escaped from the sword, and they became servants to him and his sons
until the Kingdom of Persia came to power.
Now, in this there is no mention of the number of years that this exile was to
last, neither is its beginning dated; however, as to the latter point it is clearly
shown that it would only begin after the putting of the enemies in the city to
the sword, which happened in 587 BCE; and as to the former point we learn
that it would end when Persia took over from Babylon, that is, in 539 BCE.
This is in full agreement with Jeremiah’s statement, and does in no way
contradict his inspired prophecy.
Then, in verse 21, the Chronicler introduces a new element of which Jeremiah
had said nothing, namely that during the exile of the Jews the land had enjoyed
its rest as had been prophesied long ago in Leviticus 26:15-35; also, he points
out that this would last until it had ‘paid off its sabbaths’. As the law of God
stated in Leviticus 25, each seventh year was a sabbath year of rest during
which the land was to lie fallow, and each fiftieth year was to be a Jubilee year
of liberty in which the land should also remain fallow. However, Jeremiah never
referred to these parts of the law with a single word, a fact to be kept in mind
when dealing with verse 21, especially the latter part of it:
The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolations it rested,
until the seventy years were completed in fulfilment of the word of the
LORD spoken to Jeremiah.
Please note that the text does not say, ‘all the seventy years for Babylon it rested’,
which would have been erroneous; what it does say is that the land ‘rested’ until
the seventy years mentioned by Jeremiah (‘for Babylon’) ‘were completed’ - and
since Jeremiah never mentioned the sabbath rest in any of his prophecies, the
part of verse 21 dealing with that cannot be included in the reference to ‘the
word of the LORD spoken to Jeremiah’! The only part to be included in this
reference is the one about the ‘seventy years’ allotted to or ‘for Babylon’, during
which ‘these nations’ (defined in 25:9 as ‘all these nations round about’ of
which there is an extensive list in 25:17-26) were to serve the kings of the then
world power. Consequently, the ‘exposition’ made by RF is patently false as far
as the Chronicler’s understanding of Jeremiah’s prophecy is concerned.
How about the accents?
Then, on page 79 RF directs our attention to the fact that in the Masoretic text
certain accents are used to mark the middle of verse 21, dividing it into two
sentences (better, ‘clauses’) and then also to mark the middle of each of these
two parts. Now, this is quite correct - for a fact, there are no less than fourteen
accent marks in this verse, although they do not all have the same significance.
As it is, RF does not identify the accents in question, which are 1) the ‘atnach
(Ù), seen under the penultimate syllable in the word shabbetoteyha, and the zaqeph
qaton (:), to be seen over the penultimate syllables of the words Yirmeyahu and
shabhatah. The first one is commonly styled a ‘verse divider’, and is thought to
represent as a punctuation mark either a comma or a semicolon, according to
the length and structure of the verse, and the latter one is regarded as a less
powerful sign, no more than a comma and maybe not even that. However, as
far as the semantic contents of the verse and its proper interpretation are
concerned, these signs have no authority whatsoever, and RF’s attempt to
utilize them for that purpose is quite futile.
As it is, these accents were invented long after the inspired consonantal Hebrew
texts were written down: according to the textual critics they were added by the
so-called Masoretes (8th-10th century CE) who also invented the vowel points
to indicate the traditional pronunciation of the sacred texts. These signs were
applied, first and foremost, as accent marks, to indicate the stress and rhythm
to be applied to the words and phrases in public reading. Even at that, neither
they nor the vowel points were ever used in the most sacred of all the scrolls,
those used for public reading in the synagogues. They are quite useful, however,
as they show textual scholars how the ancient consonantal Hebrew manuscripts
were read and understood by the Jewish scholars of the Tiberian school who
furnished them with vowel points and accent marks. This is a well-known fact,
of course, but these signs are never used by reputable Hebrew scholars in the
way suggested by RF. In this paragraph and note 118 he actually commits
another real blunder, when he tries to make out that the lines of this verse form
a parallelism! Let’s just take a closer look at this strange contention:
Is there a parallelism?
RF postulates that the four parts into which he divides verse 21 ‘speak about
the same thing’, putting b) and c) together, although his idea about viewing the
sabbaths from different angles seems rather strange; indeed, they do not, but
even if they did, we must remember that in true Hebrew parallelisms different
viewpoints on the matters discussed are quite common and simply make for
variations of style. What he fails to see, however, is what has just been pointed
out, namely that in Jeremiah’s prophecy referred to here there is no mention of
a sabbath rest, and so that feature cannot be part of any exposition of his
prophecy. For the very same reason his statement that since the accents seem
to place a) and b) together they are to be regarded as one unit is in error
semantically, and again, RF’s part b) of the verse has nothing to do with the
fulfilment of Jeremiah’s prophecy! Actually, the putting together of a) and d)
would have been a better idea semantically, since both mention the fulfilling of
Jeremiah’s prophecy, but this will not do stylistically, since parallel elements
must stand parallel, in successive lines. And when he then makes his rephrased
‘parallels’, in which the order is a), b), d), and c), he muddles his own exposition
well and truly, because this is quite impossible semantically and stylistically.
Actually, the structure of this verse may be regarded quite differently, as a) and
d) both refer to the fulfilment of Jehovah’s prophecy about the seventy years as
spoken by Jeremiah, and so they may be seen as belonging together in their
reference; b) and c) then stand as an embedded addition from the hand of the
Chronicler, quite likely because he wants to remind his readers of the

catastrophe which had befallen the Judeans because they had neglected to keep
Jehovah’s commandments about these matters, and maybe also because in the
days after the homecoming and the restoration of the walls of Jerusalem by
Nehemiah they had again begun to violate the sabbath in various ways, maybe
even the sabbatical years, although this is not mentioned. – Nehemiah 13:15-
22.
Another failure of his, indeed, the initial one, is however a very common one
with amateurs and those with an axe to grind, namely that he has separated this
verse from its context, in this case from the preceding verse (20) which I
included above. For a fact, the connection is easily seen, because the entire
contents of that verse, about Nebuchadnezzar carrying the remnant which had
escaped the sword off to Babylon to be servants of him and his sons after him,
until the kingdom of Persia came to power, is evidently what is referred to in
the first part of verse 21, as it says literally, ‘to fulfill word of Yahweh by mouth
of Jeremiah’ (Kohlenberger’s literal translation). To that part may then be
added RF’s part d) about the seventy years which Jeremiah had said were ‘for
Babylon’. Thus we have a fine statement by the Chronicler about the prophecy
of Jeremiah, into which he puts his own explanatory addition about the
fulfilment of the ancient prophetic threat from the Mosaic law about the
sabbath rest for the land during the enforced exile of the people in the land of
the enemy.
As shown above, RF’s claim that 2 Chronicles 36:21 is a parallelism is in error,
which anyone even superficially acquainted with this form of Hebrew style
would realize, first of all simply because the entire chapter of which this verse is
a part is composed in plain prose, and Hebrew parallelisms only occur in
poetry! From the time of Bishop Lowth who first of all Westerners described
this feature of Old Testament poetry it has been customary to classify
parallelisms according to their contents and style. Actually, the only type in
which successive lines ‘say the same thing’, as RF claims for parts of verse 21, is
the one called ‘Synonymous Parallelism’, of which we may quote a typical
example as rendered in Ps. 149:2, NIV: ‘Let Israel rejoice in their Maker, let the
people of Zion be glad in their King.’ In this ‘Israel’ corresponds to ‘the people
of Zion’, ‘rejoice’ corresponds to ‘be glad’, and ‘their Maker’ to ‘their King.’
Thus these two lines constitute a perfect ‘synonymous parallelism’, because
both parts express exactly the same thought, howbeit with different words. This
type is found time and again in all the poetic writings of the Hebrew Bible, also
in quite a few of the prophetic ones, as may be seen in the tripartite example
from Jeremiah 10:10, NIV: ‘But the LORD is the true God; he is the living
God, the eternal King.’
The fact that this verse is not a parallelism is also shown by the very accents
which RF used in his argumentation: In the Hebrew Bible there are two
systems of accents, one for prose and another one for poetry, that is, some of
the marks are used in both systems, but in different ways - and the accents to
which he referred and their use as mentioned by him show that he has in mind
the ones used in prose texts! Also, one well-known feature of the ancient
Hebrew manuscripts is that prose is always written in lines of even length, but
poetry is written as verse in uneven lines, according to the sense, as may even
be seen in some modern translations, e.g. in the NIV, where Jeremiah’s poetic
parts are printed like that; this is however ignored in many Bible translations,
such as in the NW-Bible.
How are these verses to be translated?
Let us, for the sake of completeness, just take a closer look at the two verses we
are dealing with, to see how they are composed; this example is taken from
NIV (emphasis added),
20 He carried into exile to Babylon the remnant who escaped from the
sword, and they became servants to him and his sons until (‘ad) the kingdom
of Persia came to power. 21 The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time
of its desolation it rested, until (‘ad) the seventy years were completed in
fulfilment of the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah.
Please note that the particle ‘ad (‘until’) is used not only where RF incorrectly
wants to render it while (v. 21), but also in the phrase ‘until the kingdom of
Persia came to power’ (v. 20), in which it would be impossible to render it
‘while’, and it is only logical to regard it as having been used in the same sense
in both verses. As shown by his context, RF’s reason for rendering it ‘while’ is
apparently that he dislikes the usual term ‘until’ being used here, ostensibly
because it does not fit his prejudiced ideas. This particle ‘ad has as its basic
meaning ‘(continuation, duration), as far as, unto’, (Gesenius-Kautzsch-Cowley,
Hebrew Grammar, § 103 o) as it ‘indicates the distance from, the approach
towards’, i.e. ‘until’. According to the Hebrew-German Handwörterbuch by
Gesenius-Buhl (pages 563-565), the sense is ‘bis, bis zu, haüfig mit Einschluss
des Zielpunktes ... so daß der Zielpunkt als erreicht vorgestellt w(ird)’; that is,
the distance or time indicated by ‘ad is viewed as ‘reaching from the starting
point to and including the point aimed at.’ See also the Hebrew and English
Lexicon by Brown, Driver and Briggs, pages 723-725, where we find similar
definitions by Dr. Samuel Rolles Driver (who handled the treatment of all
particles expertly in that work) in full accord with its basic semantic content.
This accords fully with its use in 2 Chronicles 36:20, 21, where it is normally
rendered ‘until’ by modern translators, also where RF wants to make it mean
‘while’, which will not do, because here there is no element necessitating a
departure from the usual sense of the word. True, the lexicon lists ‘while’ as a
possible meaning of it, but in BDB page 725 Dr. Driver tells us that it occurs
only rarely in that sense and he gives us no reason to accept RF’s aberrant
views. As it is, in 2 Chronicles 36:21 we find that all English versions render it
‘until’, and the German ones ‘bis, bis zu’, while in other languages we find
words of exactly the same meaning, such as ‘indtil’ in Danish, ‘til’ in Norwegian
and ‘till’ in Swedish. As for the meaning ‘while’, I haven’t been able to find a
single translation using that in 2 Chronicles 36:21.
Finally, we may as well discard RF’s German ‘example’ (which seems to be
taken from a bad joke) and rewrite the framed text printed in bold-face type on
page 80 to bring it into accord with the truth of God’s Word, the Bible:
“The words of Jeremiah 25:11, 29.10, Daniel 9:2 and 2 Chronicles

36:20, 21 are all clear and unambiguous: Judah and Jerusalem were
to become desolate and remain in this condition from the final
destruction of the city in 587 BCE until the end of the 70 years ‘for
Babylon’, which period ended in the year 539 BCE, when Babel fell to
Medo-Persia.”
This is what the Bible and history, supported by chronology and archaeology,
agree on in all details.
What was the objective of Jeremiah?
This is RF’s next subtitle, and the rest of page 80 and the better part of page 81
are filled with his speculations along the twisted and contorted trail he has
chosen to follow. Really, it is not necessary to speak of the prophet’s objective
at all beyond his strong desire to complete the task his heavenly father had
given him, about which we read in Jeremiah 1:4-10, NW, from which we may
learn of Jehovah’s objective in appointing Jeremiah as his prophet in Jerusalem:
“Before I was forming you in the belly I knew you, and before you
proceeded to come forth from the womb I sanctified you. Prophet to the
nations I made you.’ ... to all those to whom I shall send you, you should go;
and everything that I shall command you, you should speak. ... Here I have
put my words in your mouth. See, I have commissioned you this day to be over the
nations and over the kingdoms, in order to uproot and to pull down and to
destroy and to tear down, to build and to plant.” (emphasis added; cf. vss.
11-19)
Actually, that is how Jeremiah’s task has been understood by Bible scholars at
all times, not only by Christian ones, but also Jewish ones, such as Dr. Joseph
Klausner who wrote about Jeremiah that he
‘intervenes in the political life of his nation, contending not only with priests
and popular teachers, but also with kings and princes, prophesying not only
against Judah and Jerusalem, but also against the Gentiles and foreign powers, and the
whole of the then known world, enfolding them all in his all-embracing grip, and
scrutinizing them with the acute vision of the eagle.’ – Jesus of Nazareth,
translated by H. Danby, London 1929. (Page 390, emphasis added)
Being a priest himself Jeremiah knew the law well and so he was no doubt
familiar with the contents of Leviticus, the volume that more than any other
part of the Mosaic law addressed the priests, and quite naturally he would also
know the contents of chapter 26 with all its promises of rewards for
faithfulness and dire threats about punishment for disobedience. However,
even at that he never quotes from this chapter, and even though he in his
prophecies mentions the Judean exile reasonably often he never connects it
with a sabbath rest for the land. So, RF’s claim about Leviticus 26 being the
‘theme’ of Jeremiah’s book and his ‘point of departure’ doesn’t hold water, it is
as farfetched as the other parts of his homespun yarn. Actually, the Bible itself
furnishes some very clear evidence about the text from which the Chronicler
took the parts of his statement about the ‘sabbath rest’ mentioned in
connection with Jeremiah’s prophecy: the relevant words in 2 Chronicles 36:21
are shown here, followed by the corresponding ones from Leviticus 26:34, 35:
‘ad-ratsetah ha’arets ‘et -shabbetoteyha kol-yemey hashammah shabbatah

until-she-enjoyed the-land her-sabbaths all-days to-be-desolate she-rested
‘az tirtseh ha’arets ‘et-shabbetoteyha ...kol-yemey hashammah tishebat
then she-will-enjoy the-land her-sabbaths ...all-days to-be-desolate she-will-
rest
These statements are nearly identical, the only differences being found in the
words expressing time, namely the two introductory particles and the tenses of
the first and the last verb in each of them: in Leviticus the first particle is‘az, an
adverb signifying ‘then’, here clearly referring to the future, while the Chronicler
has‘ad, a preposition meaning ‘until’, pointing back in time. Both use the same
verbs, in almost the same grammatical form, namely qal, 3rd prs sg fem, the
only difference being in the tense; the first verb is ratsah (‘to enjoy’), for which
Leviticus has the future tirtseh (‘she will enjoy’), while the Chronicler has the
preterite ratsetah (‘she enjoyed’), signifying the past. Then the final verb is
shabbat, (‘to rest’), with the Chronicler it is in the preterite, shabbatah, (‘she
rested’), while in Leviticus it is tishebat (‘she will rest’), in the future tense. The
subjects, the direct objects and the time adverbials, also the verbs following
(hashammah, ‘to be desolate’) are identical in both clauses.
There can be little doubt that the Chronicler had both the prophecy of
Jeremiah and the book of Leviticus to hand when he penned the last chapter of
his book, and it is interesting to see how he took exactly the relevant parts of
Leviticus 26:34, 35 and added them to his own statement in 36:21 which
included the information from Jeremiah, who, however, had nothing from
Leviticus at all.
RF’s parallels
Alas, on page 80 RF persists in his stubbornness, stating quite untruthfully that
‘Jeremiah was the first to mention an exile of 70 years’ which he was not, for
neither he nor anyone else did that! He mentioned the seventy years, also the
exile and its end, but neither he nor any other prophet stated in just so many
words that that exile would last 70 years! Apparently we have to repeat that
statement time and again, because RF stubbornly refuses to admit that simple
truth! Then, in the last passage before RF’s ‘parallels’ we note a printing error in
the third line from the bottom, where ‘lead’ should read ‘led’. As for the many
scriptures he has selected for these ‘parallels’, there is of course nothing wrong
with them, only they do not prove his contentions, which of course couldn’t be
expected.
However, let us take a look at these parallels in which he compares verses from
Jeremiah with verses from Leviticus: first, we note that not one of the verses
here taken from Jeremiah contains a literal quotation from Leviticus! They even
seem to have been chosen rather haphazardly, as though RF has merely picked
them out at random from a concordance, with no proper study of their
contents, to wit:
In the first one, Jer. 11:10 vs Lev. 26:14, the latter ought to have been or at least
included verse 15, and the next one, Lev. 26:31, should have been or included
verse 32; then, Jer. 14:1 ought to have been 14:1-7, and the next to last actually
spoke of, not just pestilence, but included sword and famine in the punishment
to be meted out. Finally, the sixth and last one is a real howler: RF’s ‘text’ says,
‘the holy place would be destroyed.’ Now, at this stage of Judean history this
could mean only one thing, the temple of Jerusalem; however, Leviticus 26:31,
32 does not say anything about that place (nor about the tabernacle, for that
matter), instead we find a prophecy against Israel’s false worship and the
punishment for it, which would hit their ‘high places’, their ‘incense altars’ and
their ‘lifeless idols’, also their ‘sanctuaries’, no doubt the kind spoken against in
Amos 4:4, 5; 5:5; 7:9 and 8:14! Worse still for RF, Jer. 22:5 does not refer to
‘the holy place’, but to ‘the king’s house’, the royal palace in Jerusalem! – Jer.
22:1-5.
Actually, any really diligent study of these matters could easily have produced
many more excellent verses to be used here, but once more RF has been too
sloppy in his research. Obviously, he is not interested in getting at the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth, but only at connecting his erroneous
views with the idea of 70 years for the exile and the sabbath rest of the land, a
fact becoming even more obvious when his list of twelve quotations from
Jeremiah 4:7 to 44:22 presented on page 81 is checked: As it is, there is nothing
strange in these scriptures – after all, Jeremiah had been given the task of
prophesying about these events and that he did faithfully, which was his true
objective. This becomes even clearer when we realize that all but one of these
statements are parts of ‘messages from Jehovah’, and the one exception, the
very last one, is from Jeremiah’s speech to the Jewish remnant on the basis of
just such a message! Also, we know that he was not the first to speak in this
vein: Isaiah had in his time spoken just as candidly, Micah had spoken up in the
same manner, and so had others during the years of increasing idolatry. As it
was, however, Jeremiah was the man on the spot: he was in Jerusalem where
the action was, serving for an entire generation right to the end - and when the
Babylonians offered him to go with them in safety to Babylon, he stayed on in
the city and he even served with the remnant of the people in Egypt for some
time. – Jer. chapters 40-51.
A faulty list of quotations
Then, on page 81 we find some more peculiarities: first, according to RF
himself these quotations are taken from NWT, i.e., the Watchtower Bible, but
they are not, they are all straight from the NIV! The first three seem to be
defective in semantic content, as the writer does not include any reason for the
severe threats uttered, and the same can be said about 25:18, which starts in the
middle of a judicial statement, so that the reader will have to find out for
himself what the culprits mentioned have done to deserve the punishment with
which they are threatened. Also, in the last clause of 9:11, NIV has ‘so that no-
one’, while RF merely has ‘so no one’. The same error occurs further down, in
the rendering of 34:22. Moreover, the fifth one is not from 9:22 but is a partial
repetition from 9:11! Then in 33:10 RF breaks off his quote in the midst of a
clause, so that we do not get to know ‘what will be heard once more’ – actually,
he should have included verse 11 to make this quotation a complete and natural
one. The next one, purportedly from 33:12, is not from that verse but is a short
repetition from verse 10, and in the quoted part of 34:22 we are not told what
the ‘it’ is that is to be destroyed so thoroughly – that item, mentioned no less
than three times, is ‘this city’, Jerusalem, as shown in verses 18-22b. It is
extremely difficult to take the work of RF seriously!
At that time Jehovah had wisely placed three trusted and faithful prophets in
strategic positions for his purpose: the priest Jeremiah in the midst of
Jerusalem, close to the king, the leaders and the priests; Ezekiel, also a priest,
was with the exiles in faraway Babylon, and Daniel and his three friends, all of
them from the royal tribe of Judah, in the heart of the world empire, in Babylon
the capital, where they even had the ear of the king, the one called ‘my servant’
by Jehovah himself. (Jer. 25:9; 27:6) Now, if RF really had in mind to paint a
true picture of the situation for Judah and Jerusalem in those fateful days, the
historical and the prophetic books furnish enough material for that purpose.
Apparently he does not have that in mind, however, and so when he turns to
Jeremiah 25:11 and 29:10, it is seemingly in order to find some much needed
support for his views by means of a grammatical analysis. Let’s see how he goes
about this intricate task (pages 81-87).
Jeremiah 25:11
In the paragraphs leading on to RF’s transliteration-cum-translation of this
verse he is back in his cantankerous mood, questioning the renderings of NIV,
NW and other modern translations, raving about the structure of the verse,
suggesting as possible ‘solutions’ to his hypothetical ‘problems’ either a
different sense of the Hebrew or the acceptance of the rendering of the LXX;
none of these options seems feasible, though, because in spite of RF’s
imaginings the Hebrew text is clear and unambiguous, while the LXX evidently
is deficient in this case. This is clear even from RF’s slightly skewed rendering,
both his transliteration and the translation of the words and phrases; a more
precise literal translation of the Hebrew would go like this:
11 and-she-will-become all-the-land the-this to-(a)-waste to-(a)-
desolation
and-they-will-serve the-nations the-these king-(of) Babylon
seventy year(s)
As this verse is part of a larger passage (Jer. 25:8-14), the first item is the usual
Hebrew conjunction ve- (‘and’) prefixed to the verb in the usual way. Since
Hebrew verbs can express number and person of the action described they
actually also express the subject, as seen here; however, when there is also an
overt subject they will of course be in agreement grammatically: thus the ‘she’
of the first phrase (ve - plus the Hebrew verbal) is in agreement with the overt
subject, ‘all the land the this’ (in Hebrew,‘erets, ‘land’, is feminine). The last two
phrases of the first line constitute the subjective complement, showing what
‘the land will become’, the use of two synonymous phrases expressing
emphasis. In the second line the syntax is equally natural: beginning with the
conjunction ve- (‘and’), followed by the verbal with an implied subject, fully
agreeing in its grammatical form with the overt subject, both being masculine
plural and the overt subject very emphatic with its postpositive double
determination. The direct object is ‘king of Babylon’, the time adverbial
expressing the time limit for the service of ‘these nations’ to ‘(the) king of
Babylon’, namely ‘seventy years’. It is all very clear and unambiguous, and it is
almost impossible to imagine that anyone would try to pervert the sense of this
short verse. RF hasn’t given up having his way; though, even though he admits
that he understands quite well what ‘the natural analysis would be’ (at least of
the latter part), and he even shows what it ought to be. Nevertheless, he doesn’t
accept it, but tries to circumvent it in his own devious way. Let us take a close
look at things.
Who, indeed, are ‘the nations these’?
Even though RF quite correctly identifies the subject, the verbal and the direct
object of the latter clause of Jeremiah 25:11, and mentions the ‘different
nations’ and ‘all these nations around’ several times (cf. page 82, 83) he tries
again to muddy the waters by calling the statement in Jer. 25:11 about ‘these
nations’ as servants of the king of Babylon ‘vague and unspecified’, and on page
84 he speaks about them as ‘some undefined nations’. Actually, this is not only
incorrect, it is incredibly naïve, for ‘these nations’ are certainly neither
‘undefined’ nor ‘unspecified’ - they are even ‘specified’ in the very chapter of
Jeremiah under discussion: first, we read in verse 9 that Jehovah would send
‘and take all the families of the north ... even [sending] to Nebuchadrezzar the
king of Babylon and I will bring them against this land and against its
inhabitants and against all these nations round about’’ (emphasis added). Moreover,
we do not need to be in doubt as to their identity, for in the very same chapter,
in verses 17 to 26, they are ‘specified’ very detailedly: First, Jeremiah tells how
he is to make ‘all the nations to whom he [Jehovah] sent me drink the cup of his
wrath’, and after having mentioned Jerusalem and the towns of Judah and their
rulers, he begins in the south and then goes on listing all the neighbouring
nations, to the west, north and east, ‘all around’ the land of Israel. Please consult
a good Bible Atlas for this (NIV; emphasis added):
Pharaoh, king of Egypt, his attendants, his officials and all his people, and
all the foreign people there; all the kings of Uz; all the kings of the
Philistines (those of Ashkelon, Gaza, Ekron, and the people left at Ashdod);
Edom, Moab and Ammon; all the kings of Tyre and Sidon: the kings of the
coastlands across the sea; Dedan, Tema, Buz and all who are in distant
places; all the kings of Arabia and all the kings of the foreign people who
live in the desert; all the kings of Zimri, Elam and Media; and all the kings
of the north, near and far, one after the other – all the kingdoms on the face
of the earth. And after all of them, the king of Sheshach [Babel] will drink it
too.
Really, for anyone to call this lot ‘unspecified’ or ‘undefined’ is truly
nonsensical, as is RF’s entire argumentation about these matters. And even if
‘these nations round about ’ had not been listed so carefully, there would still
have been plenty of evidence for the normal understanding, because the
Hebrew word for nations is a much used standard term for the heathen or
Gentile nations all around Israel: In Robert B.Girdlestone, Synonyms of the Old
Testament, 2nd ed., p. 256 (Grand Rapids 1978) we read about the Hebrew term
goy (‘nation’, in plural goyim, spelt goim in the book):
Throughout the historical books, the Psalms, and the prophets, the word
goim primarily signifies those nations which lived in the immediate
neighbourhood of the Jewish people; they were regarded as enemies, as
ignorant of the truth, and sometimes as tyrants.
This is corroborated by Brown-Driver-Briggs (page 156), according to which
this term (goy) is used ‘usually of non-Hebr. peoples’. In a way, the seed of this
development was sown very early -- as we know, when Noah’s offspring had
reached 70 generations the Scriptural narrative began focusing on Shem’s line,
and from Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and his twelve sons onward the focus was
narrowed down to just one nation, the chosen one, especially after the law
covenant was given to it at Sinai. Of course, that did not mean that the other
nations were never mentioned again, but from then on they were on the
sidelines, as it were, as ‘the nations’, meaning the non-Jews, i.e. the heathen or
Gentiles, as they are often called in older translations, such as KJV. The word
itself occurs more than 830 times in the Hebrew Bible, and of these 86 or more
than 10% are found in the book of Jeremiah; actually, in accord with the
developments of his time, it is the Bible book with the most occurrences of this
word. It is primarily used in the plural (goyim), often determined (haggoyim) and
with the word kol (‘all’) in front; thus kol-haggoyim (‘all the nations’) occurs 16
times in Jeremiah; there are also definite forms like the one in 25:11, that is,
haggoyim ha’elleh (‘the nations the these’). This is a very emphatic construction,
indicating (like all the determined ones, only stronger than most) that the
nations referred to are well known to both the speaker and the listener. To
anyone familiar with the contents of the prophecy of Jeremiah this comes as no
surprise. – Gen. 10:1-32; 11:10-12:5; 17:1-27; 26:1-5; 35:22b-27; Ex. 19:1-20:21;
24:1-18; 34:1-17; Deut. 7:1-7; 11:23, 24; 26:17-19; 28:1; Josh. 11:23; 2 Sam. 7:23;
l Kgs 4:20-25.
Actually, we have other witnesses to the understanding of Jeremiah defended
here, namely the Watchtower writers who produced the book “All Scripture Is
Inspired of God and Beneficial” (New York 1990), in which we read on page 127,
paragraph 20:
Jehovah’s controversy with the nations
(25:1-38). This chapter is a summary of judgments that appear in greater detail
in chapters 45-49. By three parallel prophecies, Jehovah now pronounces
calamity for all the nations on earth. First, Nebuchadrezzar is identified as
Jehovah’s servant to devastate Judah and the surrounding nations, “and these nations
will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” Then it will be Babylon’s turn,
and she will become “desolate wastes to time indefinite.” – 25:1-14 (emphasis
added).
Thus the Watchtower people are in full agreement with the Bible on this point,
although their pupil, RF, has chosen to view things differently. Actually, he
again shows that he knows full well what is the natural translation of the latter
clause in Jer. 25:11, namely the one shown as number 1 on top of page 84, ‘and
these nations will serve the king of Babylon seventy years.’ Moreover, his claim
that the context focuses ‘upon the inhabitants of Judah rather than on some
undefined nations’ is palpably false: as has been already demonstrated clearly,
the nations in question are very well defined! To be sure, the focus is here a
broad one, including both Judah and Jerusalem first, and then all those
surrounding nations, because they would all come under the heel of Babylon.
And RF’s strange contention, that the designation ‘its inhabitants ... as
mentioned in verse 8’ (should be 9) ought to be understood as the antecedent,
not of the pronoun ‘they’, which does not occur in the Hebrew, but of the
embedded (or implied) subject from the verb ‘abhedu, down in verse 11, is so
farfetched from both a syntactical and a semantic viewpoint, that it is utterly
impossible to take it seriously. Indeed, this can be said about his entire tortuous
effort about this subject.
What does ‘et mean in front of melekh?
On page 83 RF once more turns to a tiny Hebrew particle for help in his
quandary; this time it is the particle ‘et, which is seen prefixed to the word
melekh in the latter clause of Jer. 25:11. As the analysis showed, the phrase ‘et-
melekh babhel (‘king [of] Babylon’) constituted the direct object of that clause,
signifying the one ‘these nations’ would have to serve for seventy years, and the
particle ‘et functioned as the objective marker, as it generally does in Hebrew.
However, RF does not want that to be so, and so he says, ‘While the particle ‘et
is often used as object marker, it can be used as a preposition with the meaning
“with” as well.’ Now, this needs a little modification, for in reality there are two
etymologically different Hebrew particles spelled ‘et, not just one, as anyone
can see for himself in the Hebrew dictionaries. Unfortunately they are always
spelt in the same way when they do not take suffixes, and they are also both
connected to the next word by the Hebrew hyphen, the so-called maqqeph, as
the ‘et found in Jer. 25:11 is. This ‘et fits the description very well of the so-
called accusative particle, which is ‘prefixed as a rule only to nouns that are
definite’, that is, they need no article - proper nouns, titles, names of cities and
nations, etc., are definite wihout it.
At any rate, since there is no formal difference in this case, the context must
decide which ‘et we are dealing with, and here the syntax is clear: as shown in
the above analysis: ‘abhedu (‘they will serve’) is the verbal, haggoyim ha’elleh (’the
nations the these’) is the overt subject, and so, quite naturally, ‘et-melekh babhel is
the direct object. This is not only the ‘natural analysis’, it is simply the only
analysis that makes sense! The renowned Hebraist Dr. Driver, who wrote the
articles on all the various types of particles in the Hebrew and English Lexicon by
Brown, Driver and Briggs, gave both particles excellent treatment in that
dictionary, which see (pp. 84-87). Of course, he could not include all the
occurrences, for ‘et occurs more than 10,000 times in the Hebrew Bible, and of
them more than 830 are found in the book of Jeremiah. (A.M. Wilson,‘The
particle ‘et in Hebrew’, Hebraica ,Vol. 6, 1890, No. 2, pp. 139-150; No. 3, pp.
212-224) Happily, Dr. Driver also made a most excellent translation of The Book
of The Prophet Jeremiah (London, 1906), and his rendering of Jeremiah 25:11 is
quite clear and unambiguous as may be seen in the section prefaced by this
subheading:
Judah, therefore, not less than the neighbouring countries, will be laid waste by the
Chaldaeans, and be subject to them for seventy years. (See verses 11 and 12 below):
11And this whole land shall be a waste, and an appalment: and these nations
shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years. 12 And it shall come to pass,
when seventy years are accomplished, that I will punish the king of Babylon,
and that nation, saith Yahweh, for their iniquity, and the land of the
Chaldaeans; and I will make it desolate for ever.
Let us just take a good look at another very authoritative translation, made by a
grammarian and lexicographer of very high standing in continental Europe,
similar to the one enjoyed by Dr. Driver in the English-speaking world, namely
Professor Frants Buhl of Copenhagen and Leipzig, who edited Wilhelm
Gesenius’ large Hebrew-German Handwörterbuch for a number of years. He also
translated the Old Testament into Danish (Det gamle Testamente, Copenhagen
1910) and here follows his rendering of Jeremiah 25:11, 12 in Danish:
11og hele dette land skal blive til en Ørk, og disse Folkeslag skal trælle for
Babels Konge i halvfjerdsinstyve Aar. 12 Men naar der er forløbet
halvfjerdsinstyve Aar, straffer jeg Babels Konge og dette Folk, og gør det til
evige Ørkener. (Cf. the English rendering below):
11 and all this land shall become a desert, and these nations must slave for
the king of Babylon for seventy years. 12 But when seventy years have run
their course, I will punish the king of Babel and this people, and make it
into everlasting deserts.
Now, these two eminent Hebraists are most certainly not the only ones who
have rendered Jeremiah’s words in this way; facts are, I haven’t been able to
find a single translation or commentary opting for the solution suggested by
RF, i.e., to regard the ‘et prefixed to melekh (babhel ) in verse 11 as the
preposition meaning ‘with’, and I take it for granted that RF has failed in this
regard too, or else he would no doubt have told us about it. Consequently, we
shall disregard RF’s very unorthodox idea as a mere figment of his imagination
and stick to the natural and straightforward sense of the Hebrew text of
Jeremiah, exactly as the real experts in Biblical Hebrew have rendered it.
What about the LXX and the Old Ethiopic?
As for the LXX, preferred by RF, we agree with the view expressed in the
Watchtower publication Insight on the Scriptures, vol. II, page 32 (in the article
about the Book of Jeremiah):
The majority of scholars agree that the Greek translation of this
book is defective, but that does not lessen the reliability of the
Hebrew text.
As it is, the LXX lacks about one seventh of the Hebrew text and the
translators have taken many liberties with it, omitting words and phrases here
and there, adding others not found in the Hebrew, and it is generally unreliable.
After all, it is a second-hand text, a translation into an Indo-European language,
made by people who may not have been too well acquainted with Classical
Hebrew, and who admittedly made many mistakes. Regarding the Old Ethiopic,
which RF also favours, it is an even weaker witness; no one knows when it was
made but apparently it took centuries to complete, and the oldest manuscripts
are rather late, no earlier than the 13th century CE. Moreover, it is to a great
degree influenced by the LXX, and it cannot really be regarded as an
independent witness. After all, Jeremiah was an inspired prophet and his
original prophecies taken down in Hebrew and preserved in that language to
this very day are the best evidence we have about these matters. The Hebrew
text is also supported by the ancient Semitic translations, the Aramaic Targum
Jonathan and the Syriac Peshitta, which are much closer to the original Hebrew
than the Greek LXX.
Jeremiah 29:10
However, there is one more scripture mentioning the seventy years, the short
verse here mentioned, and to this RF now turns (page 85), apparently hoping
that he can finally prove his point. However, it is as though the long and hard
uphill battle has taken his breath away, for he offers neither transliteration nor
translation; instead he again focuses on a tiny particle, the preposition le
prefixed to the word babhel, which he feels has been wrongly rendered by the
standard translations. Let us just take a look at the verse in question,
transliterating and translating it for the benefit of the reader:
10ki-
‘amar YHWH ki lephi mel’ot lebabhel shibhim shanah
khoh
by-my- to-be- for-
for-this says Jehovah when seventy year(s)
mouth completed Babel
‘ephqo ‘etkhe vehaqimo ‘aleikhe ‘et- hattob lechasi ‘etkhe ‘al- hazze
d m ti m debhar h r m hammaqo h
i m
I-will- you and-I-will to-you my- the- to- you to-the this-
visit fulfill word good- return place one
(one)
Among the many modern translations the NIV gives a good and adequate
rendering, but the NWT fails in one point and that is the one that RF wants,
for it renders lebabhel ‘at Babylon’, as against NIV’s ‘for Babylon’. Let’s recall
that Dr. Driver, who wrote all the articles on the prepositions in Brown-Driver-
Briggs, also translated the Book of Jeremiah into reasonably modern English (in
1906); here is his version of Jeremiah 29:10 (emphasis added):
10For thus saith Yahweh, As soon as seventy years be accomplished for
Babylon, I will visit you, and perform my good word toward you, in bringing
you back unto this place.
Moreover, he placed an interesting subtitle over this section in the 29th chapter,
showing how he understood this important scripture; it goes like this:
For no restoration will take place till the seventy years of Babylonian domination are ended,
when those now in exile with Jehoiachin will turn to Yahweh, and he will bring them back
(cf. xxiv, 5-7).
Since we are investigating the semantic contents of the preposition le, we may
as well note that Professor Buhl used the very same word in Danish, ‘for’, and
that the noted German grammarian and translator Emil Kautzsch (who edited
Gesenius’ Hebrew grammar later translated into English by A. Cowley) used
the German form of the same preposition, namely ‘für’, in front of the word
‘Babel’. Actually, already Luther had used the preposition ‘für’ here, as early as
in 1534. The same usage (‘for Babel’) is found in the translation by Dr. Chr. H.
Kalkar (Copenhagen 1847), who as a converted Jew was an expert in Biblical
Hebrew. As it is, all the most serious and reasonably literal translations have
‘for’ here, or words to that effect; NEB has a slightly different wording: ‘When
a full seventy years have passed over Babylon,...’ and AAT has: ‘As soon as
Babylon has finished seventy years,...’, while Moffatt has: ‘As soon as Babylon’s
seventy years are over,...’. The Jewish translation Tanakh agrees with Moffatt,
while the older ones by Leeser and JPS use ‘for’. As is well known, the KJV has
‘at Babylon’, which is not so strange when one bethinks that it most likely was
influenced by the Vulgate’s ‘in Babylone’; after all, most of the early English
translations until and including the KJV were influenced by that old Latin
version – also, the knowledge of Biblical Hebrew was rather imperfect then, but
fortunately it has improved enormously since 1611. Curiously, the so-called
‘New King James Version’ (1982) has kept the ‘at’ here; however, the reason
may well be that the editors did not want a total revision (cf. the Preface), but
rather a mere modernization, such as the replacing of obsolete words like ‘thou,
thee, thy’ and ‘thine’ with the modern pronouns ‘you, your’ and ‘yours’.
However, when the Revised Version came out in 1885 the knowledge of
Hebrew was much greater – there were no less than ten professors of Hebrew
in the so-called ‘Old Testament Company’ who revised the Hebrew part of the
Bible (including Jeremiah), and so things were changed. One of the real experts
among them was Dr. Driver, who has been mentioned already, and it would
have been unthinkable for him to render such a preposition wrongly. At that
time he was already engaged in the work of compiling the great Hebrew
lexicon, in which he gave an expert account of the preposition le on pages 510-
518, covering a total of 16 columns. Here he classified the meanings of le under
seven main headings and a lot of subheadings and even lesser groups, totaling
69 semantic variants, some even overlapping. The very smallest main heading,
with no subgroups at all, is No. 2 (page 511), ‘Expressing locality, at, near’,
which does not, however, contain anything supporting RF’s views.
Dr. Driver gives as the general sense of this preposition ‘to, for, in regard to, ...
denoting direction (not properly motion, as (‘el) towards, or reference to; and hence
used in many varied applications, in some of which the idea of direction
predominates, in others that of reference to ... very often, with various classes of
verbs, to, towards, for.’ Similar explanations are given in Gesenius-Buhl and
Köhler-Baumgartner. Interestingly, it was not only in the Revised Version but
also in its transatlantic counterpart, the American Standard Version of 1901,
KJV’s ‘at Babylon’ had been corrected to ‘for Babylon’, and that wording has
been kept in the versions later made in that tradition, such as the RSV of 1952
and the NASB of 1977. By the way, on page 86 RF says that the LXX ‘has the
dative form babulôni, the most natural meaning being “at Babylon”.’ Now, the
Greek form is correct, but the sense is not, for in Greek the dative used here is
the dativus commodi et incommodi. (Also called ‘the dative of advantage and
disadvantage’, cf. C.F.D.Moule, An Idiom-Book of New Testament Greek, 2nd ed.,
Cambridge U.P., 1971, p. 46) See W.W. Goodwin, A Greek Grammar, London
et al, 1970, pp. 247ff., § 1165, which says: ‘This dative is generally introduced in
English by ‘for’.” This is of great importance, as may be seen from the
statement by F.C. Conybeare and St. G. Stock in A Grammar of Septuagint Greek
(Grand Rapids 1980) § 38, in which they discuss the peculiar syntax of the
LXX:
The Construction of the LXX not Greek. ... the LXX is on the whole a literal
translation, it is to say, it is only half a translation – the vocabulary has been
changed, but seldom the construction. We have therefore to deal with a
work of which the vocabulary is Greek and the syntax Hebrew.
Apparently, then, the translators of the LXX understood the phrase lebabhel
correctly and so rendered it in the best possible way into a Greek form having
exactly the same sense as the original Hebrew, i.e. ‘for Babylon.’ Why Jerome
didn’t imitate this fine effort when making the Vulgate is not known, but in
connection with his ‘in Babylone’ and KJV’s ‘at Babylon’ we ought to realize
that such a rendering does not in any way ‘prove’ RF’s contentions about the
length of the exile and Jerusalem’s devastation: We know from Jeremiah 25:11
that ‘these nations [i.e., ‘these nations all around’, the ones defined so clearly in
Jeremiah 25:17-26] shall serve the king of Babylon seventy years’, and these
seventy years would naturally pass for all and sundry, whether ‘in’ or ‘at’
Babylon or elsewhere. Mark you, neither this scripture nor anyone else says ‘for
Judah’ or ‘for ‘Israel’ or for ‘the exiles’! So, even though RF and his fellow
believers stubbornly stick to their erroneous interpretation of the inspired
words of Jehovah spoken by Jeremiah, they have no solid evidence for their
ideas!
In the case of the sense of le in Jeremiah 29:10 we have the clear evidence
outlined in a work which RF does not mention, namely Professor Ernst Jenni’s
Die hebräischen Präpositionen. Band 3: Die Präposition Lamed (Stuttgart et al, 2000).
In this monumental work Dr. Jenni lists and categorizes each and every
occurrence of le in the entire Hebrew Bible, all 20,725 of them! Here we find le
as used in Jeremiah 29:10 (in lebabhel) on page 109, ‘Rubrik’ 4363, where it is
listed with a few other scriptures in which some forms of the verb ml’ [mal’e],
‘voll werden (Tage/Jahr[e])’, ‘(to become full, complete, (days/year[s])’ occur;
it is listed as a subgroup under 436, ‘Dauer’ (‘duration’). Thus the verbal lemall’ot
in 2 Chronicles 36:21 means, as shown earlier, ‘to complete fully’ and the verbal
melo’t ‘to be completed’ (qal infinitive construct) in Jeremiah 29:10, while the
direct object lebabhel means ‘for Babylon’: this corresponds to Dr. Driver’s
definition 5. g. (b), where le is said to be ‘corresponding to the Latin dativus
commodi’, with the general meaning ‘for’, and that brings us back to the LXX-
rendering mentioned above with the ‘dativus commodi’ Babulôni, giving exactly
the same meaning. In his ‘argumentation’ RF referred to some other scriptures
in which le had been rendered with a local meaning, as ‘at’, ‘in’ or ‘to’, and of
course Jenni has these verses in his classification, e.g. defining le in Jeremiah
51:2 as a ‘personal dative of Babel, personified as world power’, and Jeremiah
3:17 as a ‘local directional’. Both of these are used correctly in their contexts,
agreeing with the general sense of le, ‘to, towards, for’, and the full details about
them and their various uses (e.g. the ‘local’ or ‘directional’) can be found in Dr.
Jenni’s very precise classification.
As for the last scripture mentioned by RF in this connection, Jeremiah 40:11, a
check on some translations of this verse shows that not everything is as simple
as RF appears to think; if, for instance, he had checked the LXX, he would
have found a genitive construction in Jer. 47:11 (corresponding to MT’s 40:11),
which Sir Launcelot Lee Brenton rendered ‘the king of Babylon had granted a
remnant to Judah’ in the Bagster Septuagint. (Reprint of 1976). The very same
construction is found in Rotherham’s The Emphasized Bible, while the NASB
uses ‘left a remnant for Judah’; several versions have ‘a remnant of Judah’ (e.g.
NKJV; RV; ASV) and Leeser’s Jewish translation has ‘left a remnant unto
Judah’. Let us also take a look at a very scholarly Norwegian rendering by
Mowinckel and Messell in DET GAMLE TESTAMENTE De senere Profeter
(Oslo 1944), page 417: ‘Babelkongen hadde unt Judafolket en rest’, (‘the king of
Babylon had granted the people of Judah a remnant’) and then, for the sake of
good order, we’ll close this little check-up by quoting NW: ‘the king of
Babylon had given a remnant to Judah.’ (Emphasis added where pertinent)
Even though quite a few versions have ‘in’ as suggested by RF, it appears to be
impossible to get a complete consensus on the way to render le in this verse!
In his discussion of the possibility of using le in a local sense as ‘at’ (page 86, §
2) RF points out that ‘The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew lists about 30 examples of
this meaning’. Now, this is not so strange and it is actually a very small
percentage when we recall that this preposition occurs more than 20,000 times
in the Hebrew Bible. To be honest, that learned dictionary does not seem to
offer the most comprehensive or the most detailed treatment of le, for it has
only a total of 373 examples in its entry on that preposition (pages 479-485),
while Brown-Driver-Briggs has more than 1500! What is more, whenever BDB
has treated a category of le as found in one of the books of the Bible, it usually
adds that the listed examples are followed by many more in that book or
chapter. Moreover, it brims with grammatical and general linguistic
information, adding many useful references to Aramaic, Syriac and other
Semitic tongues for the sake of comparison.
Regarding the examples of le being used in the sense of ‘at’, RF is somewhat
less than accurate, for in section 4. in the dictionary he uses, which treats ‘of
place, at, by, on, along, over’, there are only 11 examples of ‘at’, not 30! The
section lists 31 verses with a total of 35 examples of ‘local’ le, some of which are
even rendered ‘for’, ‘to’, or by other words, and there is no added grammatical
explanation of any kind whatsoever. Of course, Gesenius-Buhl and Köhler-
Baumgartner also have plenty of information on this preposition and its usage,
so as not to speak of Professor Jenni’s magnificent volume quoted above.
One more point about lebabhel in Jeremiah 29:10: On page 85, the last six lines,
RF relates that of 70 translations in his library only six had the ‘local’ meaning,
that is, ‘at’ in English, which means that the other sixty-four had something
else, presumably ‘for’ or a similar wording. Why this didn’t give him pause is
difficult to understand -- how can he prefer six renderings to sixty-four?
Unfortunately, he identifies only the six he prefers, and not a single one of the
majority, the sixty-four with which he disagrees, a fact which only adds to the
evidence for his marked prejudice. Of course, NWT is really not a good
witness, for the false dogmas of the Watchtower translators undoubtedly
caused them to use this rendering. As for the KJV, we have already seen why
that old and really outdated version is to be disregarded in this context, and the
same may be said about the other English ones as well, e.g. Harkavy’s Hebrew-
English edition from 1939, in which the English translation is actually taken
directly from the KJV! Lamsa’s slightly newer version (from 1957) is no better,
as it is heavily influenced by the KJV, and one needs only a short survey of
Helen Spurrell’s A Translation of the Old Testament from the Original Hebrew
(London 1885) to see that her rendering is clearly patterned on the old KJV,
even though it is certainly not a mere copy - to the contrary, she has many
renderings which are clear improvements on KJV, such as using JEHOVAH
instad of ‘the LORD’. Interestingly, in her Preface she made a special claim
about the text from which she made her translation:
It seems scarcely necessary to mention that the translation is made from the
unpointed Hebrew; that being the Original Hebrew.
Actually, it would have been strange for her not to have copied the pattern of
the old KJV, which had held the field as the ‘Authorized Version’ for centuries;
indeed, to have abandoned it entirely might well have impaired the acceptance
of Miss Spurrell’s version, which she claimed had ‘almost entirely occupied her
time for many years past.’ It is an interesting coincidence that her translation
was published in London in 1885, in the very same year in which the Old
Testament part of The Revised Version was issued, a fact, however, which
precludes her having had access to this new edition, in which the ‘at’ in
Jeremiah 29:10 had been replaced by ‘for’.
Now, of course the Swedish Church Bible of 1917 does not have the English
‘at’ or some particle directly representing it, as e.g. ‘på, vid, hos’, but it has ‘i’
(‘in’) which doesn’t prove a thing because, as stated above, the ‘seventy years’
which had been decided ‘for’ Babylon’s dominion, would also pass ‘in’ or ‘at’
Babylon, as well as in all the lands mentioned, in Judah as well as among the
Gentiles. Also, this old Swedish version has now been replaced by no less than
two new ones (in 1998 and 2000) which both correctly read ‘for Babylon’ in
Jeremiah 29:10. Actually, since all the faulty supports of RF have now fallen by
the wayside, he ought to accept defeat and start using the correct renderings of
the other sixty-four! And since he has begun to look at the Scandinavian Bibles,
he might check the NW-Bible in Danish which has had ‘for Babylon’ in
Jeremiah 29:10 ever since the first edition was printed in 1985, and it is
unchanged in the large study edition of 1993!
The words of Zechariah
This section will not be treated here, since the verses used by RF have no
relation to the subject under discussion, cf. C.O. Jonsson, The Gentile Times
Reconsidered, 4th ed., Atlanta 2004, pp. 225-229.
A theological attempt ...

Thus far it has been a very disappointing experience to go through RF’s twisted
and contorted attempts to ‘prove’ his outlandish views about the length of the
devastation of Jerusalem and Judah and the exile of the Judeans, but this
section testifies to a stubbornness in the matter of doctrine on RF’s part which
is hard to comprehend. Here he deals with a two-part article by an Adventist
scholar named Ross E. Winkle who has gone through all the relevant material
about this topic and written a well-researched and well-formulated piece which
by dint of its careful scholarship and its sober style outshines RF’s ‘fuzzy’ and
‘muddled’ product by far.
He quite correctly sees Winkle’s conclusion as the opposite of his own: ‘There
is no passage in the Bible which definitely says that Jerusalem and Judah should
be desolate for 70 years while the people were exiles in Babylon!’ What RF does
not concede, however, in the face of the overwhelming Biblical and linguistic
evidence for Winkle’s conclusion, is that it is correct! In fact, Winkle proves his
point in a very careful and methodical way, far removed from RF’s prolix and
clumsy attempts to pervert the clear and incontrovertible truth of God’s Word.
Actually, despite his lengthy and confused efforts, RF does not prove one single
point of his Watchtower-inspired theory, for the very simple reason that it is
not true!
Some of his arguments in this part are nothing less than ludicrous: he does not
like that ‘Winkle seems to assume that what the Bible says is true’, (indeed, what
is wrong with that? Doesn’t the Watchtower people reason in the same way as
Winkle?) and neither does he like Winkle’s acceptance of ‘the traditional
chronology’ - but here Winkle stands on firm ground: the Bible is God’s own
inspired word, truthful and inerrant, and what RF calls ‘traditional chronology’
is certainly not based on ‘circular arguments’ but on many years of diligent
research by serious and competent scholars! Of course, mistakes have been
made over the years, especially in the infancy of this science, but in time they
have ben corrected whenever new evidence came to light, and today the ancient
history and chronology of the Middle East for the first millennium B.C.E. is
well-established and trustworthy in practically all aspects, notwithstanding RF’s
contrary claims and his unproven pet theories.
RF truly feels unhappy about Winkle’s beginning from Jeremiah’s testimony
and his going on from there to Daniel and the Chronicler, while he himself
starts with Daniel and the Chronicler and then goes back to Jeremiah; however,
in a situation like this the ideal method is actually to begin from the beginning,
which naturally means to take Jeremiah’s prophecies first and then, having
familiarized oneself with their message, to move on chronologically to the later
reactions to these early prophecies and their fulfilment, going first to Daniel
and then to the somewhat later Chronicler. In this way the true picture of the
events of those times emerges clearly, and that is evidently what Winkle tries to
do even though he takes the Chronicler before Daniel, probably because he
wants to handle the matter of the ‘sabbath rest’ for the land properly, without
getting it mixed up with the message of Jeremiah’s prophecies, and this he does
very well indeed.
RF also dislikes Winkle’s reference to the literary style of some of Jeremiah’s

verses, and in this connection he refers to pages 210, 211 in Winkle’s article;
this is very good, for thus he reveals whence he has his ideas about
‘parallelisms’ (cf. RF, pp. 79, 80). Let us just take a look at this, before we move
on: RF claimed that 2 Chronicles 36:21 formed in four lines a genuine Hebrew
parallelism, which I disclaimed, showing that this stylistic feature does not
occur in Hebrew prose such as the text in question. Nevertheless, Winkle was
first to suggest something like that, even though he did not make quite the
same claim that RF did, no doubt because he knew better. Winkle wrote the
following about 2 Chronicles 36:20b-21 (pp. 209-211):
In this passage there are two sets of parallel clauses, either beginning
with ‘ad or lemallot. Displaying the text according to a quasi-poetic style
(in order to highlight the parallels) results in the following (my
translation):
Line
1 And they were servants to him and his sons
2 until (‘ad) the reign of the kingdom of Persia
3 in order to fulfill (lemallot) the word
4 of the LORD in the mouth of Jeremiah
5 until (‘ad) the land had enjoyed its sabbaths
6 (all the days of its desolation
7 it kept sabbath)
8 in order to fulfill (lemallot) seventy years
Line 2 completes the thought of line 1, while lines 3-4 further clarify
lines 1 and 2. Line 5, which starts with the same word as line 2, must be
parallel to it.
After this Winkle quotes three examples of this kind of ‘parallel structure’
(Exodus 16:35; Jeremiah 1:3; 2 Chronicles 36:16), and he is right as far as the
similarity of structure is concerned. However, none of these examples fulfill the
criteria for true poetic parallelism such as found in the poetic writings in the
Hebrew Bible. Instead of this we may apply to them the words of Professor E.
König of Bonn University as found in Hastings’ Dictionary of the Bible (Vol. V, p.
116) where he issued a warning against regarding everything rhythmic in
Hebrew prose as though it were parallelisms:
It must be remembered that the higher form of prose, as employed
especially by good speakers, was not without a certain kind of rhythm.
Indeed, this higher form of prose by such eminent speakers as the great
prophets, e.g. Jeremiah, whose book is written for a large part (more than half)
in poetic form (cf. NIV), and who also penned the all-poetic book of
Lamentations, often used a structure resembling parallelism, but we must

remember that simple syntactical parallelistic structures do not on that count
alone qualify as true parallelisms; for that the sense, the meaning must be
parallelistic, and the form follow the rules of this special style of Semitic poetry
(for this, see R.K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament, London 1970, Part
Twelve, I. Hebrew Poetry; pages 965-975, and similar works).
Apparently, Ross E. Winkle was well aware of this when he wrote the above,
for he did not claim that he was dealing with genuine poetic parallelisms, but
designated the form of his ‘parallel clauses’ a ‘quasi-poetic style’, and in this he
was correct because that was all that they were. It seems as though RF
overlooked this and so made another one of his typical mistakes; this he also
does when he intimates that Winkle’s argument ‘puts the text upside down’,
because he himself is the one who does that, misinterpreting the clear messages
of Jeremiah, Daniel and the Chronicler. Moreover, it seems that he also
borrowed something else from Winkle who says in the last few lines on page
211, that ‘modern translations of vs. 2 [Dan. 9:2] are rather ambiguous as far as
the timing of the seventy years is concerned.’ This is, of course, correct, as
Winkle’s examples (and several others) prove, but it is one thing to point out
that some of the ‘modern’ translations are ‘ambiguous’, disturbing the sense of
the text by their poor rendering, and then to claim that the inspired words of
Jehovah uttered by the prophet Jeremiah to God’s chosen people are
ambiguous and need interpretation by somebody living many years later, who
had seen their fulfilment. RF adds to his errors when he says that ‘Winkle takes
for granted that both the Bible and the traditional New Babylonian chronology
are true’, not on the basis of linguistic knowledge, but ‘by appealing ... to more
elusive reasons’, because this is just the other way around - the only elusive
reasons presented in this connection are ‘Made by RF’!
Said in all fairness, Ross E. Winkle’s article is one of the best and most sober
disquisitions on this subject I’ve yet seen, and it is certainly worth having and
reading, which can hardly be said about RF’s bit. Indeed, there is more true
scholarship in Winkle’s two short articles than in RF’s entire fourth chapter
dealt with here, and probably even though all the chapters in his book were
included.
The two poles ...
In this last section of RF’s ‘exposition’ he reverts to his chronological
speculations, repeating once again his false claims about the Bible stating that
the exile lasted seventy years, but since these utterly untrue speculations have
been thoroughly disproved in the foregoing, there seems to be no need to go
into this discussion again.
Summary and Conclusion
Having gone through RF’s discussion of the scriptures mentioning the seventy
years it is time to assess his effort: First, his treatment of the Hebrew text,
including his transliterations, grammatical ‘analyses’ and translations are too
imprecise and far below par for someone introducing himself as a lecturer of
Semitic languages in a reputable university. Actually, his understanding of
Classical Hebrew and his command of its grammar, usage and style appear to
be defective. Moreover, his entire argumentation consists of the feeblest
possible postulates, to wit:
He begins by presenting some very categorical statements, entirely without
evidence, after which he surmises that the parts of the inspired Bible text with
which he disagrees are ‘ambiguous’, which they are not; then he tries to make
the Hebrew text say something which simply is not in it, and when that appears
impossible he opts for the LXX and the Old Ethiopic versions, both of which
are defective or faulty in the verses referred to. In his dealings with the main
scriptures under discussion, from Jeremiah, Daniel and the Chronicler, he bases
much of his argument on three tiny particles, trying to make them say what no
Hebrew dictionary, grammar or translator accept, all apparently in the hope that
his gullible readers will believe him. The only grammar book he refers to is a
rather short syntax, actually little more than a collection of samples whose
author does not even stay within the referential framework of Hebrew
grammatical nomenclature, but creates his own terms, which, of course, is not
very helpful to the students. And the only Hebrew dictionary to which he refers
casually is a new and relatively little known work, which, when examined, does
not even support his claims! And in his description of a truly scholarly
treatment of the subject he has chosen for himself he appears to be entirely out
of his depth - it is as though he cannot see the wood for the trees!
In a sense, it is somewhat difficult to find out exactly what RF believes in,
because for years he has been known as a member of the congregation of
Jehovah’s Witnesses, defending their positions on the matters discussed in his
book. However, apparently he does not share their absolute faith in the Bible as
God’s inspired and truthful word, such as when he claims that parts of God’s
Word are ‘ambiguous’, which they are not according to the usual Watchtower
doctrine; their views of the entire Bible may be summed up in Paul’s statement,
‘All Scripture Is Inspired of God and beneficial’ (2 Tim. 3:16, 17), cf the
Watchtower publication bearing that title. Furthermore, he criticizes the
Adventist scholar Ross Winkle for ‘assuming that what the Bible says is true’,
which for him apparently is a mere starting point for his own private
ruminations. As for the chronology of the period in question, he also feels
entitled to assess these matters for himself, without any regard for the weighty
results of the diligent research by numerous competent scholars worldwide. In
this method, however, he seems to emulate his Watchtower mentors, who also
handles such matters in their own way, as was revealed by Raymond Franz, the
former member of the Governing Body of Jehovah’s Witnesses who wrote the
long chapter on chronology in the book Aid to Bible Understanding (New York
1969, 1971); in his own book Crisis of Conscience (Atlanta, 4th edition 2002), he
explained that in trying to prove historically the date set for Jerusalem’s
destruction by the witnesses (607 BCE) he discovered that there was no
evidence for this whatsoever. Now, what did this seasoned Watchtower writer
do under such circumstances? This he explains in detail (page 26):
Everything pointed to a period twenty years shorter than our published
chronology claimed. Though I found this disquieting, I wanted to believe
that our chronology was right in spite of all the contrary evidence. Thus,
in preparing the material for the Aid-book, much of the time and space
was spent in trying to weaken the credibility of the archaeological and
historical evidence that would make erroneous our 607 B.C.E. date and
give a different starting point for our calculations and therefore an
ending date different from 1914. ... like an attorney faced with evidence
he cannot overcome, my efforts was to discredit or weaken confidence
in witnesses from ancient times ... [so as] to uphold a date for which
there was no historical support.
This confession of Mr Franz is very revealing, as it shows to what length
Jehovah’s Witnesses will go when it comes to defending their ancient dogmas,
and it is evident that Rolf Furuli has learned from this method: he is willing to
discredit God’s Word and twist it for the sake of the doctrines of the sect to
which he belongs; a very deplorable attitude, which, however, is in near perfect
tune with that of the leaders of the organization. Indeed, the entire presentation
is one long and stubborn manipulation of the facts in a most non-scientific way,
as can be seen in his very selective use of ‘evidence’, omitting, avoiding or
denigrating anything and everything which is not in accord with his prejudiced
views. And when he has to face the sound interpretations by reputable scholars,
he does his very best to circumvent them in a mode reminiscent of the style
employed for long by his mentors, the leaders of the sect to which he belongs.
This is not really a scholarly work which may be used to edify truth-seeking
people, but a narrow-minded, sectarian work of little consequence.
A critical review of Rolf Furuli’s 2nd volume on chronology:
Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian Chronology. Volume II
of Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian
Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible
(Oslo: Awatu Publishers, 2007).
Part I: The astronomical “diary” VAT 4956

Rolf Furuli’s new book on chronology, Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian Chronology (Oslo:
Awatu Publishers, 2007), covers 368 pages. Chapter 6 (pages 94-123) and Appendix C (266-
325), which together cover 90 pages or about 25 percent of the book, are devoted to an
attempt to overcome the evidence provided by the astronomical cuneiform tablet VAT
4956, dated to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II.
VAT 4956 is a so-called astronomical “diary” that records the positions of the moon and
the five planets visible to the naked eye observed during the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar.
About 30 of these records are so well preserved that they can be checked by modern
computations. These computations have confirmed that the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar
corresponds to year 568/567 BCE (spring-to-spring).
HAS VAT 4956 BEEN “TAMPERED WITH” IN MODERN TIMES?

Furuli dedicates a substantial part of his discussion to arguing that the cuneiform signs on
the tablet have been “deliberately tampered with” in modern times. In particular he claims
that the signs for “year 37” at the beginning of the text in line 1 on the obverse of the tablet
and the signs for “year 38” and “year 37” in the concluding lines at the lower edge on the
reverse seem to have been “incised” by someone in modern times. He also claims that the
signs for the name “Nebuchadnezzar” in line 1 on the obverse have been manipulated.
After a lengthy analysis Furuli presents the following hypothesis on pages 285, 286:
484
Furuli’s Second Book 485
“A consideration of the data above together with the unusual publication

history of the tablet leads to the following hypothesis: VAT 4956 is an
authentic cuneiform tablet that was copied from older tablets in one of the
last centuries B.C.E. It came to the Vorderasiatische Museum in Berlin about
1905 as one single entity. Someone discovered that the tablet was extremely
important because it was an astronomical tablet with the hitherto oldest
astronomical observations. These observations seemed to fit year 37 of
Nebuchadnezzar II according to the chronology of Ptolemy, but a clear
connection with Nebuchadnezzar II was lacking. In order to make this
connection perfectly clear, the one working with the tablet used a modern
grinding machine on the edge of the tablet, thus incising the signs for ‘year
37’ and ‘year 38.’ The first line with the name of the king was also
manipulated. Because of the vibration, the tablet broke into three pieces,
which were then glued together. It was discovered that the fit of the signs on
both sides of the break on the reverse side was not perfect, and a grinding
machine was used to try to remedy this. If this hypothesis is correct, a direct
link to years 37 and 38 of Nebuchadnezzar II was not originally found on
the tablet, but the lunar observations are genuine, while the planetary
positions are probably backward calculations.”
On pages 295-324 Furuli discusses the astronomical contents reported on the tablet. He finds
that the planetary positions on the whole fit the year 568/567 BCE, but claims that the 13
lunar positions better fit the year 588/587 BCE. At the end of the Appendix on pages 324,
325, therefore, he draws the following conclusions:
“The following principal conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the
discussion of VAT 4956: The Diary is most likely a genuine tablet made in
Seleucid times, but in modern times someone has tampered with some of
the cuneiform signs. Because of the excellent fit of all 13 lunar positions in
588/87, there are good reasons to believe that the lunar positions represent
observations from that year, and that the original tablet that was copied in
Seleucid times was made in 588/87. Because so many of the planetary
positions are approximately correct, but not completely correct, there are
good reasons to believe that they represent backward calculations by an
astrologer who believed that 568/67 was year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II.
Thus, the lunar positions seem to be original observations from 588/87, and
the planetary positions are backward calculations for the positions of the
planets in 568/67.”
What about the claim that someone in modern times has “tampered” with the signs on the
tablet and, by using “a modern grinding machine on the edge of the tablet,” has incised the
signs for ‘year 37’ and ‘year 38’ on the tablet? Furuli proposes this idea as a “hypothesis,” as
he knows very well that he has not been able to present any evidence in support of the idea.
According to Furuli’s hypothesis, the supposed modern forger did not only incise the signs
for “year 37” and “year 38” at the edge of the tablet. He also incised the signs for “year 37”
and “manipulated” the signs for the name of the king, Nebuchadnezzar, in the beginning of
line 1 on the obverse. The first question is how he could have done this, as there would
have been no space at all at the beginning of the line for adding anything?
If there was another date and a different royal name on the original tablet, the modern
forger had first to remove these signs (with the supposed grinding machine?) before the
signs of the new date and the signs of the changes of the royal name could be incised on the
tablet. But such a replacement of the first signs of line 1 could never have been done
without leaving clear traces (e.g., depressions in the tablet) at the beginning of the line. No
such traces exist. The signs look quite genuine. As one specialist on cuneiform points out:
“Anyone acquainted with cuneiform can see that ‘year 37’ and ‘year 38’ are
written by an experienced scribe. No modern person could have achieved to
scratch (into dried clay!!) true-looking signs.” (Communication Hermann
Hunger–C. O. Jonsson, Jan. 8, 2008)
Another problem with Furuli’s hypothesis is the identity of the supposed modern forger of
the dates and the royal name on the tablet. The first translation of the tablet was that of Paul
V. Neugebauer and Ernst Weidner, whose translation together with an astronomical
examination and a discussion of it was published back in 1915. (“Ein astronomischer
Beobachtungstext aus dem 37. Jahre Nebukadnezars II. (– 567/66),” Berichte über die
Verhandlungen der königlich sächlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Philologisch-
historische Klasse. 67. Band. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1915)
As the article by Neugebauer and Weidner clearly shows, the date and the royal name (“year
37 of Nebuchadnezzar”) were already on the tablet in 1915 when they were examining it.
Are we to believe that these two scholars were forgers, who co-operated in removing some
of the original signs on the tablet and replacing them with signs of their own preference?
Even Furuli admits that he “cannot imagine that any scientist working with the tablet at the
Vorderasiatische Museum has committed fraud.” (Furuli, p. 285) He has no idea about who
the supposed forger may have been, or how he/she managed to change the signs on line 1
without leaving any traces of it on the tablet.
Finally, Furuli’s hypothesis is self-contradictory. If it were true that the planetary positions
“represent backward calculations by an astrologer who believed that 568/67 was year 37 of
Nebuchadnezzar II,” and if it were true that “the original tablet that was copied in Seleucid
times was made in 588/87,” which Furuli argues was the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, then
the astrologer/copyist must have dated the tablet to the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar from
the very beginning! No modern manipulation of the date would then have been necessary.
Furuli’s hypothesis is simply untenable. The only reason for his suggesting it is the desperate
need to get rid of a tablet that inexorably demolishes his “Oslo [= Watchtower] chronology”
and firmly establishes the absolute chronology for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562
BCE).
As discussed in chapter 4 of my book The Gentile Times Reconsidered (Atlanta: Commentary
Press, 2004), there are at least nine other astronomical tablets that perform the same service.
Furuli’s futile attempts to undermine the enormous burden of evidence provided by these
other astronomical tablets will be discussed in another, separate part of this review.
The question that remains to be discussed here is Furuli’s claim that the lunar positions that
were observed in the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar and are recorded on VAT 4956 fit the
year 588/587 better than 568/567 BCE.
DO THE LUNAR POSITIONS RECORDED ON VAT 4956 FIT 588/587
BETTER THAN 568/567 BCE?
On the back cover of his new book Rolf Furuli states that the conclusion of his study is that
“the lunar data on the tablet [VAT 4956] better fit 588 than 568 B.C.E., and that this is the
37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II.” What about this claim?
A careful examination of all the legible lunar positions recorded on this astronomical “diary”
proves that the claim is false. Almost none of the lunar positions recorded on VAT 4956 fit
the year 588/587 BCE, while nearly all of them excellently correspond to lunar positions in
the year 568/567 BCE.
The astronomy program used for this examination is Chris Marriott’s SkyMap Pro 11.04,
which uses the modern complete ELP2000-82B lunar theory. The “delta-T” value used for
the secular acceleration of the Moon is 1.7 milliseconds per century, which is the result of
the extensive research presented by F. Richard Stephenson in his Historical Eclipses and
Earth’s Rotation (Cambridge, 1997). The program used, therefore, maintains high accuracy far
into the past, which is not true of many other modern astronomy programs.
About a year before Furuli’s book had been published in the autumn of 2007 I had
examined his claim (which he had published officially in advance) and found that none of
the lunar positions fit the year 588/587 BCE. I shared the first half of my results with some
of my correspondents. I did not know at that time that Furuli not only moves the 37th year
of Nebuchadnezzar 20 years back to 588/587 BCE, but that he also moves the 37th year
about one extra month forward in the Julian calendar, which actually makes it fall too late in
that year. The reason for this is the following:
On the obverse, line 17, VAT 4956 states that on day 15 of month III (Simanu) there was a
“lunar eclipse that was omitted.” The phrase refers to an eclipse that had been calculated in
advance to be invisible from the Babylonian horizon.
On page 126 Furuli explains that he has used this eclipse record as the “point of departure”
for mapping “the regnal years, the intercalary months, and the beginning of each month in
the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, both from the point of view that 568/67 and 588/87
B.C.E. represent his year 37.”
In the traditional date for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, this eclipse can easily be
identified with the eclipse of July 4, 568 (Julian calendar). Thus the Babylonian date, the 15th
of month III, corresponds to July 4, 568 BCE. From that date we may count backward to
the 1st of month III, which must have been June 20/21 (sunset to sunset), 568. As the
tablet further shows that the preceding Month II (Ayyaru) had 29 days and Month I
(Nisannu) 30 days, it is easy to figure out that the 1st of Ayyaru fell on May 22/23, 568, and
the 1st of Nisannu (i.e., the 1st day of year 37) on April 22/23, 568 BCE.
On moving back 20 years to 588/87 BCE – the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar in Furuli’s
alternative “Oslo Chronology” – we find that in this year, too, there was a lunar eclipse that
could not be seen from the Babylonian horizon. It took place on July 15, 588 BCE.
According to Furuli this is the eclipse that VAT 4956 dates to the 15th of month III
(Simanu). Reckoning backwards from July 15, Furuli dates the 1st of month III to June 30,
588; the 1st of month II (Ayyaru) to June 1, 588, and the 1st of month I (Nisannu) to May 1.
(In his discussions and/or calculations he is inconsistently alternating between May 1, May
2, and May 3).
There are a number of problems with Furuli’s dates. The first one is that the first day of the
Babylonian year, Nisannu 1, never began as late as in May! As shown by the tables on pages
27-47 in R. A. Parker & W. H. Dubberstein’s Babylonian Chronology (Brown University Press,
1956), the 1st of Nisannu never once in the 700-year period covered (626 BCE – CE 75)
began as late as in May. The same holds true of the subsequent months: the 1st of Ayyaru
never began as late as on June 1, and the 1st of Simanu never began as late as on June 30.
For this reason alone the lunar eclipse that VAT 4956 dates to the 15th of month III cannot
be that of July 15, 588 BCE! This eclipse must have fallen in the middle of month IV in the
Babylonian calendar. Furuli’s “point of departure” for his “Oslo Chronology,” therefore, is
quite clearly wrong.
Very interestingly, the lunar eclipse of July 15, 588 BCE was recorded by the Babylonians on
another cuneiform tablet, BM 38462, No. 1420 in A. Sachs’ LBAT catalogue, and No. 6 in
H. Hunger’s Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia (ADT), Vol. V (Wien, 2001).
I discussed this tablet on pages 180-182 of my book, The Gentile Times Reconsidered (3rd ed.
1998, 4th ed. 2004). The chronological strength of this tablet is just as decisive as that of
VAT 4956. It contains annual lunar eclipse reports dating from the 1st to at least the 29th
regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (604/603 – 576/575 BCE). The preserved parts of the tablet
contain as many as 37 records of eclipses, 22 of which were predicted, 14 observed, and one
that is uncertain.
The entry containing the record of the July 15, 588 BCE eclipse (obverse, lines 16-18) is
dated to year 17, not year 37, of Nebuchadnezzar! This entry reports two lunar eclipses in this
year, one “omitted” and one observed. The first, “omitted” one, which refers to the eclipse
of July 15, 588, is dated to month IV (Duzu), not to month III (Simanu). So it cannot be the
eclipse dated to month III on VAT 4956. That this eclipse really is the one of July 15, 588 is
confirmed by the detailed information given about the second, observed lunar eclipse, which
is dated to month X (Tebetu) of year 17. The details about the time and the magnitude help
to identify this eclipse beyond all reasonable doubts. The whole entry reads according to H.
Hunger’s translation in ADT V, page 29:
“[Year] 17, Month IV, [omitted.]
[Month] X, the 13th, morning watch, 1 beru 5o [before sunrise?]
All of it was covered. [It set eclips]ed.”
The second eclipse in month X – six months after the first – took place on January 8, 587
BCE. This date, therefore, corresponded to the 13th of month X in the Babylonian calendar.
This agrees with Parker & Dubberstein’s tables, which show that the 1st of month X
(Tebetu) fell on 26/27 December in 588 BCE. The Babylonians divided the 24-hour day
into 12 beru or 360 USH (degrees), so one beru was two hours and 5 USH (= degrees of four
minutes each) were 20 minutes. According to the tablet, then, this eclipse began 2 hours and
20 minutes before sunrise. It was total (“All of it was covered”), and it “[set eclips]ed,” i.e., it
ended after moonset. What do modern computations of this eclipse show?
My astroprogram shows that the eclipse of January 8, 587 BCE began “in the morning
watch” at 04:51, and that sunrise occurred at 07:12. The eclipse, then, began 2 hours and 21
minutes before sunrise – exactly as the tablet says. The difference of one minute is not real,
as the USH (time degree of 4 minutes) is the shortest time unit used in this text. [The USH
was not the shortest time unit of the Babylonians, of course, as they also divided the USH
into 12 “fingers” of 20 seconds each.] The totality began at 05:53 and ended at 07:38. As
moonset occurred at 07:17 according to my program, the eclipse was still total at moonset.
Thus the moon “set while eclipsed.”
Furuli attempts to dismiss the enormous weight of evidence provided by this tablet in just a
few very confusing statements on page 127 of his book. He erroneously claims that the
many eclipses recorded “occurred in the month before they were expected, except in one
case where the eclipse may have occurred two months before.” There is not the slightest
truth in this statement. Both the predicted and the observed eclipses agree with modern
computations. The statement seems to be based on the gross mistakes he has made on the
previous page, where he has misidentified the months on LBAT 1421 with disastrous results
for his calculations.
In the examination below, the lunar positions recorded on VAT 4956 are tested both for
568/567 BCE as the generally accepted 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar and for Furuli’s
alternative dates in 588/587 BCE as presented on pages 295-325 of his book.
Furuli has also tested the lunar positions for the year 586/585 BCE, one Saros period (223
months, or 18 years + c. 11 days) previous to 568/567. As Furuli himself rejects this year as
not being any part of his “Oslo Chronology”, I will ignore it as well as all his computations
for that year (which in any case are far from correct in most cases).
The record of the first lunar position on the obverse, line 1, of VAT 4956 reads:
(1) Obv.´ line 1: “Year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. Month I, (the 1st of which
was identical with) the 30th (of the preceding month), the moon became visible behind the
Bull of Heaven”.
Nisannu 1 = 22/23 April 568 BCE:
The information that the 1st of Month I (Nisannu) was identical with the 30th of the
preceding month is given to show that the preceding lunar month (Addaru II of year 36, as
shown also at Obv. line 5 of our text) had only 29 days. In 568 BCE the 1st day of Nisannu
fell on 22/23 April (from evening 22 to evening 23) in the Julian calendar. After sunset (at c.
18:30) and before moonset (c. 19:34) on April 22 the new moon became visible c. 5.5o east
of (= behind) α Taurus, the most brilliant star in the constellation of Taurus (“the Bull of
Heaven”). This is close enough to the position given on the tablet.
Furuli’s date: Nisannu 1 = 1 st, 2nd and 3rd May 588 BCE:
In 588 BCE day 1 of Nisannu fell on 3/4 April according to the modern calculations of the
first visibility of the new moon after conjunction. Between sunset (at c. 18:18) and moonset
(at c. 19:14) on April 3 the new moon became visible at the western end of the constellation
of Taurus, about 14o west of (= in front of) α Taurus. Thus the moon was clearly not behind
the constellation of Taurus at this time. This position, therefore, does not fit that on the
tablet.
But as stated above, Furuli moves Nisannu 1 of 588 about one month forward in the Julian
calendar, which is required by his identification of the lunar eclipse dated to month III on
the tablet with the eclipse of July 15, 588. (Furuli, p. 296) This should have moved 1
Nisannu to 3/4 May, 588 BCE, a date that is scarcely possible, as all the evidence available
shows that 1 Nisannu never fell that late in the Julian calendar in the Neo-Babylonian or any
later period. But Furuli goes on to make an even more serious error in connection with this
relocation of Nisannu 1.
On page 311 Furuli explicitly states that, “In order to correlate the Babylonian calendar with
the Julian calendar, I take as a point of departure that each month began with the sighting of
the new moon.” He goes on to explain that, due to bad weather conditions, the month
could sometimes “begin a day after the new moon.” Despite this pronounced (and quite
correct) point of departure, Furuli, in his discussion of the planetary positions on page 296,
dates the 1st of Nisannu in 588, not to 3/4 May but to May 1. He does not seem to have
realized that this was not the date of the sighting of the new moon after conjunction. On
the contrary, this date not only preceded the first sighting of the new moon by two days, but
also the date of conjunction (the time of lunar invisibility) by one day!
Later on, in the beginning of his discussion of the lunar positions on page 312, Furuli seems
to have discovered that the May 1 date is problematic, because here he suddenly and
without any explanation moves the beginning of 1 Nisannu in 588 forward, at first from
May 1 to the evening of May 3, but finally, in the table at the bottom of the page, to the
evening of May 2! Such manipulations of the Julian date for 1 Nisannu are, of course,
inadmissible. One cannot have three different dates for 1 Nisannu in the same year!
True, the conjunction did occur on 2 May, at c. 03:39 local time. (Herman H. Goldstein,
New and Full Moons 1001 B.C. to A.D. 1651, Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society,
1973, p. 35) But this does not mean that the new moon became visible on that day in the
evening after sunset. For a number of reasons, the time interval between the conjunction
and the first sighting of the new moon is considerable. As Dr. Sacha Stern explains, “the
time interval between conjunction and first evening of visibility is often as long as one day
(24 hours); it ranges however, at Mediterranean latitudes between a minimum of about 15
hours and a maximum of well over two days.” (S. Stern, Calendar and Community, Oxford
University Press, 2001, p. 100) The results of modern examinations of the first lunar
crescents recorded on the Babylonian astronomical tablets from 568 to 74 BCE are
presented by Uroš Anderlič, “Comparison with First Lunar Crescent Dates of L. Fatoohi,”
available on the web at:
http://www.univie.ac.at/EPH/Geschichte/First_Lunar_Crescents/Main-Comp-Fatoohi-
Anderlic.htm .
Thus the new moon could not be seen in the evening of 2 May, either. The earliest time for
the visibility of the new moon was in the evening of 3 May, as stated above. Assuming that
this incredibly late date for 1 Nisannu were correct, we find that the new moon did appear
behind the constellation of Taurus in this evening (of May 3) between sunset (at c. 18:36)
and moonset (at c. 20:05). But it was closer to the constellation of Gemini than to Taurus,
so the position of the moon still does not fit very well.
In conclusion, the two dates for 1 Nisannu (1st and 2nd May) that Furuli actually uses in his
computations are impossible. And should he have used May 3 as the date for 1 Nisannu,
this would not have been of much help to him, as all the three dates are unacceptably late as
the beginning of the Babylonian year.
(2) Obv.´ line 3 says: “Night of the 9th (error for: 8th), the beginning of the night, the moon
stood 1 cubit [= 2o] in front of [= west of] β Virginis.”
Nisannu 8 = 29/30 April 568 BCE:
In 568 BCE the 8th of Nisannu fell on 29/30 April. In the beginning of the night on April
29 the moon stood about 3.6o northwest of β Virginis, or about 2o to the west (in front of)
and 3o to the north of (above) the star. This agrees quite well with the Babylonian
measurement of 2o, which, of course, is a rather rough and rounded-off figure.
Furuli’s date: Nisannu 9 = 11 May 588 BCE:
As Furuli (incorrectly) dates 1 Nisannu to 2 May in 588, he should have dated the 8th and 9th
of Nisannu to May 9 and 10, respectively. However, he moves the dates another day
forward, to May 10 and 11, respectively, as is shown in his table at the bottom of page 313.
Based on this error, he claims that, “On Nisanu 9 [May 11], the moon stood 1 cubit (2o) in
front of β Virginis, exactly what the tablet says.” (Furuli, p. 313)
But this is wrong, too. In the “beginning of the night” of 11 May 588 the moon stood, not
to the west of (in front of), but far to the east of (behind) β Virginis (about 13o to the east of
this star at 20:00). To add to the mess, the altitude/azimuth position of the moon in Furuli’s
two columns to the right in his table is wrong, too, as it shows the position near midnight,
not at “the beginning of the night” as the tablet says.
(3) Obv.´ line 8: “Month II, the 1st (of which followed the 30th of the preceding month), the
moon became visible while the sun stood there, 4 cubits [= 8o] below β Geminorum.”
Ayyaru 1 = 22/23 May 568 BCE:
In 568 BCE the 1st day of Month II (Ayyaru) fell on 22/23 May. The distance between
sunset this evening (at c. 18:49) and moonset (at c. 20:46) was c. 117 minutes. This distance
between the moon and the sun was long enough for the new moon to become visible while
the sun still “stood there,” i.e., just above the horizon. At its appearance the new moon
stood about 7.3o south of (below) β Geminorum, which is very close to the position given
on the tablet.
Furuli’s date: Ayyaru 1 = 1 June 588 BCE:
As Furuli has dated Nisannu 1 to 1 May, and later to 2 May, the 1st of Ayyaru should fall one
lunar month later. Furuli (p. 314) dates it to June 1. This, however, conflicts with his earlier
dates, because if Nisannu 1 began in the evening of 1 May as he holds at first (p. 296), and if
Nisannu had 30 days as the tablet says, he should have dated the 1st of Ayyaru to May 31.
But because he later on redates the beginning of Nisannu 1 to the evening of 2 May (p. 312),
he is now able to date the 1st of Ayyaru to 1 June. But as was pointed out earlier, the 2 May
date for Nisannu 1 is unacceptable, too, as the moon did not become visible until 3 May.
Furuli’s choice of 1 June seems to be due to the fact that the new moon could not be
sighted until that day. It became visible at sunset (c. 18:56) about 9.7o below β Geminorum.
This is not “exactly 4 cubits below” this star, as Furuli states (p. 314), but close to 5 cubits
below it. Yet this would have been an acceptable approximation, had the date been right.
But it does not only conflict with Furuli’s dating of Nisannu 1 to 1 May; the month of
Ayyaru never began as late as in June. In addition, the altitude/azimuth position Furuli gives
in his table (+ 54 and 256) is also wrong, as it does not show the position of the moon at
sunset, but at c. 15:16, when it was still invisible. Actually, Furuli’s figures for the
altitude/azimuth position at the time of observation are so often erroneous that they will
henceforth be ignored. The only detail that fairly corresponds to the statement on the tablet,
then, is the position of the moon. Everything else is wrong.
(4) Obv.´ line 12: “Month III, (the first of which was identical with) the 30th (of the
preceding month), the moon became visible behind Cancer; it was thick; sunset to moonset:
20o [= 80 minutes]”.
Simanu 1 = 20/21 June 568 BCE:
In 568 BCE the 1st day of Month III (Simanu) fell on 20/21 June. Day 1 began in the
evening after sunset on June 20. At that time the new moon became visible behind (= east
of) Cancer, exactly as the tablet says. According to my astro-program the distance from
sunset to moonset was c. 23o (= 92 minutes; from sunset c. 19:06 to moonset c. 20:38). This
is not very far from the measurement of the Babylonian astronomers. The discrepancy of 3o
is acceptable in view of the primitive instruments they seem to have used. As N. M.
Swerdlow has suggested, “the measurements could have been made with something as
simple as a graduated rod held at arm’s length.” (N. M. Swerdlow, The Babylonian Theory of the
Planets, Princeton University Press, 1998, pp. 40, 187)
Furuli’s date: Simanu 1 = 30 June 588 BCE:
As Furuli dated the 1st of Ayyaru to June 1, and as the tablet shows that Ayyaru had 29 days,
he should date the 1st of Simanu to June 30, which he does. And it is true that we do find
the moon behind Cancer on this date. Furuli states that “it was 6o to the left (behind) the
center of Cancer, so the fit is excellent.” But he has to add immediately that “it was so close to
the sun that it was not visible.” (Furuli, p. 315. Emphasis added.)
The reason is that the conjunction had occurred earlier on the very same day, at about 03:30.
(H. H. Goldstine, op. cit., p. 35) In the evening the time distance between sunset (at c. 19:09)
and moonset (at c. 19:32) was still no more than 23 minutes, i.e., less than 6o, so the moon
was too close to the sun to be visible. Furuli does not comment on the fact that the tablet
gives the distance between sunset and moonset as much as 20o (80 minutes), showing that
the moon on Simanu 1 was far enough from the sun during the observation to be visible,
contrary to the situation in the evening of June 30 in 588. For this reason alone Furuli’s date
is disqualified.
(5) Obv.´ line 14: “Night of the 5th, beginning of the night, the moon passed towards the
east 1 cubit [2o] <above/below> the bright star at the end of the Lion’s foot [= β Virginis].”
In 568 BCE the 5th of Simanu fell on 24/25 June according to the tables of R. A. Parker &
W. H. Dubberstein (Babylonian Chronology, 1956, p. 28). In the evening of the 24th, the moon
passed towards the east c. 2o north of γ Virginis, not of β Virginis. So here is a problem.
Either the Babylonian scholar misnamed the star, or he misdated the observation by one
day. In the previous evening (on the 23rd), the moon passed c. 4o above (north of) β
Virginis. Thus Johannes Koch translates the 5th of Simanu into June 23 of the Julian
calendar and calculates that in the evening that day at 22:36 the moon was 4o 17´ above and
0o 55´ behind β Virginis. (See J. K och, “Zur Bedeutung von LÁL in den ‘Astronomical
Diaries’ und in der Plejaden-Schaltregel,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 49, 1997, p. 88.)
Furuli’s date: Simanu 5 = 4 July 588 BCE:
Furuli dates the 5th of Simanu to 4 July 588 BCE. He claims (p. 315) that on this date “the
fit is excellent: the moon passed 1 cubit (2o) above β Virginis.” Unfortunately, it did not.
When the Babylonian day began (at sunset, c. 19:10) the moon was already c. 2 ½ cubits (5o)
behind (east of) β Virginis. It had passed above β Virginis about 12 hours earlier, in the
morning before moonrise, but that would have been on Simanu 4, not on Simanu 5. So the
fit is far from “excellent.”
(6) Obv.´ line 15: “Night of the 8th, first part of the night, the moon stood 2 ½ cubits [= 5o]
below β Librae.”

In 568 BCE the 8th of Simanu fell on 27/28 June. My astro-program shows that in the early
night of June 27 the moon stood c. 4.5o south of β Librae, which is very close to the
position given on the tablet.
Furuli, who dates the 8th of Simanu to the 7th of July, 588 BCE, claims (p. 316) that the
moon on that day “was 2 ½ cubits below β Librae, so the fit is excellent.” Again, Furuli is
wrong. In the “first part of the night” on 7 July 588 BCE the moon stood as much as c. 6
cubits (12o) west of (i.e., far from below) β Librae. It was in fact closer to the constellation of
Virgo than to Libra. So Furuli’s date does not fit at all.
(7) Obv.´ line 16: “Night of the 10th, first part of the night, the moon was balanced 3 ½
cubits [= 7o] above α Scorpii.”
In 568 BCE the 10th of Simanu fell on 29/30 June. In the first part of the night of the 29th,
the moon stood about 8o above (north of) α Scorpii, which is very close to the position
described on the tablet.
As Furuli had dated Simanu 8 to July 7, he should have dated Simanu 10 to 9 July 588. But
strangely, he mistranslates it into 10 July and claims (p. 317): “The moon was 3 ½ cubits (7o)
above α Scorpii, so the fit is excellent.” But in the “first part of the night” that day the moon
was over 5 cubits (10o) northeast of α Scorpii. And even if we move back to the early night of
July 9, the moon at that time was about 5 cubits (10o) northwest of α Scorpii. It would not be
correct to state of any of these lunar positions that the “fit is excellent”. None of them fits.
(8) Obv.´ line 17: “The 15th, one god was seen with the other; sunrise to moonset: 7o 30´ [=
30 minutes]. A lunar eclipse which was omitted [….]”
Simanu 15 = 4/5 July 568 BCE:
In 568 BCE the 15th of Simanu fell on 4/5 July. The expression “one god was seen with the
other” refers to the situation when the sun and the moon are both visible at the same time
when standing in opposition to each other. This was the situation in the early morning of 5
July. From sunrise in the east at c. 04:51 to moonset in the west at c. 05:24, i.e., for about 33
minutes, “one god was seen with the other.” This is very close to the time distance recorded
on the tablet, 7o 30´, or 30 minutes.
Line 17 also records “a lunar eclipse which was omitted [….]”, an expression used of an
eclipse that had been predicted in advance to be invisible from the Babylonian horizon. The
text is somewhat damaged, but the reference is obviously to the lunar eclipse of July 4, 568
BCE, which according to modern calculations began about 12:50 and lasted until 14:52,
local time. As it took place in the early afternoon when the moon was below the horizon, it
could not be observed in Babylonia.
Furuli dates Simanu 15 to 15 July 588 BCE. True, there was a lunar eclipse on that day that
was invisible from the Babylonian horizon. Furuli claims on page 317 that “the eclipses of
July 15, 588; of July 4, 568; and of June 24, 586, all occurred on Simanu 15 and fit the
description.” However, the time distances between sunrise and moonset at the dates in 588
and 586 do not fit at all with the information on the tablet. On 15 July 588 the moonset (at
04:50) occurred about five minutes before sunrise (04:55), so the two “gods” could not been
seen with each other that day. And the same problem is connected with the June 24, 586
BCE date. Of the three alternatives, therefore, only the July 4, 568 BCE date fits the
information on the tablet.
In passing, Hunger’s translation of the obv.´ line 18 should be corrected. It says: “[…. the
moon was be]low the bright star at the end of the [Lion’s] foot [….]”
The signs within brackets are illegible and the text had to be restored by Hunger. But as he
himself later explained, the word “moon” was just a guess that he had not checked. Modern
calculations show that, if the day number (which is lost, too) was the 16th (July 5/6), the
heavenly body that was below “the bright star at the end of the Lion’s foot” (= β Virginis)
must have been Venus, not the moon. This was later pointed out also by Johannes Koch
(JCS 49, 1997, p. 84, n. 7, and p. 89). However, Koch calculates that Venus in the first part
of the night of July 5 was 0o 02ábove and 1o 06´ behind β Virginis, while the SkyMap Pro
11 program shows that Venus at that time was not 0o 02ábove but about 0o 64´ below and
about 0o 89´ behind β Virginis. These results are in closer agreement with the tablet.
(9) ´Rev. line 5: “Month XI, (the 1st of which was identical with) the 30th (of the preceding
month), the moon became visible in the Swallow; sunset to moonset: 14o 30´ [58 minutes];
the north wind blew. At that time, Jupiter was 1 cubit behind the elbow of Sagittarius [….]”
Shabatu 1 = 12/13 February 567 BCE:
In 568/567 BCE the first day of month XI (Shabatu) fell on 12/13 February 567 BCE. On
day 12 the distance between sunset (at c. 17:44) and moonset (c. 18:53) was 69 minutes (17o
15´), or 11 minutes (2o 45´) more than those given on the tablet, 58 minutes. According to
the tablet, the new moon became visible after sunset “in the Swallow.”
The “Swallow” covered or included a part of the constellation of Pisces. The exact
extension of the “Swallow” is not quite clear. But it included a band of stars called “DUR
SIM-MAH (ribbon of the swallow)” which included at least δ, ε, and ζ Pisces, perhaps also
some other stars. The “ribbon of the swallow” is referred to in over a dozen astronomical
reports dating from 567 to 78 BCE, and these have been helpful in locating at least some
stars in the group. (Alexander Jones, “A Study of Babylonian Observations of Planets Near
Normal Stars,” Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Vol. 58, 2004, pp. 483, 490) The
“Swallow”, then, comprised at least the “ribbon of the swallow” and then extended
westward along the Pisces.
Furuli’s discussion of SIM and SIM-MAH on page 296 is thoroughly misleading, as he tries
to confuse the issue by referring to some older views without telling that they were
abandoned long ago. This is true of Kugler’s suggestion back in 1914 that SIM-MAH
applies to the northwest of Aquarius. To be sure, Furuli states that two modern scholars, E.
Kasak and R. Veede, in an article published in 2001 applies SIM to “the Bull of Heaven”
(Taurus). They do not! In their article (available on the web:
http:/folklore.ee/folklore/vol16/planets.pdf) they do not mention SIM at all! Furuli also
refers to the conclusion of van der Waerden (1974) that it applies to “the south-west part of
Pisces” – as if this would be yet another view. The fact is that his conclusion does not
conflict with that of other modern scholars, including that of Jones, Hunger, and Pingree.
The impression Furuli tries to give, that modern experts widely disagree about the identity
of SIM and SIM-MAH, is false. All agree that it covered or included a part of the
constellation of Pisces.
My astro-program shows that in the evening after sunset on February 12, 567 BCE, the new
moon became visible in the Pisces, about half-way between α Pisces in the south and γ
Pisces in the west and c. 8.5o below the centre of the western bow of the Pisces. Furuli’s
statement that the moon at this time was “13o below the central part of Pisces” is not
correct. His claim that the position is “a somewhat inaccurate fit” is totally uncalled-for, in
particular in view of his statement that “the fit is excellent” when he finds the lunar position
on his own preferred date (February 22, 587) to have been “9o below the central part of
Pisces.”
There can be no doubt that the moon on February 12, 567 BCE was “in the Swallow,” just
as is stated on the tablet. At that time Jupiter could also be seen in Sagittarius as the tablet
says.
Furuli’s date: Shabatu 1 = 22 February 587 BCE:

Furuli’s date for Shabatu 1 is 22 February 587 BCE. And it is true that the moon on that day
was “in the Swallow.” One problem with this date, however, is that the new moon at sunset
was so close to the sun (less than 10o) that it most probably was invisible. The conjunction
had occurred earlier on the same Julian day, at c. 01:26. Besides, Jupiter was between Aries
and Pisces, far away from Sagittarius where it is placed by the tablet.
(10) ´Rev. line 12: “Month XII, the first (of which followed the 30th of the preceding
month), the moon became visible behind Aries while the sun stood there; sunset to
moonset: 25o [100 minutes], measured; earthshine; the north wind blew.”
Addaru 1 = 14/15 March 567 BCE:
In 568/567 BCE the first day of month XII (Addaru) fell on 14/15 March 567 BCE. On
day 14 the distance between sunset (at c. 18:06) and moonset (at c. 19:50) was 104 minutes
(26o), which is very close to the Babylonian measurement, 25o (100 minutes). The distance
between the moon and the sun was long enough for the moon to become visible before
sunset (“while the sun stood there”). At that time the moon stood about 15o southeast of α
Aries, thus partially behind and partially below the most brilliant star in Aries. This roughly
agrees with the position given on the tablet.
Furuli’s date: Addaru 1 = 24 March 587 BCE:
Furuli’s date for Addaru 1 is 24 March 587 BCE. Of the position of the moon Furuli says
(p. 321): “The moon was 13o to the left of (behind) Aries, so the fit is excellent.” This is not
quite correct. About 86 minutes (c. 21.5o) before sunset (“while the sun stood there”), the
moon stood about 7o to the south of (below) the nearest star in Aries (δ Aries) and about
20o to the southeast of (i.e., partially below and partially behind) α Aries. This position is not
very exact, but acceptable.
(11) ´Rev. line 13: “Night of the 2nd, the moon was balanced 4 cubits [8o] below η Tauri.”
In 567 BCE the 2nd of Addaru fell on 15/16 March. In the night of the 15th, at c. 19:00, the
moon was 4 cubits (8o) directly to the south of (below) η Tauri, also known as Alcyone, the
most brilliant star in the star cluster Pleiades. This position agrees exactly with that given on
the tablet.
Furuli dates Addaru 2 to 25 March 587 BCE. In the night of that day, at c. 19:00, the moon
was about 10.5o southeast of η Tauri, a position that does not agree very well with that given
on the tablet. The fit is definitely not “excellent” as Furuli (p. 321) claims it is.
(12) ´Rev. line 14: “Night of the 7th, the moon was surrounded by a halo; Praesepe and α
Leonis [stood] in [it ….]”
In 567 BCE the 7th of Addaru fell on 20/21 March. In the night of the 20th/21st the moon
stood between α Leonis and Praesepe, the latter being an open star cluster close to the
centre of the constellation of Cancer. As they lie about 23o apart, the halo must have
covered a large area in the sky. The next line (line 15), in fact, goes on to state that “the halo
surrounded Cancer and Leo.” As the moon stood between these two constellations, its
position agrees with that given on the tablet.
Furuli’s statement (p. 322) that Cancer “is either the constellation or the zodiacal sign that
covers 30o of the heaven” is anachronistic, as the zodiacal belt was not divided into signs of
30o each until much later, in the Persian era.

Furuli’s date for Addaru 7 is 30 March 587 BCE. He states that Cancer in that night “was 4o
above the moon and α Leonis was 13o below the moon.” However, Cancer was not above
but in front of (west of) the moon, and α Leonis was not below but behind (east of) the moon.
But as this lunar position was nearly the same as on 20/21 March, 567 BCE, both positions
fit.
(13) ´Rev. line 16: “The 12th, one god was seen with the other; sunrise to moonset: 1o 30´ [6
minutes]; ….”
In 567 BCE the 12th of Addaru fell on 25/26 March. According to the tablet sunrise
occurred 1o 30´ – 6 minutes – before moonset, meaning that one “god” could be “seen with
the other” in the morning for six minutes. My astro-program shows that in the morning of
March 26 the sun rose at c. 06:08 and the moon set c. 06:11, that is, they could both be seen
at the same time above the horizon for about 3 minutes, which is close to the time given on
the tablet.
Furuli’s date: Addaru 12 = 4/5 April 587 BCE:
Furuli has misunderstood the kind of phenomenon referred to by the expression “one god
was seen with the other”. He explains on page 323: “To say that one god (the sun) was seen
with the other god (the moon) was one way to express that the moon was full.”
Although it is true that the moon was nearly full when it was seen with the sun, this is not
exactly what the expression refers to. As explained earlier, it refers to the situation when the
sun and the moon stand in opposition to each other – the sun in the east and the moon in
the west – and both can be seen simultaneously above the horizon for a short period of time. As Furuli
has not understood this, his comments on the text are mistaken and irrelevant.
Furuli’s date for the 12th of Addaru is 4/5 April 587 BCE. In the morning of April 5 the sun
rose at c. 05:54. But the moon had already set at c. 05:13, i.e., about 41 minutes before
sunrise. Thus one “god” could not be seen “with the other” this morning. Furuli’s date,
then, is wrong. Only the 567 BCE date fits the statement on the tablet.
In summary, at least 10 of the 13 lunar positions examined fit the 568/567 BCE date quite
well, one (no. 10) is acceptable, while two (nos. 2 and 5) are acceptable only if the dates are
moved back one day. Of Furuli’s dates in 588/587 BCE only one (no. 12) fits, while 9 do
not fit at all. The fits of the remaining three (9, 10, and 11) are far from good but acceptable.
The conclusion is, that the observations were made in 568/567
BCE. The year 588/587 BCE is definitely out of the question.
Part II: The Saturn Tablet BM 76738 + BM 76813
The Saturn Tablet consists of two broken pieces, BM 76738 + BM 76813. It contains a list
of last and first appearances of Saturn for a period of 14 successive years, namely, the first
14 years of the Babylonian king Kandalanu, whose 22 years of reign is generally dated to 647
– 626 BCE. As the examination below will demonstrate, the Saturn Tablet alone is sufficient
for establishing the absolute chronology of the first 14 years of his reign. Every attempt by
the Watchtower Society and its apologists to add 20 years to the Neo-Babylonian
chronology is effectively blocked by this tablet.
The Watchtower apologist Rolf Furuli in Oslo, Norway, strains every nerve to get rid of the
evidence provided by this tablet in his new volume on chronology, Assyrian, Babylonian and
Egyptian Chronology (Oslo: Awatu Publishers, 2007). The Watchtower Society’s chronology,
renamed by Furuli the “Oslo Chronology”, requires that Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year, in
which he desolated Jerusalem, is dated to 607 instead of 587 BCE. This would also move his
father Nabopolassar’s 21-year reign 20 years backwards in time, from 625-605 to 645-625.
As the Saturn Tablet definitely blocks any change of this kind, it has to be reinterpreted in
some way. Furuli has realized that he cannot simply wave it away as unreliable, as he does
with so many other uncomfortable astronomical tablets.
To overcome this problem Furuli tries to argue that Nabopolassar and Kandalanu is one
and the same person. (Furuli, chapter 12, pp. 193-209) This idea will be discussed in some
detail at the end of this article, but one of the problems with it is that the first year of
Kandalanu is fixed to 647 BCE, not to 645 as is required by Furuli’s variant of the
Watchtower chronology (the “Oslo Chronology”). To “solve” this problem, Furuli argues
that there may have been not one but two years of interregnum before the reign of
Nabopolassar. He also speculates that “a scribe could have reckoned his first regnal year one
or two years before it actually started”! (Furuli, p. 340) He ends up lowering the first year of
Nabopolassar/Kandalanu one year, from 647 to 646, claiming that the observations on the
Saturn Tablet may be applied to this lowered reign. He believes his table E.2 on pp. 338-9
supports this. However, as will be demonstrated in the discussion below, there is no
evidence whatsoever in support of these peculiar ideas. His table bristles with serious
mistakes from beginning to end.
The Planet Saturn has a revolution of c. 29.46 years, which means that it returns to the same
place among the stars at the same time of the year after twice 29.46 or nearly 59 years. Due to
the revolution of the earth round the sun, Saturn disappears behind the sun for a few weeks
and reappears again at regular intervals of 378.09 days. This means that its last and first
visibility occurs only once a year at most, each year close to 13 days later in a solar year of
365.2422 days, and close to 24 days later in a lunar year of 354.3672 days (12 months of
29.5306 days), except, of course, in years with an intercalary month.
EXAMINATION OF THE ENTRIES FOR THE FIRST 7 YEARS (14
LINES)
On the above-mentioned tablet each year is covered by two lines, one for the last and one
for the first visibility of the planet. The tablet, then, contains 2 x 14 = 28 lines. As lines 3
and 4 are clearly dated to the 2nd year, the damaged and illegible sign for the year number in
lines 1 and 2 obviously refers to the 1st year of king Kandalanu.
The text of lines 1 and 2:
1´ [Year 1 of Kand]alanu, ´month´ […, day …, last appearance.]
2´ [Year 1, mont]h 4, day 24, in fro[nt of … the Crab, first appearance.]
Comments:
As is seen, the last and first visibility of Saturn is dated to year, month, and day in the lunar
calendar of the Babylonians. As the Babylonian lunar months began in the evening of the
first visibility of the moon after conjunction, there are two mutually independent cycles that
can be combined to test the correctness of the chronology: the lunar first visibility cycle of
29.53 days, and the Saturn visibility cycle of 378.09 days. 57 Saturn cycles of 378.09 days
make almost exactly 59 solar years. As explained by C. B. F. Walker, the translator of the
tablet:
“A complete cycle of Saturn phenomena in relation to the stars takes 59
years. But when that cycle has to be fitted to the lunar calendar of 29 or 30 days then
identical cycles recur at intervals of rather more than 17 centuries. Thus there is no
difficulty in determining the date of the present text.” – C. B. F. Walker,
“Babylonian Observations of Saturn during the Reign of Kandalanu,” in N.
M. Swerdlow (ed.), Ancient Astronomy and Celestial Divination (Cambridge,
Massachusetts, and London: 1999), p. 63. Emphasis added. (Walker’s article,
with picture, is available on the web:
http://www.caeno.org/_Eponym/pdf/Walker_Saturn%20in%20Kandalanu
%20reign.pdf.)
The modern program used here for finding the last and first visibility of Saturn and
the first visibility of the Moon (the latter is compared with the computations of
Peter Huber used by C. B. F. Walker) is Planetary, Lunar, and Stellar Visibility 3,
available at the following site:
http://www.alcyone.de/PVis/english/ProgramPVis.htm
As explained in the introduction to the program, exact dating of ancient visibility phenomena
is not possible. While the margin of uncertainty in the calculations of the first visibility of
the moon is no more than one day, it can be several days for some planets due to
uncertainties in the arcus visionis, variations in the planetary magnitude, atmospheric effects,
weather and other observational circumstances. For a detailed discussion of the
uncertainties involved, see Teije de Jong, “Early Babylonian Observations of Saturn:
Astronomical Considerations,” in J. M. Steele and Annette Imhausen (eds.), Under One Sky.
Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East (Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2002), pp.175-
192.
These factors “may introduce an uncertainty of up to five days in the predicted dates.”
(Teije de Jong, op. cit., p. 177) A deviation of up to five days between modern calculations
and the ancient observations of the visibility of planets in the period we are dealing with lies
within the margin of uncertainty. It does not prove that our chronology for Kandalanu is
wrong. Nor does it indicate that the ancient cuneiform records on the Saturn tablet are
based on backward calculations instead of observations, as claimed by Rolf Furuli. A greater
difference, however, of 6 days or more, would show that something is wrong.
YEAR 1 = 647 BCE IN THE TRADITIONAL CHRONOLOGY:
Lines 1 and 2: For 647 BCE – the date established for the 1st regnal year of Kandalanu –
the program shows that the last visibility of Saturn took place in the evening of June 14 and
the first visibility in the morning of July 18. The Babylonian date in line 1 for the last visibility
is damaged and illegible. The date in line 2 for the first visibility of Saturn, however, is stated
to be month 4, day 24 in the Babylonian lunar calendar which, therefore, should correspond
to July 18 in the Julian calendar. Does this Julian date synchronize with the lunar calendar
date as stated on the tablet? As the Babylonian lunar months began in the evening of the
first lunar visibility, we should expect to find that the 24th day before July 18 fell on or close to
a day of first lunar visibility. The 24th day before July 18 brings us back to the morning of
June 25, 647 BCE as day 1 of the 4th Babylonian month. As the Babylonian day began in the
evening of the previous day, the evening of June 24 should be the time of the first visibility
of the moon after conjunction. And our program shows that this day was indeed the day of
first lunar visibility: both the Julian date for Saturn’s first visibility and the stated Babylonian
lunar calendar date are in harmony.
YEAR 1 IN FURULI’S CHRONOLOGY = 646 BCE:
In his revised chronology, Furuli not only claims that Kandalanu was just another name for
Nabopolassar. He also moves the 1st year from 647 to 646 BCE. How does this redating of the 1st
regnal year tally with the ancient record and modern computations? Could it be that C. B. F.
Walker is wrong in stating that the dated Saturn phenomena recorded on the tablet recur on
the same date in the Babylonian lunar calendar only after more than 17 centuries?
Line 2: In 646 BCE the first visibility of Saturn occurred in the morning of July 31. If this
was the 24th day of the Babylonian month 4 as the text says, the 1st day of that month would
be the 24th day before July 31. This brings us to the 8th of July, and the previous evening of
July 7 would be a day of first lunar visibility – if Furuli’s alternative date for regnal year 1 is
correct.
But it does not fit. According to the program, the day of first lunar visibility before July 31
in 646 was July 13, not July 7. This is a deviation of 6 days, which is too much. The very first
entry on the tablet contradicts Furuli’s revised chronology.

3´ [Ye]ar 2, month 4, day 10+[x, …, last appearance.]
4´ [Year 2, mon]th 5, broken, in the head of the Lion, first appearance; not [observed?.]
Comments:
YEAR 2 = 646 BCE:
Line 3: As is seen, both dates are damaged. But if the 2nd regnal year was 646, as is
conventionally held, the last visibility of Saturn that year occurred in the evening of June 28.
According to the program, the previous first lunar visibility occurred in the evening of June
13, which thus corresponded to the 1st day of the Babylonian month 4. The last Saturn
visibility on June 28, then, would be month 4, day 16 (= the damaged “day 10+”) in the
Babylonian calendar.
Line 4: As stated above, the first visibility of Saturn in 646 occurred in the morning July 31
and the previous first lunar visibility fell in the evening of July 13. If July 13 was the 1st day
of month 5 in the lunar calendar, July 31 should have been day 18 (the “broken” day
number) in the lunar calendar.
We cannot know for sure if these restorations of the damaged day numbers are quite
correct, but there is nothing in the text that contradicts them.
Saturn is stated to have been “in the head of the Lion [SAG UR-A]”, which “in the Diaries
from -380 onward … designates ε Leonis.” (Walker, op. cit., p. 72) My astro-program shows
that Saturn at this time was almost on the same ecliptic longitude (104.5o) as ε Leonis
(104.0o), but its latitude was about 9o below (south of) the star. If the restoration of the last
part of the line is correct (“not [observed?]”), the position was not observed but had to be
calculated by the Babylonian scholar. This would explain the inexact latitudinal position.
FURULI: YEAR 2 = 645 BCE:
Line 3: “Year 2” in Furuli’s revised chronology is 645 BCE. The last visibility of Saturn in
645 fell according to our program in the evening of July 10 and the previous first lunar
visibility occurred in the evening of July 1. As July 1 was day 1 in the lunar calendar, July 10
would have been lunar day 10. The damaged day number of the text (“10+”), however,
shows that more than 10 days had passed from day 1 until the last visibility of Saturn. If the
restored day number was “16” as argued above, this would be a deviation of 6 days from the
true date.
Line 4: The first visibility of Saturn in 645 took place in the morning of August 12. If that
was day 18 of month 5 in the lunar calendar (as argued above), the previous first lunar
visibility in the evening of lunar day 1 would have occurred in the evening of July 25. But
the program shows that the first lunar visibility occurred in the evening of July 31. If the
restored day number, 18, is correct, this is a deviation of 7 days. Besides, the position of
Saturn does not tally with the text, either. While the difference in latitude between Saturn
and ε Leonis was the same as in the previous year (about 9o), the ecliptic longitude of Saturn
in the morning of August 12 was 117.5o, which was 12.5o behind (east of) the star (104.0o).
This alone shows that Furuli’s alternative date for “year 2” is impossible.
5´ [Ye]ar 3, month 4, day 7, [last appearance.]
6´ [Year 3] month 5, day 16, in the Lion behind the King (= α Leonis), [first appearance];
´high´.
Comments:
YEAR 3 = 645 BCE:
Line 5: As is seen, the Babylonian months and days for both last and first appearances are
preserved. The date established for year 3 of Kandalanu is 645 BCE. As stated above, the
last visibility of Saturn in that year occurred according to our program in the evening of July
10 and the first lunar visibility occurred in the evening of July 1. As July 1 was day 1 in the
lunar calendar, “day 7” in the text would be July 7. However, the program dates the last
visibility of Saturn to July 10, so there is a deviation of 3 days, which is not good but
acceptable for the reasons explained earlier. The Babylonian astronomer(s) observed Saturn
for the last time on day 7, although its actual disappearance did not occur until 3 days later.
Line 6: According to the program, the first visibility of Saturn in 645 occurred in the
morning of August 12, while the previous first lunar visibility took place on July 31 after
sunset. If day 1 in the lunar calendar began in the evening of July 31, the recorded
observation of Saturn on “day 16” must have occurred in the morning of August 16. The
program, however, dates the first visibility of Saturn 4 days earlier, in the morning of August
12. This deviation is great but may be explained. In fact, the reason seems to be given by the
Babylonian observer himself by his adding of the sign for the word NIM, “high,” at the end
of the line. The word indicates that the planet Saturn at the day of observation was already
so high above the horizon that the actual reappearance had occurred some days before “day
16” but had not been observed at that time, perhaps due to the weather. C. B. F. Walker
explains:
“NIM, high: this term indicates that when first observed the planet was
higher above the horizon than normal for first visibility, leading to the
conclusion that theoretical first visibility had taken place a day or two earlier,
but had not been observed. See Huber (1982), 12-13.” – Walker, op. cit.
(1999), p. 74.
Teije de Jong points out that of the 28 records on the tablet “7 records are unreadable or
incomplete because of textual damage, while 6 records are unreliable according to the
professional annotations of the [Babylonian] observer (‘not observed’, ‘computed’ or ‘high’,
i.e. visibility occurred a few days late, presumably because of cloudy skies on the expected day of first
visibility).” – T. de Jong, op. cit., p. 178. Emphasis added.
If the actual but unobserved first reappearance of Saturn had occurred “a few days” earlier
than day 16 in the lunar calendar, the difference of 4 days would be reduced by a couple of
days or more.
The position of Saturn in the morning of observation (August 16, 645) is stated to be “in
the Lion behind the King (= α Leonis)”, which is correct: The planet was 5o behind (east of)
α Leonis.
Line 5: “Year 3” in Furuli’s revised chronology is 644 BCE. The last visibility of Saturn in
644 took place in the evening of July 24, while, according to our program, the first lunar
visibility prior to that date occurred in the evening of July 20. If lunar day 1 began in the
evening of July 20, the last visibility of Saturn on day 7 in the lunar calendar should have
occurred in the evening of July 26, 2 days later than shown by the program. This deviation
would have been acceptable had it not been for the date of the first visibility of Saturn in the
same year.
Line 6: The first visibility of Saturn in 644 occurred in the morning of August 25, while the
first lunar visibility before that date occurred in the evening of August 19. If the latter date
was lunar day 1, the first visibility of Saturn in the morning of lunar “day 16” would have
occurred on September 4. This is 10 days later than shown by the program. As the word
“high” at the end of the line indicates that the actual reappearance of Saturn occurred 2 or 3
days prior to lunar day 16, as argued above, this would still create a difference of 7 or 8 days.
This once again shows that 644 BCE is an impossible alternative for Kandalanu’s “Year 3”.
It is true that Saturn at this time was “in the Lion behind the King (= α Leonis)”, but at a
very long distance from the star: nearly 18o east of α Leonis and just in front of σ Leonis.
7´ [Year] ´4´, at the end of month 4, last appearance; (because of) cloud not observed.
8´ [Year 4, month 6?], day [x], in the middle of the Lion, first appearance; high.
Comments:
YEAR 4 = 644 BCE:
Line 7: Year 4 corresponds to year 644 in the traditional chronology. As stated above, the
last visibility of Saturn this year occurred in the evening of July 24, and the first lunar
visibility prior to that date occurred in the evening of July 20. Although the latter date was
lunar day 1, it was not lunar day 1 of month 4 but of month 5. So we have to move back to
the previous first lunar visibility in the evening of June 21. The “end” of this month 29 or
30 days later would take us to July 19 or 20. One of these two dates corresponds to “the end
of month 4” according to the text. This would be 4 or 5 days before the actual
disappearance of Saturn in the evening of July 24. The reason for this difference is explained
in the same line to be bad weather: “(because of) cloud not observed.” As the event could
not be observed, it had to be calculated.
Line 8: The first visibility of Saturn in 644 occurred on August 25. Unfortunately, the text
on the tablet is so damaged at this place that neither month nor day numbers are readable.
The only information in line 8 that can be checked by modern computations, therefore, is
the position of Saturn, “in the middle of the Lion” (ina MURUB4 UR-A). Its position in the
morning of August 25 was c. 1.3o in front of (west of) σ Leo. Although today that is at the
rear of the constellation of Leo, the Babylonians also included β Virginis as a part of Leo,
calling it GÌR ár šá A, “The rear foot of the Lion.” (A. Sachs/H. Hunger, Astronomical Diaries
and Related Texts from Babylonia [= ADT], Vol. I, 1988, p. 18) Saturn, then, was well within
Leo, although not quite in the middle. But as C. B. F. Walker comments, “in all probability
ina MURUB4 UR-A simply means within the constellation Leo.” (Walker, op. cit., 1999, p.
72)
Line 7: “Year 4” in Furuli’s revised chronology is 643 BCE. According to the program the
last visibility of Saturn in 643 took place in the evening of August 5 and the previous first
lunar visibility occurred in the evening of July 10. If July 10 was the 1st day of month 4 in the
lunar calendar, the end of that month 29 or 30 days later would fall in the evening of August
7 or 8. That would be 2 or 3 days after the last visibility of Saturn. As the event could not be
observed but had to be calculated by the Babylonian astronomers, this would have been
acceptable had it not been for the recorded position of Saturn in the next line.
Line 8: The first visibility of Saturn in 643 occurred in the morning of September 6. As
stated above, the damaged and unreadable date on the tablet is useless. What about the
position of Saturn “in the middle of the Lion” which, as we saw, fitted year 644? Does it
also fit year 643? No, it does not. On September 6 in 643 Saturn had moved away from Leo
into Virgo, 3.3o behind (east of) β Virginis. Again, Furuli’s revised chronology disagrees with
the tablet.
9´ [Year 5], month 5, day 23, last appearance.
10´ [Year 5], at the end of month 6, first appearance; intercalary Ululu.
Comments:
YEAR 5 = 643 BCE:
Line 9: Year 5 corresponds to year 643 in the conventional chronology. As stated above,
the last visibility of Saturn this year occurred in the evening of August 5 and the previous
first lunar visibility occurred in the evening of July 10. Thus, if lunar day 1 began in the
evening of July 10, “day 23” in the text would have begun in the evening of August 1. This
is 4 days earlier for the last visibility of Saturn than shown by the program, indicating that
the actual last appearance of Saturn occurred a few days later than it could be observed for
the last time by the Babylonian astronomers (perhaps due to bad weather).
Line 10: As stated above, the first visibility of Saturn in 643 took place in the morning of
September 6, which would correspond to “the end of month 6” as stated on the tablet. The
beginning of the 6th month 29 or 30 days earlier, then, would have been in the evening of
August 7 or 8. And the program confirms that the first lunar visibility occurred in the
evening of August 8 – an excellent fit!
Line 9: Year 5 in Furuli’s revised chronology is 642 BCE. The last visibility of Saturn in 642
took place in the evening of August 18 according to the program (August 17 according to
the table of C. B. F. Walker, op. cit., p. 66). The previous first lunar visibility took place in the
evening of July 28. If the latter was day 1 in lunar month 5, “day 23” would have been
August 19. The difference is 1 (or 2) days, which is quite acceptable. But if this shall have
any real value as evidence, the first visibility, too, must fit.
Line 10: The first visibility of Saturn in 642 occurred in the morning of September 19 (day
18 in Walker’s table). The previous first lunar visibility occurred, according to the program,
on the evening of August 27. As that was lunar day 1, the “end of month 6” 29 or 30 days
later would have been September 24 or 25. The first visibility of Saturn would have been in
the next morning on September 25 or 26, that is, 6 or 7 (7 or 8) days after the actual event
on September 19 (or 18) as shown by the program. As this is beyond the marginal of
uncertainty, it is unacceptable. Furuli’s revised chronology is once again disproved.
11´ Year 6, month 5, day 20, last appearance.
12´ [Year 6], month 6, day 22, behind ´the rear foot of’ the Lion (= β Virginis), behind
AN.GÚ.ME.MAR, first appearance.
Comments:
YEAR 6 = 642 BCE:
Line 11: The 6th year of Kandalanu is dated to 642 BCE. The last visibility of Saturn that
year occurred in the evening of August 18 (August 17 in Walker’s table). The previous first
lunar visibility took place in the evening of July 28. If this was lunar day 1, “day 20” of
month 5 would have begun in the evening of August 16. This is only 2 days before the date
of the program (August 18) and 1 day before the date in Walker’s table (August 17).
Line 12: As stated above, the first visibility of Saturn in 642 occurred in the morning of
September 19 (day 18 in Walker’s table), and the first lunar visibility prior to this date took
place in the evening of August 27. If lunar day 1 began in the evening of August 27, “day
22” of month 6 began in the evening of September 17, with the first visibility of Saturn
occurring in the next morning of September 18. The deviation from the date of the program
and from Walker’s table is 1 and 0 days, respectively.
The text says that Saturn at this time was “behind ´the rear foot of’ the βLion (=
Virginis)”. It is true that the Saturn was behind (east of) it, but it was far behind the star, c.
15.6o, and it was even 2.2o behind γ Virginis. It seems that the scribe mixed up the two stars.
The reason may be the fact that Saturn was also very close to and in line with Mercury and
Jupiter, so the observer may have had difficulties in identifying the faint star in the
immediate vicinity of the three planets. (See also Walker’s comments, op. cit., p. 73.)
Line 11: Year 6 in Furuli’s revised chronology is 641 BCE. The last visibility of Saturn in
641 took place in the evening of August 29, and the previous first lunar visibility on August
15 according to the program. If this was day 1 of lunar month 5, “day 20” of that month
would have begun in the evening of September 3, a difference of 5 days from that given by
the program for the last visibility of Saturn.
Line 12: The first visibility of Saturn in 641 took place in the morning of September 30
(Walker, September 29). The previous first lunar visibility took place in the evening of
September 14 according to the program. If lunar day 1 began in the evening that day, “day
22” must have begun in the evening of October 5, with the first visibility of Saturn taking
place in the next morning on October 6. That is 5 (or 6) days later than shown by the
program (and Walker’s table).
Still worse, Saturn was neither “behind ´the rear foot of’ the Lion (= β Virginis)” as stated in
the text, nor in the vicinity of γ Virginis. It was on almost exactly the same ecliptic longitude
as α Virginis (167.2o) and only 4o above (north of) it, but more than 14o behind γ Virginis
and over 28o behind β Virginis! This clearly disagrees with the position recorded on the
tablet and refutes the year 641 as being year 6 of Kandalanu.
13´ Year 7, month 6, day 10+(x), last appearance.
14´ [Year 7], month 7, day 15, ín front of´ the Furrow (α+ Virginis), first appearance.
Comments:
YEAR 7 = 641 BCE:
Line 13: The 7th year of Kandalanu is dated to 641 BCE. As stated above, the last visibility
of Saturn that year took place in the evening of August 29, with the first lunar visibility prior
to that date taking place in the evening of August 15. The day number is damaged, but is
evidently higher than 10. If August 15 was day 1 in the lunar calendar, the evening of
August 29 would correspond to the beginning of Babylonian day 15 of month 6. We
cannot know for sure, of course, that this is the correct restoration of the damaged day
number, but there is nothing that speaks against it.
Line 14: As stated above, the first visibility of Saturn in 641 took place in the morning of
September 30 (Walker, September 29). The previous first lunar visibility took place in the
evening of September 14. With that as the beginning of lunar day 1, “day 15” (of month 7)
must have begun in the evening of September 28, with the first visibility of Saturn taking
place in the next morning on September 29. The difference from the date given by the
program (and Walker’s table) is 1 (or 0) days.
The position of Saturn at its first visibility on September 29 was according to the tablet “ín
front of´ the Furrow α+( Virginis)”. As explained above, the astro -program shows that
Saturn at this time was almost exactly on the same ecliptic longitude as α Virginis (167.2o)
and only 4o above (north of) it. Thus it was not ín front of´ it, as the text seems to say.
However, the text is somewhat damaged at this point and to show this Walker has put the
words “in front of” (ina IGI) within half brackets (something like ⌐ in front of ¬). Perhaps
the damaged sign could also be restored as “above” ⌐ ( above ¬)? If this is possible, the
problem would be solved.
Another possibility is that Venus and Saturn were confused. Venus, in fact, was 8o “in front
of” (= west of) α Virginis at this time.
Line 13: Year 7 in Furuli’s revised chronology is 640 BCE. The last visibility of Saturn in
640 occurred in the evening of September 10, and the previous first lunar visibility in the
evening of September 3 according to the program. This would make the distance from the
1st of the lunar month 6 (September 3) to the last visibility of Saturn (September 10) only 7
days.
This conflicts with the tablet, which shows that more than 10 days (“10+[x]”) separated the
two events.
Line 14: The program shows that in 640 BCE the first visibility of Saturn occurred in the
morning of October 12 (Walker, October 10). The previous first lunar visibility took place
in the evening of October 3. If that was the beginning of day 1 in the lunar calendar, “day
15” of month 7 would have begun in the evening of October 17, with the first visibility of
Saturn occurring in the next morning on October 18. But this was 6 days after the date
given by the program (October 12) and 8 days after Walker’s date (October 10). This
deviation excludes year 640 as the 7th year of Kandalanu.
The position of Saturn is given on the tablet as “ín front of´ the Furrow α+( Virginis)”,
which also seems to conflict with Furuli’s alternative chronology. Its position on October 12
and 10 (and still on October 18) in 640 was about 12o behind α Virginis, not in front of,
above, or below the star. But as the signs are somewhat damaged here, this position is not
decisive.
Above the entries for the first seven years of Kandalanu have been examined. This is half of
the entries on the tablet which covers 14 years in all. It is not necessary to tire out the reader
with a detailed discussion of the remaining entries. The results for the whole period are
presented in the two tables below. The tables show the results only for the entries with fully
preserved dates (15 out of the 28 lines). The first table shows how these records tally with
the traditional chronology, and the second table shows how they tally with Furuli’s revised
dates.
In the “Deviation” column the results of C. B. F. Walker are given within parenthesis
(W+/-).
TABLE 1
THE SATURN TABLET AND THE TRADITIONAL CHRONOLOGY
YEAR BCE VISIBILITY DEVIATION POSITION OF SATURN
1 = 647 first 0 days (W +1) text damaged
3 = 645 last -3 days (W -3) correct (for first visibility)
5 = 643 last -4 days (W -4) not given (for first visibility)
6 = 642 last -2 days (W -1)
6 = 642 first -1 day (W 0) erroneous?
7 = 641 first -1 day (W 0) correct? (slightly damaged)
8 = 640 last -3 days (W -3)
8 = 640 first -5 days (W -2) correct
10 = 638 last -4 days (W -3)
10 = 638 first -1 day (W +1) correct
11 = 637 last -3 days (W -2)
11 = 637 first -1 day (W 0) correct
12 = 636 first -3 days (W -2) correct
13 = 635 first 0 days (W +1) correct
14 = 634 last -3 days (W -2) not given (for first visibility)

Comments: The deviations in all cases where the dates are preserved lie all within the
margin of uncertainty, at most 5 days according to the web program, and even less
according to Peter Huber’s calculations used by C. B. F. Walker. Where the positions of
Saturn are given and the text is undamaged, the positions are correct except in one case
(year 6 = 642 BCE), where the observer/scribe seems to have mistaken β Virginis for γ
Virginis.
TABLE 2
FURULI’S “OSLO CHRONOLOGY”
YEAR BCE VISIBILITY DEVIATION POSITION OF SATURN
1 = 646 first +6 days text damaged
3 = 644 last +2 days wrong
5 = 642 last +1 days not given
6 = 641 last +5 days
6 = 641 first +5 days wrong
7 = 640 first +6 days wrong? (slightly damaged)
8 = 639 last +1 day
10 = 637 last +4 days
11 = 636 last +4 days
14 = 633 last +6 days not given
Comments: 6 of the 15 deviations are outside the margin of uncertainty. The positions of
Saturn do not fit, either. Of the 8 years in which the recorded positions are legible, 7 are
clearly in conflict with the tablet, and the 8th may be wrong, too. This is “year 7” in Furuli’s
chronology, and the recorded position is slightly damaged and may partly have been
misread.
In year 12 Saturn should have been “at the beginning of Pabilsag [= Sagittarius + part of
Ophiuchus]”. This fits year 636 BCE, but not 635 (Furuli’s date for year 12). As the study of
the astronomical tablets has shown, the western part of Pabilsag included θ Ophiuchus,
which was thus “at the beginning of Pabilsag”. (A summary of the examination of the
Babylonian constellations and the stars attached to them by the Babylonian astronomers is
included in a separate Appendix in Hermann Hunger & David Pingree, Astral Sciences in
Mesopotamia [Leiden-Boston-Köln: Brill, 1999], pp. 271-277.)
In 635, however, Saturn had moved away from Ophiuchus altogether to about the middle
of Pabilsag. In year 13 Saturn should have been “in the middle of Pabilsag”. This fits year
635 BCE, but in 634 (Furuli’s date for year 13) Saturn had moved away also from the middle
of Pabilsag and was close to the eastern end of Pabilsag.
The conclusion is that Furuli’s attempt to move the reign of Kandalanu one year forward
cannot be upheld astronomically. His revised chronology is demonstrably wrong.
So what about Furuli’s attempt to identify Kandalanu with Nabopolassar?
WAS KANDALANU ANOTHER NAME FOR NABOPOLASSAR?

Furuli’s “Oslo/Watchtower Chronology” requires that twenty years are added to the Neo-
Babylonian chronology somewhere after the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. This, of course,
would not only move the reign of Nebuchadnezzar twenty years backwards. It would also
move the 21-year reign of his father Nabopolassar twenty years backwards, from 625-605
BCE to 645-625. As stated earlier, such changes are totally blocked by a number of
astronomical tablets, including the Saturn Tablet. To overcome this problem, Furuli argues
that Nabopolassar was no other than Kandalanu himself! In note 66 on page 56 he says:
“In the Akitu Chronicle we find a description of the years 16-20 of Samas-
šuma-ukin. Then in line 24 we read ‘arki mKan-da-la-nu’ (traditionally
translated ‘after Kandalanu’) followed by ‘in the accession year of
Nabopolassar.’ The Akkadian phrase that is translated as ‘after Kandalanu’
can also be translated as ‘thereafter Kandalanu’; thus we get ‘thereafter
Kandalanu, in the accession year of Nabopolassar.’ The phrase can also
mean ‘this other Kandalanu’ in contrast to some previous Kandalanu. In
both cases, Kandalanu can be equated with Nabopolassar.”
Thus Furuli not only claims that Kandalanu was Nabopolassar, but he also tries to argue
that the phrase arki Kandalanu refers to his accession year. In arguing this Furuli ignores the
fact that two other cuneiform texts use the same phrase, arki Kandalanu, not for his
accession year but for a continuing artificial count of his reign after his death! As discussed earlier, the
last of these tablets is dated to shattu 22kam arki Kandalanu, i.e., “year 22 after Kandalanu.” – J.
A. Brinkman & J. A. Kennedy, op. cit., p. 49. This alone invalidates Furuli’s argument. On
page 16 of the same article Brinkman and Kennedy give some other, earlier examples of this
posthumous dating method. See also the comments by Grant Frame in Babylonia 689-627
B.C. A Political History (Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul,
1992), pp. 287, 288.
A second problem with Furuli’s identification is that Kandalanu’s posthumous “22nd” year
was a year of unrest, when several pretenders to the throne fought for power. The Uruk
King List gives 21 years to Kandalanu and assigns the next year to two Assyrian pretenders,
Sin-shum-lishir and Sin-shar-ishkun. (GTR4, pp. 105-107) Similarly, the Babylonian King
List A, which covers the period from the first dynasty of Babylon to the beginning of the
Chaldean Dynasty, shows that Kandalanu was followed by Sin-shum-lishir. Unfortunately
the list breaks at this point, but it seems likely that it also mentioned Sin-shar-ishkun. – D.
O. Edzard (ed.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie, Vol. VI (Berlin, New
York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980), p. 93.
The 21-year reign of Nabopolassar, however, was not followed by a period of unrest and
war in Babylonia. On the contrary the Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946 shows that the
transfer of power from Nabopolassar to his son and successor Nebuchadnezzar was
peaceful and without problems. That part of the chronicle says:
“For twenty-one years Nabopolassar ruled Babylon. On the eighth day of
the month Ab he died. In the month of Elul Nebuchadnezzar (II) returned
to Babylon and on the first day of the month he ascended the royal throne in
Babylon.” (Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 1975, pp. 99, 100; cf.
GTR4, p. 102)
At the death of Nabopolassar in 605 BCE the Assyrian empire was gone, so no Assyrian
kings existed that could try to take over the power in Babylonia after his death. The political
events following the death of Kandalanu and the death of Nabopolassar were wholly
different, which once again prove that the two kings cannot have been identicial.
Finally, the intercalary months known from the reigns of the two kings do not agree either,
which would have been the case if the two royal names referred to the same king. In the
tables below “U” means “Ululu II” (the second 6th month), and “A” means “Addaru II”
(the second 12th month). The third column gives the number of tablets with attested
intercalary months from each year with such months. The question marks in Kandalanu’s
column 2 indicate that it cannot be determined whether the intercalary month in
Kandalanu’s year 2 was a second Ululu or a second Addaru. For his year “13/14” Walker’s
list adds: “yr 13 12b or yr 14 6b”.
KANDALANU
Year U or A No. of tablets

2 (?) 1
5 U 2
8 U 1
10 A 2
13/14 (?) 1
19 U 5
22x) U 1
x) Kan 22 = Npl acc.
NABOPOLASSAR
Year U or A No. of tablets

2 A 3
5 U 3
7 A 4
10 U 5
12 A 4
15 U 4
18xx) U 5
20 A 8
xx) PD’s year 19 is erroneous. See Kennedy,
JCS 1986, p. 211.
The tables are based on an unpublished list worked out by C. B. F. Walker. My copy is dated
March 18, 1996. Walker’s list also shows an intercalary Addaru II for year 1 of
Nabopolassar, based on D. A. Kennedy’s list in Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 38, 1986, p.
179, T.1.14 and p. 222. But after collation in 1990 Walker told me that the royal name is
Nabonidus, not Nabopolassar as stated in Kennedy’s list. (Letter Walker-Jonsson, Nov. 13,
1990) Walker simply forgot to remove this tablet from his own list.
As the tables show, the two kings had only one clearly dated intercalary month in common:
the Ululu II in year 5. If the intercalary month in year 2 of Kandalanu was an Addaru II, this
would raise the number to two. But still, most of the intercalary months in the two reigns
disagree. This fact in itself definitely disproves Furuli’s theory that the two kings were
identical.
In summary, the discussion above has demonstrated that Furuli’s revised chronology for
Kandalanu and Nabopolassar is astronomically and historically untenable and has to be
rejected.
ADDENDUM TO MY REVIEW PART II: THE SATURN TABLET BM
76738+76813
As discussed above, Rolf Furuli tries to overcome the evidence presented by the Saturn
Tablet from the reign of Kandalanu by arguing that Kandalanu was identical with
Nabopolassar. This idea has already been refuted above. But one of the arguments used by
Furuli was not dealt with. On pages 329-331 of his Vol. 2 Furuli questions Chris Walker’s
restoration of the royal name in line 1, obverse, as “(Kand)alanu”. (C. B. F. Walker,
“Babylonian Observations of Saturn During the Reign of Kandalanu,” in N. M. Swerdlow
(ed.), Ancient Astronomy and Celestial Divination, London: The MIT Press, 1999, pp. 61-76)
Walker restores/transliterates/translates line 1 as follows:
1´ [MU 1-KAM kan-d)a-⌐la-nu ITU¬-[x U4 x-KAM ŠÚ]
1´ [Year 1 of Kand]alanu, ⌐month¬ […, day …, last appearance.]
Furuli, however, claims that (the sign for) nu in line 1 “looks more like [the sign for] pap”
and argues:
“If the sign of line 1 is pap, the name of the king could be dAG.IBILA.PAP (Nabopolassar)
rather than Kan-da-la-nu. The space of the piece that is broken away in line 1 and the small
part of the sign visible before the sign pap or nu corroborate both names.” (Furuli, p. 331)
Is this correct? Can Furuli’s “observations” be trusted? One of my correspondents
forwarded Furuli’s statements to a professional Assyriologist and expert on cuneiform, Dr.
Jon Taylor at the British Museum, and asked him to check line 1´ on the original tablet. In
an email dated August 28, 2008, Dr. Taylor answered:
“Dear … ,
with broken text it is always a little difficult to make definitive statements. The traces do let
me say the following, however:
1) the last sign of the name is a perfectly good NU; one can compare the other examples of
NU in this text. It does not fit the traces one would normally expect for PAP.
2) the previous sign does fit the traces of LA. It does not fit the traces of IBILA.
Given the above, Kandalanu is the most reasonable reading. I can’t imagine of a writing that
would allow a reading Nabopolassar.
Best wishes,
Jon”
Part III: Are there about 90 “anomalous tablets”

from the Neo-Babylonian period?
There are only two possible ways of extending the Neo-Babylonian period to include the 20
extra years required by the Watchtower Society’s chronology, and therefore also by Rolf
Furuli’s so-called “Oslo Chronology”: (1) Either the known Neo-Babylonian kings ruled
longer than indicated by Berossus, the Royal Canon (often misnamed “Ptolemy’s Canon”),
and the Neo-Babylonian cuneiform documents, or (2) there were other, unknown kings
who belonged to the Neo-Babylonian period in addition to those established by these
ancient sources. Virtually all arguments set forth by Watchtower apologists like Rolf Furuli
belong to one or both of these two categories. Upon closer examination, however, the
arguments used turn out to be nothing but grasping at straws.
In chapter 3 of his second volume on chronology Furuli discusses the many dated contracts
(business, legal, and administrative documents) from the Neo-Babylonian period (626-539
BCE). As tens of thousands of such dated tablets have been found from this 87-year period,
there are hundreds of tablets dated to each of these years. Yet no tablets have been found so
far that are dated to any of the 20 years that the Watchtower Society has added to the
period. This creates an enormous problem for its chronology and therefore also for Furuli’s
“Oslo Chronology.” Even if one or two tablets would be found one day with an odd year,
this would not solve the problem, because thousands of tablets dated to this 20-year period
should have been found. As Furuli himself admits, “one or two contradictory finds do not
necessarily destroy a chronology that has been substantiated by hundreds of independent
finds.” (Furuli, Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews, Oslo, 2003, p.
22) The only reasonable explanation of a couple of such oddly dated tablets would be that
the dates contain scribal errors.
Although no contract tablets have been found that add any extra years to the Neo-
Babylonian period, there are some tablets that seem to add a few days, weeks, or – in two
cases – some months to the known Neo-Babylonian reigns. Such odd dates may create a
short overlap between the last year of a king and the accession-year of his successor. Furuli,
who claims he has found “about 90” tablets from the Neo-Babylonian period with
“anomalous dates” (pp. 65, 86), tries to use such short overlaps to argue that extra years
should be inserted between the two kings. He says on page 18:
“The natural conclusion to draw when the first tablets of one king’s
accession are dated earlier than the last tablets of the predecessor’s last year,
is that the successor’s accession year is not the same as the predecessor’s year
of death. In the case of Nebuchadnezzar II and Evil-Merodach such a
conclusion would have destroyed Ptolemy’s chronology, and therefore the
aforementioned scholars [R. H. Sack, D. J. Wiseman, S. Zawadzki] did not
consider this most natural possibility.”
Furuli’s conclusion is far from being the “most natural” explanation of the short overlaps
between the reigns of some Neo-Babylonian rulers. Nor have scholars rejected it because it
“would have destroyed Ptolemy’s chronology,” as if the king list popularly but erroneously
named “Ptolemy’s Canon” were the only or best evidence we have about the Neo-
Babylonian reigns. The best evidence is provided by much earlier documents, including the
cuneiform tablets, many of which are contemporary with the Neo-Babylonian period itself.
The principal reason why modern scholars so highly regard the above-mentioned king list,
more correctly known as the “Royal Canon,” used by Claudius Ptolemy and other ancient
astronomers, is the fact that it agrees with the chronology established by earlier sources,
including the cuneiform documents contemporary with the Neo-Babylonian and Persian
periods.
These earlier sources include the lengths of Neo-Babylonian reigns attested by Berossus’
Babyloniaca, the Uruk king list, and Neo-Babylonian royal inscriptions; by prosopographical
evidence provided by contemporary cuneiform documents, chronological interlocking joints
provided by a number of contemporary tablets, synchronisms with the chronology of the
contemporary 26th Egyptian dynasty, numerous Neo-Babylonian absolute dates established
by at least ten astronomical cuneiform tablets, and also the Biblical information about the
length of the reign of king Nebuchadnezzar. (2 Kings 24:12; 25:27) It is quite
understandable that scholars who are aware of this enormous burden of evidence see no
reason to accept Furuli’s far-fetched explanation of the brief overlaps of a few days, weeks,
or months between some of the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian rulers.
In fact, most of the “odd dates” quoted by Furuli are not odd at all. Fresh collations have
shown that most of them either contain scribal errors or have been misread by modern
scholars, or have turned out to be modern copying, transcription, or printing errors. Furuli
cautions against accepting dates uncritically, pointing out on page 54 that “dates that fall
outside the traditional schemes must be very clear in order to be accepted.” That is why it is
necessary to have supposedly “oddly dated” tablets collated afresh. Furuli quotes three
examples from scholarly works of tablets that were found to have been misread by modern
scholars.
Unfortunately, Furuli himself has not applied his “word of caution” to his own research. In
the tables on pages 56-64 he presents a number of seemingly oddly dated tablets from the
Neo-Babylonian period, most of which on fresh collation turn out to have been
misinterpreted or misread. The question is why he has used these tablets in support of his
“Oslo chronology” without having them collated. Basing a radical revision of the
chronology established for one of the chronologically best established periods in antiquity
on unchecked misreadings and misinterpretations of the documents used does not speak
very well about the quality of the research performed.
Let us first take a look at the traditional chronology for the Neo-Babylonian dynasty:
Kings: Lengths of reign: Years BCE:
Nabopolassar 21 years 625-605

Nebuchadnezzar 43 years 604-562
Awel-Marduk 2 years 561-560
Neriglissar 4 years 559-556
Labashi-Marduk 2-3 months 556
Nabonidus 17 years 555-539
In the following discussion we will take a close look at each accession of a new monarch
during the Neo-Babylonian period and the “overlaps” of reigns Furuli believes he has
found.
(1) Kandalanu to Nabopolassar
Before Nabopolassar’s conquest of Babylon in 626 BCE the city and the country had been
controlled by Assyria for most of the previous 120 years. After the death of the Assyrian
king Esarhaddon in 669 BCE the Assyrian empire was ruled by two of his sons,
Assurbanipal in Assyria and Šamaš-šum-ukin in Babylonia. After the death of Šamaš-šum-
ukin in 648 BCE, Babylonia was ruled by an Assyrian puppet-king named Kandalanu, who
died in his 21st regnal year, in 627 BCE. Assurbanipal to all appearances died in the same
year.
The death of Kandalanu was followed by a period of general disorder and war between
several pretenders to the throne in Babylon. One of them was Nabopolassar, the founder of
the Neo-Babylonian dynasty, who succeeded in freeing Babylon from Assyrian control late
in 626. The Babylonian chronicle BM 25127 states of the transition from Kandalanu to
Nabopolassar:
“For one year there was no king in the country. In the month of Arahsamnu
[= month VIII], the twenty-sixth day, Nabopolassar ascended to the throne”
[= Nov. 23, 626 in the Julian calendar]. (Jean-Jacques Glassner, Mesopotamian
Chronicles, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004, p. 217)
The Uruk king list, however, gives the kingless year to two Assyrian combatants, Sin-šum-
lišir, a high Assyrian official, and Sin-šar-iškun, a son of Assurbanipal. Some scribes spanned
the same year by artificially extending Kandalanu’s reign for another year after his death, the
last of these tablets (BM 40039) being dated to day 2 of month VIII, shattu 22kam arki
Kandalanu, i.e., “year 22 after Kandalanu.” This tablet, which is from Babylon, is dated 24
days before Nabopolassar was enthroned in that city on day 26 of month VIII according to
the chronicle. – J. A. Brinkman & D. A. Kennedy, “Documentary Evidence for the
Economic Base of Early Neo-Babylonian Society,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 35
(1983), p. 49.
Despite the different ways of spanning the year of interregnum, the year intended is the same
in all these sources and corresponds to 626. Nabopolassar’s 1st year of reign began on Nisan
1 next year, 625 BCE.
Furuli claims that the date of Nabopolassar’s accession given by the Babylonian chronicle,
day 26 of month VIII, is contradicted by two economic tablets that date his accession
earlier:
“One tablet is dated to day 10 of month IV of his accession year, and
another tablet, NCBT 557, which probably is from the reign of
Nabopolassar, is dated to day ? in month II of his accession year”. (Furuli, p.
55)
In footnote 62 on the same page Furuli points out that the signs for the royal name on the
second tablet are damaged and “could refer to Nabû-apla-iddina from the ninth century.
However, no other economic texts are that old, so Beaulieu believes that the king is Nabû-
apla-usur. This is accepted here.” This would create an overlap of about six months between
the first tablet dated to Nabopolassar and the last tablet dated to arki (“after”) Kandalanu:
Months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
last date:
arki Kandalanu
VIII/02/22
first
Nabopolassar’s enthroned:
date:
acc. year VIII/26/acc.
II/?/acc.
This is the first example where Furuli applies his thesis that an overlap of a few weeks or
months between a king and his successor means that one or more extra years should be
inserted between the two kings. He says:
“If we take the chronicle text that mentions one year without king at face
value, there are not one but two lunisolar years between Nabopolassar and
the king who preceded him.” (Furuli, p. 56)
With respect to reading the royal name on NCBT 557 as Nabopolassar rather than Nabû-
apla-iddina (887-855 BCE), Furuli has misunderstood Beaulieu. He does not say that “no
other economic texts are that old.” The fact is that several economic texts have been found
from the reign of Nabû-apla-iddina. On his web site (presently unavailable) Janos Everling
listed 17 texts dated to the reign of Nabû-apla-iddina that had been published up to 2000.
Of the texts in which the provenance is preserved all except one are from Babylon. The
exception, OECT 1, pl.20f:W.-B. 10, seems to be from Uruk. What Beaulieu says is that no
other tablets from Uruk have been found from his reign. (Paul-Alain Beaulieu, “The fourth
year of hostilities in the land,” Baghdader Mitteilungen, Vol. 28, 1997, p. 369.) The text dated to
day 10 of month IV of Nabopolassar’s accession year, PTS 2208, is from Uruk, and so is
also NBCT 557 from the 2nd month.
If both of these tablets really belong to Nabopolassar, there is still no contradiction
between their dates and the statement in the Babylonian chronicle BM 25127 that
Nabopolassar was officially installed on the throne in Babylon some months later. As
Beaulieu points out in the same article, “Uruk may have originally been the power base of
Nabopolassar, and perhaps even his native city.” This had previously also been argued by
Assyriologist W. G. Lambert. (Beaulieu, p. 391 + n. 56) If Nabopolassar’s rebellion started
in Uruk, it is reasonable to conclude that he was first recognized as king there before he,
after his capture of Babylon, could be installed on the throne in that city. This is a far more
natural explanation of the “overlap” than Furuli’s theory that the “most natural” explanation
of such overlaps is that “extra years” are to be added, an explanation that conflicts with
other sources from the period and therefore must be rejected.
Two kingless years instead of one before Nabopolassar would not, of course, add any extra
years to the Neo-Babylonian period, as this period began with Nabopolassar. Furuli’s “Oslo
Chronology” requires that 20 extra years are added after the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, because in
this chronology the desolation of Jerusalem in his 18th year is pushed back from 587 to 607
BCE. The result of this is that the 21-year reign of his father Nabopolassar is pushed back
from 625-605 to 645-625 BCE. And this in turn would also push the beginning of
Kandalanu’s reign 20 years backward, from 647 to 667 BCE.
Such a lengthening of the chronology, however, is blocked by astronomy. There are several
cuneiform tablets containing records of astronomical observations dated to specific regnal
years within the Neo-Babylonian period and earlier. One such tablet that consists of two
broken pieces, BM 76738 and BM 76813, records consecutive observations of the positions
of the planet Saturn at its first and last appearances dated to the first fourteen years of
Kandalanu (647-634 BCE). Assyriologist C. B. F. Walker, who has examined and translated
this tablet, points out that identical cycles of Saturn observations dated to the same dates
within the Babylonian lunar calendar “recur at intervals of rather more than 17 centuries.”
(C. B. F. Walker, “Babylonian observations of Saturn during the Reign of Kandalanu,” in N.
M. Swerdlow [ed.], Ancient Astronomy and Celestial Divination, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and
London: The MIT Press, 2000, pp. 61-76.) In other words, the reign of Kandalanu is so
firmly fixed by this tablet that it cannot be moved backwards or forwards even one year, far
less 20.
To overcome this evidence, Furuli argues that Nabopolassar was no other than Kandalanu
himself! According to this theory, the Saturn tablet moves the reign of Nabopolassar about
20 years backwards and identifies it with the reign of Kandalanu! (Furuli, pp. 128, 129, 329-
343) This theory has been discussed and thoroughly refuted in Part II of this review.
(2) Nabopolassar to Nebuchadnezzar
According to the Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946 (= Chronicle 5 in A. K. Grayson,
Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 1975, pp. 99-102; henceforth referred to as “Grayson,
ABC”) the transition from Nabopolassar to his son and successor Nebuchadnezzar was
smooth and unproblematic. Furuli starts by referring to this chronicle:
“According to the Babylonian Chronicle 5, 9-11, Nabopolassar died on day 8
in month IV of his year 21, and Nebuchadnezzar II ascended to the royal
throne on day 1 in month VI in the same year.” (Furuli, p. 57)
But Furuli immediately goes on to mention one tablet that seemingly creates a problem:
“However, there may be some problems with this succession as well. For
example, there is one tablet dated after the death of Nabopolassar, on day 20
in month V of his year 21 (PTS 2761).” (Furuli, p. 57)
If Nabopolassar died “on day 8 in month IV”, how could a tablet still be dated to his reign
42 days (one month and 12 days) later, “on day 20 of month V”?
Unfortunately Furuli, undoubtedly accidentally, has misquoted the Babylonian Chronicle. It
does not say that Nabopolassar died “in month IV” but in month V:
“For twenty-one years Nabopolassar ruled Babylon. On the eighth day of
the month Ab [= month V] he died. In the month Elul [= month VI]
Nebuchadnezzar (II) returned to Babylon and on the first day of the month
Elul he ascended the royal throne in Babylon.” (Grayson, ABC, pp. 99, 100)
The tablet PTS 2761, then, is dated, not 42 but only 12 days after the death of
Nabopolassar. Is this really an “overlap” with the reign of Nebuchadnezzar?
When his father died, Nebuchadnezzar was occupied with a military campaign in Syria (and,
probably, Palestine). When he was informed about the death of his father, Nebuchadnezzar
hastened back to Babylon as fast as he could (by crossing the desert with a few companions,
according to Berossus). He was enthroned, says the Chronicle, on Elul 1, i.e., 22 days after his
father’s death. As tablet PTS 2761 is dated 10 days before Nebuchadnezzar’s coronation, it
does not witness to any overlap between the two kings. It was only natural for the scribes to
continue to date their documents to Nabopolassar until his successor had arrived and been
installed on the throne.
Furuli, finally, refers to four other tablets that give dates both in the reign of Nabopolassar
and in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar:
“Some tablets also mention both Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar: BM
92742 mentions month II, year 21, of Nabopolassar, and month VII,
accession year of Nebuchadnezzar; BM 51072 mentions year 21 of
Nabopolassar, and year 4 of Nebuchadnezzar; RSM 1889.103 mentions year
21 of Nabopolassar, and years 1-4 of Nebuchadnezzar; BE 7447 mentions
day 24, month XII, accession year of Nebuchadnezzar, and year 19 of
Nabopolassar.” (Furuli, p. 57)
It is strange that Furuli refers to these tablets, as none of them indicates there was an
overlap between the two kings. Furuli admits that, “The data suggest that Nebuchadnezzar
started to reign in the same year that his father died,” yet he goes on to claim that “the data
above may also suggest that there was some kind of coregency, or that there was one year
between them.”
It is clear that Furuli has not checked any of these four tablets, which he also indirectly
admits by stating in note 68 on the same page (p. 57) that all tablets are mentioned in the
catalogue by D. A. Kennedy published in the Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 38/2, 1986, pp.
211, 215. Only one of the dates on each tablet refers to the date of the tablet. The other
dates refer to events dealt with in the text. The last of the four tablets (BE 7447), for
example, deals with the purchase of a house in Babylon. The tablet is dated on day 24 of
month XII, accession-year of Nebuchadnezzar, but it ends with the information that
payment for the house had been received about two years earlier, on the 24th of month VIII
in the 19th year of Nabopolassar. (Eckhard Unger, Babylon, Berlin und Leipzig: Walter de
Gruyter & Co., 1931, pp. 308, 309) Nothing of this suggests “some kind of coregency” or
an extra year between these kings.
As the data presented by Furuli do not suggest anything of this, his statement is nothing but
unfounded wishful thinking, contradicted by all the evidence we have about the transition of
reign from Nabopolassar to Nebuchadnezzar.
(3) Nebuchadnezzar to Evil-Merodach (Awel-Marduk)
(A) The “ledger” NBC 4897:
Furuli deals with the transfer of reign from Nebuchadnezzar to his son Evil-Merodach on
pages 57-59 of his book. He starts by commenting on the cuneiform tablet NBC 4897, a
“ledger” covering ten successive years, from the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar to the 1st year
of Neriglissar. The “ledger,” which is briefly discussed on pages 131-133 in my book, The
Gentile Times Reconsidered (4th edition, 2004; hereafter referred to as GTR4), stretches a
chronological bridge between the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, and
Neriglissar. Furuli, of course, cannot accept the clear witness of this “ledger”:
“To the best of my knowledge, there is just one cuneiform tablet, NBC
4897, whose contents can be used to argue that Evil-Merodach succeeded
Nebuchadnezzar II in his year 43, that Evil-Merodach reigned for 2 years,
and that Neriglissar succeeded him in his second year. However, a close
scrutiny of that tablet shows that it has little value as a chronological
witness.” (Furuli, p. 57)
These statements contain two errors. Firstly, as far as the transition from Nebuchadnezzar to
Evil-Merodach is concerned, I presented not just one but four different cuneiform tablets, all
of which show that Evil-Merodach succeeded Nebuchadnezzar in his 43rd regnal year.
(GTR4, pp. 129-133) Furuli has chosen to ignore all but one of the four tablets. Secondly,
his claim that NBC 4897 “has little value as a chronological witness” is false. His few critical
assertions on the next page (58) are followed by a reference to “Appendix A for a detailed
analysis of the contents of NBC 4897.” This Appendix with its slanted analysis and baseless
conclusions will be critically examined in another part of this review.
(B) Biblical versus Babylonian dating methods:
Furuli next tries to find support in the Bible for his idea that Nebuchadnezzar ruled longer
than 43 years. He refers to the first capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, which the
Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946 dates to his “seventh year.” The Chronicle states that in
this year the king of Babylon “encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of
the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king,” that is, king Jehoiachin, the
next to the last king of Judah. – Grayson, ABC, p. 102.
As the month Adar was the 12th and last month of the Babylonian regnal year, Jehoiachin
was taken prisoner nearly a whole month before the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh
regnal year.
The Bible gives a similar description of the same events at 2 Kings 24:10-12:
”At that time the servants of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came up to
Jerusalem and the city was besieged. King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came
to the city while his servants were besieging it; King Jehoiachin of Judah
gave himself up to the king of Babylon, himself, his mother, his servants, his
officers, and his palace officials. The king of Babylon took him prisoner in
the eighth year of his reign.”
Both records emphasize that the Judean king was “seized” or “taken” prisoner, but only the
Babylonian Chronicle gives the month and day of the event, showing it happened nearly one
month before the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh year. The most conspicuous difference,
however, is that according to the Biblical book of 2 Kings it happened, not in the seventh but in
the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar. The best explanation of this one-year difference is, as
many scholars have argued, that Judah did not apply the accession-year system but counted
the year of accession as the first regnal year. (GTR4, pp. 314-320; see also the detailed and
convincing discussion by Dr. Rodger Young:
http://home.swbell.net/rcyoung8/jerusalem.pdf )
Furuli gives no explanation for this one-year difference between the Biblical and Babylonian
way of counting regnal years but chooses to ignore the date of the Babylonian Chronicle.
This enables him to increase the reign of Nebuchadnezzar from 43 to 44 years. He says:
“Jeremiah 52:28-31 mentions that Jehoiachin was released from prison in
year 37 of his exile, in the year when Evil-Merodach became king. The word
galut means ‘exile,’ and the most likely starting point of the period of 37 years
must be when Jehoiachin came to Babylon and his exile started or, less likely,
when he was captured. Both events occurred in year 8 of Nebuchadnezzar, and 37
years from that time would end in year 44 of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and
not in year 43 when he is supposed to have died.” (Furuli, p. 58. Emphasis
added. In footnote 70 on the same page Furuli approvingly quotes J.
Morgenstern’s calculation of the 37th year, but he ignores the fact that
Morgenstern held that the Judean regnal years were counted from Tishri, not
Nisan.)
However, the one-year discrepancy between the Babylonian and Biblical way of counting
regnal years cannot be ignored. As has often been pointed out, the same discrepancy is also
found elsewhere in the Bible. Another example is the battle at Carchemish, when Pharaoh
Necho of Egypt was decisively defeated by Nebuchadnezzar “in the fourth year of King
Jehoiakim.” (Jeremiah 46:2) This “fourth year of king Jehoiakim” is equated with “the first
year of King Nebuchadnezzar” at Jeremiah 25:1.
The same Babylonian Chronicle quoted above (BM 21946) also records this decisive battle
at Carchemish. But there it is dated, not to the first year of Nebuchadnezzar but to the 21st
and last year of his father Nabopolassar. At that time Nebuchadnezzar is still said to be “his
eldest son (and) the crown prince.” Later in the same year Nabopolassar died, and
Nebuchadnezzar succeeded him in what from then on is called his “accession year,” not his
first year as does Jeremiah. – Grayson, ABC, pp. 99, 100.
When, therefore, the Bible dates the battle at Carchemish to the first year of
Nebuchadnezzar, this has to be understood as his accession-year in the Babylonian dating
system. And when the Bible states that Jehoiachin was taken prisoner and brought into exile
in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, this has to be understood as his seventh year in the
Babylonian accession year system. As Jehoiachin’s exile began in the 7th year of
Nebuchadnezzar, the 37th year of exile covered parts of the 43rd regnal year of
Nebuchadnezzar and the accession-year of Evil-Merodach. When the difference between
the Biblical and Babylonian methods of reckoning regnal years is taken into consideration,
the Bible and the extra-Biblical documents are seen to be in full agreement. Only by
ignoring this difference is Furuli able to increase the reign of Nebuchadnezzar from 43 to 44
years. (For a more detailed discussion of this difference, see GTR4, pp. 314-320.)
(C) Nine supposedly “anomalous tablets” from the accession year of Evil-Merodach
In a table on page 59 (“Table 3.3”) Furuli lists nine tablets from the accession year of Evil-
Merodach that he claims are dated before the last tablets dated to the reign of his father
Nebuchadnezzar. He concludes:
“These nine tablets represent strong evidence in favour of an expansion of
the years of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.” (Furuli, p. 59)
The table starts with five tablets dated to month IV and four tablets dated to month V of
Evil-Merodach’s accession year, followed by three tablets dated to months VI, VIII, and X
of Nebuchadnezzar’s 43rd regnal year. If all these 12 dates were real, they would indicate an
overlap between the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Evil-Merodach of six months.
Furuli’s table, however, is totally misleading. The main reason for this is that Furuli has not
cared to collate the dates on the original tablets, nor has he asked professional experts on
cuneiform to do this for him. Had he done this, he would have discovered that most of the
dates he has published are wrong.
The first five tablets in his table, dated to month IV of the accession year of Evil-Merodach,
are:
Month/day/year: Tablet no.:
IV/?/acc. BM 66846
IV (orVI)/?/acc. BM 65270
IV/5/acc. BM 65270
IV/20/acc. BM 80920
IV/29/acc. UCBC 378
All tablets except the last one is listed in the British Museum’s CBT catalogues Vols. VI-
VIII, 1986-1988. (CBT = Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum.) The dates on
the BM tablets were collated afresh already back in 1990, with the following results:
BM 66846:
When C. B. F. Walker at the British Museum collated the date on this tablet back in 1990 he
found that the day number is “1”, but that the month name is damaged and illegible. The
tablet, therefore, does not support the date given in Furuli’s table, IV/?/acc. (C. B. F.
Walker, “Corrections and additions to CBT 6-8,” 1996, p. 6)
BM 65270 (listed twice):
Strangely, Furuli lists this tablet twice, with three different dates! This confusion is probably
due to the fact that the month is damaged and difficult to read. After repeated collations
Walker stated that “it is perhaps most likely that the month is 7 rather than 4.” (Letter
Walker-Jonsson, Nov. 13, 1990; cf. GTR4, p. 323, n. 28; see also Walker in “Corrections
…,” 1996, p. 5: “the month is damaged; possibly month 7; not month 6 as previously
suggested.”) On p. 1 of his “Corrections” list of 1996 Walker gives the following warning:
“Note that in Neo-Babylonian texts there is always the possibility of
confusion (because of inaccuracy in either reading or writing) between
months IV, VII and XI, between months V and X, and between months IX
and XII. The handbooks which suggest that these month-names are clearly
distinguishable in the cuneiform script do not give warning of the range of
possible error that arises from sloppy, defective or cursive writing. Readings
which are critical for chronology should be collated again and again,
preferably by different Assyriologists experienced in working with Neo-
Babylonian texts.”
Another Assyriologist, Stefan Zawadzki, also collated tablet BM 65270. He rejects month 4
(IV) and translates the date on the tablet as “the fifth [day] of the month Ululu/Tašritu(?)
[month 6 or 7] of the accession year of Amel-Marduk, king of Babylon.” (Stefan Zawadzki,
“Two Neo-Babylonian Documents from 562 B.C.,” Zeitschrift für Assyriologie, Band 86, 1996,
p. 218)
BM 80920:
The date, IV/29/acc., is that read by R. H. Sack in his work on Evil-Merodach (Amel-
Marduk 562-560 B.C. [= AOATS 4], 1972, text no. 56). The CBT VIII catalogue, p. 245,
however, has month VII, and on collation Walker found that the latter is correct. The
month is 7, not 4, thus VII/20/acc. “AOAT 4 no. 56 is to be corrected,” he says. (Walker,
“Corrections …”, 1996, p. 8; see also GTR4, p. 323, n. 28.)
UCBC 378:
The fourth tablet in Furuli’s table, UCBC 378, dated to “IV.29.00” in the copy by Henry
Frederick Lutz, was published in 1931. (H. F. Lutz, Selected Cuneiform Texts, Berkeley:
University of California Press, 1931, pp. 53 + 94, 95.) The full number of the published text
is “UCP 9-1-2, 29.” The present museum number is HMA 9-02507 (HMA = Hearst
Museum of Anthropology). The number used by Furuli, “UCBC 378,” was a provisional
number used by Lutz, who kept the tablets in his office and used his own number system
before the tablets he translated were officially accessioned.
A transliteration with a translation by R. H. Sack was published in 1972 as text No. 70 in
Sack’s work on Evil-Merodach (op. cit., pp. 99-100). R. H. Sack does not seem to have
checked the original tablet, but based his translation on H. Lutz’s copy. Sack, too, gives the
same date as Lutz, “month of Du’uzu [month 4], twenty-ninth day, accession year of Amel-
Marduk, king of Babylon.”
In order to have the original tablet collated afresh, a correspondent of mine sent an email to
Niek Veldhuis, Associate Professor of Assyriology at the Department of Near Eastern
Studies, University of California, Berkeley, and asked if the date may have been misread by
Lutz. In an email dated October 3, 2007, Veldhuis said:
“I looked at the piece yesterday and you may very well be right. The two
month names (4 and 7) are rather similar in cuneiform writing, one written
SHU, the other DU6. The tablet is eroded and the sign is not very clear. I
have little experience in this period – so I’ll have to look at it again, but I can
certainly not exclude reading DU6 (that is, month 7).”
Thus the date on this tablet, too, is damaged, and the month may very well be 7, not 4. The
claim that the date is anomalous, then, cannot be proven.
In conclusion none of these tablets can be shown to be dated as early as month IV of the
accession year of Evil-Merocach. The earliest tablet from his reign with a clear date is still
BM 75322, dated to month V, day 20 of his accession year, as is also shown in GTR4, pp.
323, 324.
What about the three tablets dated to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar after the accession of
Evil-Merodach in month V? According to Furuli’s table, these three tablets are dated to
months VI, VIII, and X of the 43d year of Nebuchadnezzar:
VI/26/43 Contenau XII.58
VIII/?/43 Krückmann 238
X/?/43 BM 55806
I will start with the last of the three tablets.
BM 55806:
Back in 1987 I wrote to Professor D. J. Wiseman in London and asked him to collate about
20 oddly dated tablets I had found listed in the then recently published BM catalogue CBT
VI (1987). Wiseman checked all the 20 tablets and sent me his observations in a letter dated
October 7, 1987. Most of the dates turned out to be modern printing or reading errors.
With respect to the date of 55806, X/?/43, Wiseman said that, “The reading seems to be ab
(is this an error for shu?).”
Ab is month V, and Shu (SHU = Du’uzu) is month IV.
The tablet was also collated in 1990 by C. B. F. Walker, who gives the following comments
in his list of “Corrections …,” p. 3:
“Month appears to be written ITU.AD; year number highly uncertain, and
partly erased. Pinches, CT 55, 138, copied ITU.AB = month 10. If the year
is really 43 then the month must be understood as AD = Abu.”
As shown by Walker’s comments, the date is severely damaged. Not only the day and the
month, but also the year is highly uncertain. (This is actually admitted by Furuli himself on
page 18!) Walker’s mentioning of CT 55 refers to volume 55 of a series of BM publications,
Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum. Vols. 55, 56, and 57 contain
economic texts copied by T. G. Pinches during the years 1892-1894, published 90 years later
by the British Museum Publications Ltd in 1982. As shown above, collations of the original
tablet by modern specialists show that Pinches evidently misread the month name, which
most probably is V rather than X. The tablet cannot be shown to be dated after the
accession of Evil-Merodach.
Krückmann 238:
“Krückmann” refers to Oluf Krückmann, Neubabylonishe Rechts- und Verwaltungstexte,
published in Leipzig 1933. It is also referred to as TuM 2/3 as it is Vol. 2/3 in the series
Texte und Materialien der Frau Professor Hilprecht Collection of Babylonian Antiquities im Eigentum der
Universität Jena. Vol. 2/3 contains copies of 289 cuneiform tablets, many of which are
fragmentary. In a chronological table the tablets are briefly described, and when the dates, or
at least parts of them, are legible, they are given in three separate columns (giving month,
day, and year, respectively). No. 238 is listed on page 16 as one of the tablets dated to
Nebuchadnezzar. The date is evidently very fragmentary, as Krückmann has put both the
month and the year within parenthesis, while the day number is shown as illegible:
Monat Tag Jahr
(IX) – (42)
As can be seen, the suggested year number is "42", not "43".
So why does Furuli date the tablet to VIII/?/43? The reason obviously is that Furuli has
never consulted Krückmann’s work. As I demonstrated in my review of volume I of Furuli’s
work on ancient chronology, most of the dates presented in his tables had been simply
borrowed from web lists published by the Hungarian Assyriologist Janos Everling.
Everling’s lists (presently not available on the web) were based upon works that had been
published all the way from the latter part of the 19th century and up to about 2000. The lists
contain over 7,000 tablets from the Neo-Babylonian period alone. In the introduction to
his lists Everling explicitly warned that the dates in the lists had neither been proof-read nor
been compared with the original tablets. The result is that Everling’s lists contain numerous
errors. In my review of Furuli’s volume I it was shown that he had borrowed extensively
from Everling’s lists without collations, with the result that the errors in Everling’s lists were
repeated in Furuli’s tables.
This is also true of Everling’s reference to Krückmann 238, whom he misquotes as follows:
“TuM 2/3, 238. (Nbk. 43.08.o, <N.>)”
Furuli seems to have simply taken the date from Everling’s lists without collation and
without checking Krückmann’s work. If he had done anything of this, he would have
discovered that Everling had misquoted Krückmann 238.
Contenau XII.58:
The date of this tablet, VI/26/43, is correct and is the latest dated tablet from the reign of
Nebuchadnezzar. As the earliest known tablet from the accession year of Evil-Merodach is
dated to V/20/acc (BM 75322), the overlap between the two rulers is reduced from six
months as shown by Furuli’s tables to one month and 6 days, as is also shown in GTR4,
page 324. As I argued on the same page, the reason for this brief overlap probably is that
Nebuchadnezzar had died earlier, but that Evil-Merodach’s accession was not generally
accepted immediately due to his wicked character. Some scribes, therefore, continued to
date their tablets to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar for a few weeks. This is a much more
natural explanation of the “overlap” than the idea that “extra years” have to be added
between the two reigns – an idea that conflicts with all other relevant sources from this
period.
(4) Evil-Merodach to Neriglissar
“90 anomalous tablets”?
As mentioned earlier, Rolf Furuli has repeatedly claimed, both in this book (pp. 65, 86) and
elsewhere, that there are about 90 “anomalous tablets” that contradict the traditional Neo-
Babylonian chronology and therefore requires an extension of this chronology. On page 86
he states that these 90 tablets are “mentioned in chapter 3.” About a dozen of such claimed
anomalous tablets have already been discussed above, nine of which were presented in
Furuli’s Table 3.3 on page 59. Fresh collations by competent scholars showed that most of
them did not have any “anomalous dates” at all.
The longest table with such claimed “anomalous dates” however, is Table 3.4 on pages 60-
62. It starts in the first two columns with 17 tablets, continuously dated in each of the
months II, III, IV and V of the 2nd and last year of Evil-Merodach, the last of the tablets
being dated to V/17/02 (month 5, day 17, year 2). These dates are then followed in the next
two columns by 37 tablets, continuously dated in each of the months V, VI, VII, VIII and
IX of the accession year of Neriglissar, the first tablet being dated to V/21/acc. or just four
days after the last tablet from the reign of Evil-Merodach. This strongly indicates that the
transition from Evil-Merodach to Neriglissar took place in the latter part of month V of
Evil-Merodach’s 2nd year.
However, Furuli also lists nine other tablets that do not seem to fit into this pattern. The
first two are dated in the first and early second months of Neriglissar’s accession year, i.e.,
before the 17 tablets dated to months II-V of Evil-Merodach’s 2nd and last year, seemingly
creating an overlap of about four months between the two reigns. Normally, the two early
dates would be viewed as anomalous. But Furuli evidently presupposes that the two dates
are correct and counts the 17 following tablets as anomalous!
Further, Furuli lists three tablets dated to months X, XI, and XII of Evil-Merodach’s 2nd
year, i. e., after the 37 tablets dated to months V-IX of Neriglissar. This would increase the
overlap between the two reigns to more than ten months, from Neriglissar’s accession in
month I to Evil-Merodach’s last tablet dated early in month XII. Instead of regarding the
three tablets as anomalous, Furuli counts the preceding 37 tablets from the accession year of
Neriglissar as anomalous!
Finally, Furuli lists in his table four other tablets that also seem to support an overlap
between the two reigns. Two of them are placed early in month V of Neriglissar’s reign and
two others in month VII of Evil-Merodach’s reign. According to Furuli’s way of reckoning,
the two latter tablets would increase the number of anomalous tablets from the last months
of Evil-Merodach’s last year of reign from 17 to 19. On the number of anomalous tablets
from the accession year of Neriglissar Furuli states that there are “at least 41 tablets dated in
the accession year of Neriglissar before the last tablet dated to Evil-Merodach.” (Furuli, p.
60) If these 41 tablets and also the previous 19 tablets are all counted as anomalous, we
would get 60 “anomalous tablets” during the Evil-Merodach/Neriglissar overlap!
Thus, out of nine tablets with seemingly odd dates Furuli succeeds in creating 60 tablets
with “anomalous dates”!
Let us take a closer look at the nine tablets that really seem to be oddly dated. They are:
Neriglissar:
(1) I/26/acc. AOAT 236, 97
(2) II/04/acc. BM 75489
(3) V/?/acc. BM 60150
(4) V/06/acc. BM 30419
Evil-Merodach:
(5) VII/08/02 BM 58580
(6) VII/08/02 BM 75106
(7) X/17/02 BM 61325
(8) XI/15/02 ?
(9) XII/02/03 BM 58580
It does not seem that Furuli has himself collated any of these tablets or has had them
collated by experienced specialists on cuneiform. Had he done this, he would have
discovered that most of the “odd dates” disappear.
Tablet no. 1 is published as no. 97 in a work by Ronald H. Sack in his work, Neriglissar –
King of Babylon (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1994). This is Band 236 in the series Alter Orient und Altes
Testament, which explains the reference to the tablet as AOAT 236, 97. The museum number
is BM 60231. Sack’s transliteration and translation of the tablet on page 235 reveals that the
month sign is damaged. Sack, therefore, adds a question mark after the month name and
puts it within half brackets: ⌐Nisanu(?)¬. Although Sack in a table on pages 59-61 gives the
year, month, and day of the tablet as Acc/I/26, he leaves out the month altogether in his
“Catalogue and Description of Datable Texts” on pages 49-54, giving the year/month/day
as “Acc. … 25”. (Sack, p. 54)
To get to know just how damaged the month name on the tablet is, I sent an email to Dr.
Jon Taylor, Curator at the Department of the Middle East at the British Museum, and asked
him to check the date. In an email received on June 24, 2008, he explained:
“I've had a look at that tablet, and also shown it to several people with more
experience in Neo-Babylonian texts than I have. The sign in question is not
just damaged but also right on the corner of the tablet, and thus probably
distorted. The more you look at it, the more signs it could be. None of us
has been able to decide with certainty what it really is. I can send you a
photo if you would like to see for yourself.”
Obviously, it cannot be claimed that the date on this tablet really is anomalous.
Tablet no. 2, BM 75489, is published as no. 91 in Sack’s work on Neriglissar. The tablet is
clearly dated to month II, day 4, of Neriglissar’s accession year. This was confirmed by C. B.
F. Walker, who collated the tablet several times, once together with two other
Assyriologists, Dr. G. van Driel and Mr Bongenaar, on November 9, 1990. (Walker,
“Corrections,” 1996, p. 7; cf. GTR4, p. 326, n. 33.) The date of this tablet, then, is clearly
anomalous. Whether it is correct or a scribal error is, of course, another question.
Tablet no. 3, BM 60150, is dated to month V, but the day number is damaged and illegible.
As the transition between Evil-Merodach and Neriglissar took place between day 17 and day
21 in the same month (month V), it cannot be shown that this tablet is dated earlier, and it
would be wrong to claim that its date is anomalous.
Tablet no. 4, BM 30419, is dated by Furuli to month V, day 6, of Neriglissar’s accession
year. This is also the date given by R. H. Sack in his book on Neriglissar (published as text
no. 12, pp. 150, 151.) However, “month V (ITI.NE)” seems to be a modern misreading.
The tablet was examined in 1990 by C. B. F. Walker together with another Assyriologist, Dr.
van Driel. Walker explains that, “Only the beginning of the month name is preserved, but
we both agree that ITI.N[E] seems to be out of the question and that ITI.Z[IZ], month XI,
may be the best guess at the moment.” (Letter Walker-Jonsson, November 13, 1990, p. 2)
Again, the tablet cannot be shown to be anomalous.
Tablet no. 5 and 9, BM 58580, is listed twice in Furuli’s table, but with two different dates:
VII/08/02 and XII/02/03. Both dates are wrong. Professor D. J. Wiseman, who collated
the tablet in 1987, wrote: “Not year 3 possibly 2/2/2” (day 2, month 2, Year 2). (Letter
Wiseman-Jonsson, October 7, 1987) C. B. F. Walker, in “Corrections,” 1996, p. 3, confirms
Wiseman’s reading “2/2/2”. The tablet, then, is not anomalous.
Tablet no. 6, BM 75106, dated VII/08/02 in Furuli’s table, is actually dated to month IV,
according to C. B. F. Walker’s “Corrections,” 1996, p. 7. The date creates no problem.
Tablet no. 7, BM 61325, was collated by C. B. F. Walker, Dr. van Driel and Mr. Bongenaar
on November 9, 1990. Walker says that, “The month is slightly damaged, but seems to be
clearly ITI.AB (month X) rather than ITI.NE (month V). Not day 17 as previously stated.”
The day number is 19. The date on this tablet, then, is X/19/02. This does not necessarily
mean that it is correct. It may be a scribal error.
Tablet no. 8, finally, is dated to XI/15/02 in Furuli’s table. Furuli points out in a note (p. 62,
n. 79) that the inventory number is missing, so he was unable to identify it. He refers,
however, to W. St. Chad Boscawen’s table on page 52 of the Transactions of the Society of
Biblical Archaeology, Vol. VI (London, January, 1878). The date there has day 5, not day 15 as
in Furuli’s tablet.
Actually, a copy of this tablet by B. T. A. Evetts was published four years later as no. 66 in
his Babylonische Texte (Leipzig, 1892). As shown on page 3 of the same work, Evetts read
both the year number and the royal name differently: He dates it to XI/05/03 of
Neriglissar, not of Evil-Merodach! A transliteration and translation of the same tablet by
Ronald H. Sack has also been included in his recent work on Neriglissar – King of Babylon (=
AOAT, Band 236. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1994), pp. 205-206. The
museum number is BM 30577. Sack, who collated the tablet afresh, confirms the reading of
Evetts. Obviously, Boscawen had misread the tablet. Its date creates no problems.
In the discussion above, the 60 supposedly “anomalous tablets” dated to the transition
from Evil-Merodach to Neriglissar presented in Furuli’s “Table 3.4” were first reduced to
nine tablets that seemed to conflict with conventional chronology. Of these tablets only two
could be demonstrated to have clear anomalous dates, i.e., no. 2 (BM 75489), dated to
Neriglissar, II/04/acc. and no. 7 (BM 61325), dated to Evil-Merodach, X/19/02. This result
is the same as that reached in GTR4 (pp. 325-327). How are the two tablets to be explained?
Do they, as Furuli claims on page 60, “strongly suggest that the accession year of Neriglissar
is not the same year as the second year of Evil-Merodach, but one or more years must have
elapsed between their reigns”? This is certainly not the correct conclusion to draw, as this
would contradict many other documents from the period, including the astronomical
tablets.
It should be noticed that the dates on these two tablets stand isolated from the other dates
in the transition between the two reigns. The tablet dated in month II of Neriglissar’s
accession year is not followed by any tablets dated to his reign in the next two months, III
and IV, while we have several tablets dated in every month of his accession year from
month V and onward. Similarly, we have several published and unpublished tablets dated in
every month of Evil-Merodach’s reign up to month V of his 2nd year, while the tablet from
month X of his 2nd year is an isolated date that appears five months later. Normally, we
should have several tablets from each of the four months between V and X dated to his
reign, but we have none. What does this indicate?
Dr. G. van Driel, in his discussion of the first of the two tablets (AOAT 236, 91 = BM
75489), says:
“The Sippar text R. H. Sack, Neriglissar no. 91, dated to 4 II accession year,
would suggest a considerable overlap with the preceding king Awil-Marduk,
to whom later Sippar texts (listed by Sack, p. 26, n. 19) are dated. A mistake in
the date of AOAT 236, no. 91 is the easiest solution. It should be noted that the
Uruk kinglist (J. J. A. van Dijk, UVB 18 [1962] pp. 53-60 obv. 9) gives N. 3
years and 8 months, which could exceptionally refer to the actual reign and
not to a reign starting with the beginning of the first full year.” – G. van
Driel in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Band 9
(Berlin, New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1998-2001), p. 228. Emphasis added.
(Cf. the similar comments in GTR4, pp. 326, 327. In note 35 on p. 327 an
alternative solution is also discussed.)
The easiest and most natural explanation, then, is that the two odd dates are scribal errors.
As Furuli himself admits in his first volume on chronology, “one or two contradictory finds
do not necessarily destroy a chronology that has been substantiated by hundreds of
independent finds.” (Rolf Furuli, Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the
Jews, Oslo, 2003, p. 22) This is certainly true of the two anomalous tablets discussed above.
(5) Neriglissar to Labashi-Marduk

In Table 3.5 on page 62 of his book Furuli presents ten tablets which he claims overlap the
end of the reign of Neriglissar with the reigns of the last two kings of in the Neo-
Babylonian period, his son Labashi-Marduk and Nabonidus. The dates on the four last
tablets from the 4th regnal year of Neriglissar listed in the table are:
I/02/04 BM 41401
I?/06/04 YBC 3433
II/02/04 BM 30334
II/01/04 ?
The earliest two tablets from the reign of Neriglissar’s successor Labashi-Marduk are dated
I/11+/acc. (Pinches 55, 432 = BM 58432) and I/23/acc. (NBC 4534), which seems to be a
few weeks earlier than the two latest tablets from the reign of Neriglissar in the table above,
BM 30334 and “?”. Furuli says:
“The first tablet from the reign of Labashi-Merodach is dated to day 11+ of
month I of his accession year, but this cannot be harmonized with the tablet
dated to month II of year 4 of Neriglissar.”
The date of BM 30334 in Furuli’s table, however, is wrong. A copy of the tablet by B. T. A.
Evetts was first published as no. 69 in Babylonische Texte (1892). In a table on page 3 he
shows the date to be I/02/04. The date on the tablet was collated and confirmed by Ronald
H. Sack, whose transliteration and translation of the tablet appears on page 208 of his work
on Neriglissar – King of Babylon (1994). The date creates no overlap between the two reigns.
Unfortunately, the last tablet in Furuli’s table on Neriglissar, dated II/01/04, has no
number. As Furuli admits on page 63 he has been unable to identify the tablet and verify the
date. He has found the date in an old article by F. H. Weissbach published in Zeitschrift der
Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Band 62, 1908, page 630. But Weissbach gives no
further reference. The date has probably turned out to be wrong. It was not included by R.
A. Parker and W. H. Dubberstein in their Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C. – A.D. 75 (1956),
nor has it been referred to in later articles on Neriglissar or in R. H. Sack’s work on this
regent. The date has to be rejected until Furuli can prove its correctness. The conclusion on
page 327 of my book (GTR4), therefore, still stands:
“The last two tablets known from the reign of Neriglissar are dated I/2/4
(April 12, 556 B.C.E.) and I?/6/4 (April 16). The first tablet known from the
reign of his son and successor, Labashi-Marduk, is dated I/23/acc. (May 3,
556 B.C.E.), that is, twenty-one, or possibly only seventeen days later. These
dates create no overlap between the two.”
(6) Labashi-Marduk to Nabonidus
According to Furuli’s Table 3.5, the latest tablet from the reign of Labashi-Marduk is dated
III/12/acc., while the earliest tablet from the reign of his successor Nabonidus is dated in
the previous month, on II/15/acc.:
The two latest tablets from the reign of Labashi-Marduk:
III/11/acc. (= June 19) YBC 3817
III/12/acc. (= June 20) Evetts, Lab. No. 1 (PD p. 13)
The two earliest tablets from the reign of Nabonidus:

II/15/acc. (= May 25) Clay 1908, 39 (= BE VIII, 39)
III/18/acc. (= June 26) Strassm. 1889, 1 (= Nbn 1)
At first glance these tablets seem to show an overlap of 26 days between the two reigns. But
a closer examination of the texts shows that this is not the case if the provenance of the tablets is
taken into consideration.
The Uruk king list credits Labashi-Marduk with a reign of only three months, which is
confirmed by the contemporary contract tablets, which are dated only to (parts of) months
I, II, and III. According to Berossus he was plotted against and killed because of his wicked
behaviour. The rebellion broke out almost immediately after his accession, evidently before
he had gained control over the whole kingdom. This conclusion is supported by the fact
that the tablets dated to his reign come from only four places: Babylon, Uruk, Sippar, and
(one tablet) Borsippa.
The earliest tablet dated to Nabonidus is from Nippur. No tablets dated to Labashi-Marduk
are from that city. And the latest tablets dated to him from Babylon, Uruk, Sippar, and
Borsippa are all earlier than the earliest tablets from these cities dated to Nabonidus. Thus
there are no overlaps between the two kings at any of these places. Professor Wolfgang
Röllig concludes:
“Both, then, have ruled, or laid claim to the throne, at the same time, although
at different places.” – W. Röllig in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen
Archäologie, Band 6 (Berlin and New York, 1980), p. 409. Emphasis added.
(Cf. also GTR4, pp. 327, 328)
This is shown in the following table:
Nippur Babylon Uruk Sippar Borsippa

Labashi-
Marduk, II/22/acc. III/11/acc. III/12/acc. II/26/acc.
---
latest (= June 1) (= June 19) (= June 20) (= June 5)
tablets
Nabonidus, II/15/acc. IV/06/acc. III/23/acc. III/18/acc.* VII/27/acc.
earliest
tablets (= May 25) (July 14?) (= July 1) (= June 26) (= Oct. 31)
* PD p. 13 mentions a text, VAS VI 65, dated to III/01/acc. (June 9, 556) of Nabonidus.

Although Sippar is not mentioned in the text, the inscription is reported to have been found
there. It is a building inscription. Although it bears no date, F. X. Kugler (Sternkunde und
Sterndienst in Babel, II:II:2, 1924, pp. 405-408) argued that it describes restoration work done
in Sippar from day 1, month III of Nabonidus’ accession year onward. This view is rejected
by P.-A- Beaulieu, whose careful study shows that restoration works took place in Sippar “in
the second, the tenth, and the sixteenth year of Nabonidus”, but not in his accession year.
(Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556-539 B.C., New Haven and London: Yale
University Press, 1989, p. 6. Cf. his Table 2 on p. 42.)
Furuli’s claim (p. 63), that “we can hardly avoid the conclusion that there was one or more
years between Neriglissar and Nabonaid,” has no factual foundation. The supposed overlap
between Neriglissar and Labashi-Marduk is based on misreading of tablets, and the Labashi-
Marduk/Nabonidus “overlap,” which disappears on local level, is easily explained by the
political circumstances that brought Nabonidus to the throne.
(7) Nabonidus to Cyrus

According to the Nabonidus Chronicle (translated by A. K. Grayson as Chronicle 7 in his
Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Locust Valley, New York: J.J. Augustin Publisher, 1975, pp.
104-111), Babylon was captured by the army of Cyrus on the 16th day of Tishri (= month
VII), evidently in the 17th regnal year of Nabonidus (= October 11/12, 539 BCE; the year is
damaged and illegible). This date, then, marked the end of the reign of Nabonidus. Cyrus
himself entered Babylon on the 3rd day of month VIII, Arahsamnu (= October 28/29). The
earliest tablet extant from the reign of Cyrus (CT 57:717) is dated to day 19, month VII
(Tishri) of his accession-year, i.e., three days after the fall of Babylon.
Furuli, however, tries to argue that Nabonidus may have ruled longer than 17 years. He
claims that, “Some anomalous tablets w[h]ere the reigns overlap do exist, but the dates of
two [of] these tablets are explained away ad hoc by P&D, as the footnotes show.” (Furuli, p.
63) As will be demonstrated below this accusation is false.
In Table 3.6 on pages 63 and 64 he presents four tablets that he claims are dated to
Nabonidus after the fall of Babylon on VII/16/17:
VII/10/17 Strassm. Nab 1054
IX/xx/17 Strassm. Nab 1055
XII/17/17 CT 57.168
VI/06/18 Contenau 1927, 122
The first date contains a typing error and should be VIII/10/17. Actually, it has been
known since 1990 that none of these four tablets have anomalous dates, and it is quite
remarkable that Furuli does not know this. All dates are discussed, for example, in my book.
All I can do, therefore, is to repeat the information presented in GTR4 on pages 356-358
and in note 62 on page 120:
“VIII/10/17” (Strassm. Nab 1054 =BM 74972):

As Furuli explains in note 84, PD rejected this date because “the month sign is shaded” in J.
N. Strassmaier’s copy of the text published in 1889. (PD = Parker & Dubberstein, Babylonian
Chronology, 1956, p. 13; the tablet is listed as no. 1054 in J. Strassmaier, Inschriften von
Nabonidus, König von Babylon, Leipzig, 1889) They had good reasons for doing this because F.
H. Weissbach, who collated the tablet in 1908, explained that the month name was highly
uncertain and “in any case not Arahsamnu” (month VIII).
Actually, there is an even more serious error with the date. Back in 1990 I asked C. B. F.
Walker at the British Museum to take another look at the date on the original tablet. He did
this together with two other Assyriologists. They all agreed that the year is 16, not 17.
Walker says:
“On the Nabonidus text no. 1054 mentioned by Parker and Dubberstein p.
13 and Kugler, SSB II 388, I have collated that tablet (BM 74972) and am
satisfied that the year is 16, not 17. It has also been checked by Dr. G. Van
Driel and Mr. Bongenaar, and they both agree with me.” – Letter Walker to
Jonsson, 13 November 1990.
“IX/xx/17” (Strassm. Nab 1055):
This text does not give any day number, the date above just being given as “Kislimu [=
month IX], year 17 of Nabonidus”. The text, in fact, contains four different dates of this
kind, in the following chronological disorder: Months IX, I, XII, and VI of “year 17 of
Nabonidus”. None of these dates refers to the time when the tablet was drawn up. Such a
date is actually missing on the tablet. As F. X. Kugler explained, the tablet belongs to a
category of texts containing instalment dates or delivery dates (maššartum). (F. X. Kugler,
Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, Vol. II:2, 1912, pp. 388, 389) Such dates were given at
least one month, and often several months in advance. That is why Parker & Dubberstein
explain that “this tablet is useless for dating purposes.” (Parker & Dubberstein, Babylonian
Chronology, p. 14) As shown by its contents, No. 1055 is an administrative text giving the
dates for deliveries of certain amounts of barley in year 17 of Nabonidus. - P.- A. Beaulieu in
the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 52:4 (1993), pp. 256, 258.
“XII/17 /17” (CT 57.168 = BM 55694):
This tablet was copied by T. G. Pinches in the 1890’s and was finally published in 1982 as
CT 57:168. (CT 57:168 = Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Part. 57,
1982, No. 168) It is also listed in CBT 6 where the date is given as “Nb(-) 19/12/13+” (=
day 19, month 12, year 13+). (Erle Leichty, ed., Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British
Museum [CBT], Vol. 6, 1986, p. 184 [82-7-14, 51]) Both the royal name and the year number
are obviously damaged and only partially legible. “Nb(-)” shows that the royal name begins
with “Nabu-”. This could refer either to Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, or Nabonidus. If
it is Nabonidus, the damaged year number, “13+”, may refer to any year between his 13th
and 17th year.
“VI/06/18” (Contenau 1927, 122):
This tablet was copied by G. Contenau and was published as number 121 (“122” in Furuli’s
table is an error) in his work Textes Cuneiformes, Tome XII, Contrats Néo-Babyloniens, I (Paris:
Librarie Orientaliste, 1927), Pl. LVIII. Line 1 gives the date as “VI/06/17,” but when it is
repeated in line 19 in the text it is given as “VI/6/18.” PD (Parker & Dubberstein, p. 13)
assumed “either a scribal error or an error by Contenau.” The matter was settled by Dr.
Béatrice André, who at my request collated the original at the Louvre Museum in Paris in
1990: “The last line has, like the first, the year 17, and the error comes from Contenau.” —
Letter André-Jonsson, March 20, 1990. (See GTR4, p. 120, n. 62)
One could also mention another, similar error on page 117 in the latest CBT catalogue (M.
Sigrist, R. Zadok, and C. B. F. Walker [eds.], Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British
Museum, Vol. III, London: The British Museum Press, 2006), where text 486 (= BM 26668)
is dated “Nbn 18/III/18” (= day 18, month III, year 18). On my request Dr. Jonathan
Taylor, who is Curator at the Department of the Middle East at the British Museum,
collated the tablet. In an email dated January 15, 2008, he explained:
“A year 18 for Nabonidus would indeed be very interesting. Unfortunately,
the 18 is a typo here and the tablet is datable simply to year 8.”
None of the four tablets listed by Furuli have an anomalous date. None of them, therefore,
may “suggest either that there was one or more years between Nabonaid and Cyrus, or that
the regnal years of Nabonaid could be calculated in a way different from the expected one.”
(Furuli, p. 63)
Summary
If a scholar believes it is possible to present a radical revision of the generally accepted
chronology of an ancient, well known historical period, he/she should be able to present
strong evidence of this, and he/she has to be very careful to check if his/her evidence is
valid before it is published. Furuli has done nothing of this. His claim that there are “about
90 anomalous tablets” from the Neo-Babylonian period is demonstrably false. And most of
the “anomalous dates” that he does quote have been proved not to be anomalous at all.
Fresh collations have shown that most of them either contain scribal errors or have been
misread by modern scholars, or have turned out to be modern copying, transcription, or
printing errors.
The question is why Furuli has used such tablets in support of his “Oslo chronology”
without having them collated. Basing a radical revision of the chronology established for
one of the chronologically best established periods in antiquity on misreadings and

misinterpretations of the documents used does not speak very well about the quality of the
research performed.
Part IV: The Neo-Babylonian Ledger NBC 4897

The cuneiform tablet NBC 4897 is a ledger, tabulating the annual growth of a herd of sheep
and goats belonging to the Eanna temple at Uruk for ten consecutive years, from the thirty-
seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar to the first year of Neriglissar. As it is an annual record, it
clearly shows that Nebuchadnezzar ruled for 43 years, his son Amēl-Marduk for 2 years, and
that the latter was succeeded by Neriglissar. The tablet makes it impossible to insert any
extra years or any extra kings between Nebuchadnezzar and Amēl-Marduk, or between
Amēl-Marduk and Neriglissar. This is strong evidence, indeed.
The first presentation and discussion of the tablet was included in an article written by
Ronald H. Sack, “Some Notes on Bookkeeping in Eanna,” published in M. A. Powell Jr.
and R. H. Sack (eds.), Studies in Honor of Tom B. Jones (1979). It was a brief, preliminary study
of just five normal-sized pages (pp. 114 -118), three of which contain a drawing of the
tablet.
Another discussion of the tablet appeared 16 years later in an article written by G. van Driel
& K. R. Nemet-Nejat, “Bookkeeping Practices for an Institutional Herd at Eanna,” Journal of
Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 46 (1994), pp. 47-58. It was a somewhat longer study of 12 large-sized
pages, six of which contain a drawing, transliteration and translation of the tablet. Their
article corrects a number of errors and misinterpretations by Sack.
The most extensive and detailed discussion of the tablet, however, is Stefan Zawadzki’s
article, “Bookkeeping Practices at the Eanna Temple in Uruk in the Light of the Text NBC
4897,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 55 (2003), pp. 99-123. Zawadzki’s discussion covers
25 large-sized pages, four of which give a transliteration and translation of the tablet. The
article contains the most detailed and careful examination of the tablet so far. He corrects a
number of misreadings and misinterpretations in the previous articles by Ronald H. Sack
and G. van Driel/K. R. Nemet-Nejat.
Do the total numbers on the tablet contain serious mistakes and
miscalculations?
Although van Driel and Nemet-Nejat corrected many misinterpretations and misreadings by
Sack, they also claimed that the interpretation of the tablet “is hampered by miscalculations
and mistakes in the text.” (Van Driel/Nemet-Nejat, p. 47) Their conclusion at the end of
their article (page 57) is quoted approvingly by Rolf Furuli, who claims that it “highlights the
lack of quality of this tablet”:
“For the most part, mistakes occur in the totals. The scribes probably had
difficulties similar to ours in reading the numbers in their ledgers. We can
understand small mistakes of a single digit, but the mistakes occurring in the
crucial final section of NBC 4897 again raise the question of how the
administrations could work with this kind of accounting.” – Quoted by Rolf
Furuli in his Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, pp. 247, 248 (2007
ed.; pp. 251, 252 in the 2nd ed. of 2008).
As is demonstrated by Zawadzki, however, these claims are much exaggerated. The fact is
that they are mainly based on misreadings and misunderstandings by the authors. As
Zawadzki explains, van Driel “has solved many problems, yet he has failed to explain several
significant points, or has proposed interpretations that require reevaluation.” (Zawadzki, p. 100;
emphasis added) In fact, when the tablet is correctly read, copied, understood and
translated, it can be shown to contain very few errors “in the totals”, and these are small and
unessential and do not occur “in the crucial final section of NBC 4897” as van Driel/Nemet-
Nejat state.
Concerning the claim that the mistakes for the most part “occur in the totals”, the most
serious of these according to van Driel/Nemet-Nejat’s translation are found in lines 31 and
35, where the numbers of sheep (rams + ewes + male lambs + young ewes) are summarized
as follows:
Line 31: 170 + 390 + 66 + 193 = total: 759.
Line 35: 5 + 198 + 14 + 51 = total: 198.
As van Driel/Nemet-Nejat observed (pp. 53, 57), the numbers they have read in line 31 add
up to 819, not 759, and those in line 35 add up to 268, not 198.
With respect to line 31, however, Zawadzki notes that, “Van Driel reads mistakenly 193
lambs while the copy gives clearly 133. The horizontal total of 759 is correct. Thus his
calculations in JCS 46, [page] 57 from point (3) to the end of the article [i.e., the whole last
page of the article] are wrong.” (Zawadzki, p. 104, note 23)
Line 35 contains two further misreadings: The number 198 is a misreading for 138
(Zawadzki, p. 104, n. 25) and number 51 is a misreading for 41. Paul-Alain Beaulieu, who
collated the original tablet at Yale, comments, “The tablet has a clear 41, indeed, but the
scribe has written 51 and then erased one of the Winkelhaken to make 41.” (Zawadzki, p.
104, n. 26) The horizontal total of 198 in line 35, therefore, is also correct.
Thus there are no errors “in the crucial final section” of the tablets. When the individual
figures have been correctly read, copied and translated, and the procedure used by the
accountant to arrive at the “totals” and the “Grand totals” is correctly understood, the
calculations of the accountant turn out to be surprisingly free from serious errors. At only
two places the “Grand totals” contains errors, and these are very small. For the 37th year
(line 5) the “Grand total” shows 176 animals instead of 174, and for the 40th year (line 14) it
shows 303 animals instead of 306. For all the other eight years the calculations are correct!
In view of this, it is remarkable that Rolf Furuli in his attempt to undermine the
chronological impact of NBC 4897 has devoted so little attention to Zawadzki’s careful
analysis of the ledger that he has failed to notice that his quotation from van Driel/Nemet-
Nejat about the supposed numerical mistakes on the tablet has been refuted by Zawadzki!
Table 1 below, which is based on Zawadzki’s study, summarizes the calculations in the
ledger, demonstrating that the Neo-Babylonian accountant usually did an excellent job and
that the few mistakes he did in his calculations of the annual increase of the herd were of
very small consequence. In the table “BF” means “brought forward” and “CF” means
“carried forward.” “Nbk” means Nebuchadnezzar, “AmM” Amēl-Marduk, and “Ngl”
Neriglissar. The regnal year numbers in the first column includes some emendations or
reconstructions by van Driel and Zawadzki. (Zawadzki, page 100, note 9) See further Table
2 below.
Table 1: A summary of the calculations in the ledger NBC 4897

Regnal BF from - - Hides - + Lambs + Kids Gran Actual
year: previous Animals (of dead Wages (male and (male d Grand
year: paid for animals) (= female): and total total:
shearing: : animals female): (CF)
) to on
shepher tablet
d(s): :
37th 137 - 12 - 4 16 + 36 0+1 176 174 !

Nbk
38th 176 -2 - 15 - 5 18 + 40 1+1 214 214

39th 214 -4 - 19 - 7 23 + 45 1+2 255 255
40th 255 -2 - 22 - 8 27 + 53 1+2 303 306 !
41st 303 - 7 (6+1) - 27 - 10 31 + 60 2+2 354 354
42nd 354 - 2 (1+1) - 32 - 11 40 + 65 2+2 418 418
43rd 418 -7 - 37 - 13 41 + 80 2+3 487 487
1st 487 -7 - 43 - 15 48 + 90 3+3 566 566
AmM
0 104 104
AmM
1st 566 + -5 665 665

AmM 104
2nd 665 -0 - 61 - 22 66 + 133 4+4 789 789

1st Ngl 789 -5 - 71 - 26 80 + 146 4+5 922 922
Seen 208 208
Not seen 922 - - 11 703 703
208 (8+3)
Note: The last three lines in the table summarize lines 34–36 of the tablet. In the 1st year
of Neriglissar the herd had increased to 922 animals according to line 34. Of these, 208
animals “were seen” according to line 35. As Zawadzki explains, this means that this was
“the part of the herd, which was actually brought to the inspection in Uruk”. As line 34
goes on to state that “8 lambs were received in Uruk, 3 lambs (were given) for shearing”, the
number of animals that “were not seen” was 703 (922 – 208 – 8 – 3) as line 36 of the tablet
shows.
Does the tablet indicate another king between Nebuchadnezzar and
Amēl-Marduk?
Lines 26, 27, and 28 of the tablet are dated to year 1, accession year, and year 1, respectively,
of Amēl-Marduk. At first glance this order seems strange. Furuli utilizes it for arguing that,
“If the name [in line 27] is Evil-Merodach, the king in line 26 is probably another king,
because the accession year of a king is mentioned in line 27, and the first year of a king is
mentioned in line 26. And naturally, the accession year of a king will be mentioned before
his first year.” (Furuli, p. 253)
Furuli has a tendency to “muddy the waters” by giving examples of how one and the same
cuneiform sign can be interpreted in many different ways. This is the method he resorts to
here. He claims that the signs translated Amēl-Marduk (Evil-Merodach) in line 26 can also
be read in many other ways. On pages 252-253 he gives a list of “24 different names, each
of which the signs can represent, depending on how each sign is read.” One of these names
is Nadin-Ninurta, which according to Furuli may have been an unknown king who “reigned
before Neriglissar.” (Furuli, p. 78)
But is a combination of a few signs really that problematic? Erica Reiner, who was a leading
specialist on cuneiform and Akkadian (she died in 2005), explains:
“In spite of the polyvalence of the cuneiform syllabary, there is normally
only one correct reading for each group of signs, whether the unit be a word
or a phrase; in those cases where there is actual ambiguity, it cannot be
solved from internal evidence alone, just as ambiguous constructions in any
language, including English. To take an example, if sign A has as possible
values the syllables ur, liK, DaŠ, and sign B the syllables kur, laD, maD, naD,
ŠaD, (K stands for an element of the set whose elements are {g, k, q}, abbr.
K Є {g, k, q}, similarlyŠ Є {z, s, ş, š}, D Є {d, t, >}), the combination
AAB, representing one word, will be read, of all possible 16.16.22 = 29.11 =
512.11 = 5632 combinations, uniquely and unequivocally as lik-taš-šad,
because of these 5632 combinations 5631 will be eliminated on graphemical,
phonological, and lexical grounds.” – Erica Reiner, “Akkadian,” in Lingustics
in South West Asian and North Africa (ed. T. A. Sebeok; Current Trends in
Linguistics 6; The Hague: Mouton, 1970), p. 293.
The signs for the royal name in line 26 are read as LÚ-dŠÚ by Sack, van Driel/Nemet-Nejat,
and Zawadzki. Furuli (p. 252) agrees that this is “a reasonable interpretation” of the signs,
although he indicates that the signs are only partially legible and that other readings,
therefore, are also possible, giving a number of examples of this. The name “Nadin-
Ninurta”, for example, would require that the signs can be read MU-dMAŠ instead of LÚ-
dŠÚ. To get to know if the signs are really so difficult to read I sent a question about the
matter to Elizabeth Payne, an experienced Assyriologist at the Yale University which holds
the tablet. Payne, who is also a specialist on the Eanna archive (to which NBC 4897
belongs), answered:
“This section of the text is not at all damaged. As indicated by Nemet-
Nejat’s copy (JCS 46, 48) the signs are well preserved and alternate readings
would require altering the text… I think Nadin-Ninurta can be safely
excluded.” (Email received on November 14, 2008)
As the reading LÚ-dŠÚ, then, is clear, the only reasonable translation is “Am ēl -Marduk”.
None of the other 23 alternative readings listed by Furuli is possible. Interestingly, Furuli’s
list does not include “the only really possible alternative reading of LÚ-dŠÚ, which is Amil-
ili-shú, ‘man of his (personal) god’, a name well attested, but in Old Babylonian times. Since
no Neo-Babylonian king by the name of Amil-ilishu is known, and there is a king Amil-
Marduk, it is exceedingly unlikely that Amil-ilishu should be read here.” (Email from
Professor Hermann Hunger dated November 11, 2008)
Apart from these linguistic considerations, a simple and natural explanation of the seemingly
peculiar order of regnal years is clearly indicated by the context.
What Furuli has not realized is that the addition of 104 animals in line 27 does not refer to
another year’s increase of animals due to breeding within the herd. It should be noticed that
figures of animals paid for shearing, hides of dead animals, and wages paid, which are given
for every year, are missing here. Instead, the reason for the adding of this number is stated
to be that it represents “income [irbu] from the month of Addaru [month XII], the accession
year of Amēl-Marduk.” This is the only place in the text where the word irbu (“income”) is
used.
As suggested by Stefan Zawadzki, the most likely explanation for this extra augmentation of
the flock stated to come from the end of the previous year (accession year of Amēl-Marduk)
is that “the managers of the temple decided, for reasons unknown to us, to increase the herd
by animals from other sources.” (Zawadzki, JCS 55, 2003, p. 103) These animals had to be
added to the herd at the next annual counting about a month or two later. The “Grand
total” in the 1st year of Amēl-Marduk, 566 animals, therefore, was increased by this added
group of 104 animals and reduced by the 5 animals paid for the shearing of the flock. This
increased the “Grand total” at the same occasion of counting to 665 animals as shown in
the next line (line 28 on the tablet).
This simple and natural explanation eliminates Furuli’s far-fetched and untenable
explanations about “unknown kings” in this period.
The readings of the regnal year numbers
As is shown by the drawings of Sack and van Driel/Nemet-Nejat, some of the year
numbers on the tablet are not easily identified and have been read differently by these
scholars. This is true of the year numbers in lines 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, and 28. Therefore I
wrote to the Yale University and asked if someone there could collate the year numbers
afresh. This was done by Elizabeth Payne who, in addition to her observations, also
attached a photo of the right half of the tablet. The results of her collations of the six lines
mentioned above are shown in the fifth column in the table below. She finds that, “In each
instance, the copy of van Driel/Nemet-Nejat is more reliable” than that of Sack. – Email
Payne-Jonsson, dated October 29, 2008.
The most reliable readings of the year numbers on the tablet are shown in column 6 of
Table 2. The numbers shown for those read differently by Sack, van Driel/Nemet-Nejat,
Zawadaki, and Furuli (those in lines 11, 14, 17, 20, 23, and 28) are based on Elisabeth
Payne’s collations of the original tablet. The reasons for the selected readings of those lines
are given below.
Table 2: The readings of the year numbers on NBC 4897
Line + king R. Van Rolf E. Payne’s The best
Sack Driel/Nemet- Furuli
mentioned Nejat corrections
readings
2 [Nbk]1 37 37 30-7(?) 372
5 37 37 37 372
8 38 38 38 38
11 29 38 ‘over erasure’ 29 38 38 (?)
14 40 41 40 40 or 41 40 (?)
17 31 41 42 41 41
20 32 42 42 42 42
23 -- 43 No year [4]3 43
26 AmM 1 1 1 1
27 AmM 0 0 0, 0
Another
king?
28 2 1 2 1! 1
31 2 2 2 2
34 Ngl 1 1 1 1
37 Nbk–Ngl: 37 – 1 37 – 1 37 – 1 37 – 1
Note 1: Line 2 does not contain the name of Nebuchadnezzar. That regnal years
37–43 refer to his reign is evident, however, because line 37 gives the following
summary of the amount of goat hair acquired from shearing during all the ten years:
“40 5/6 minas of goat hair from the 37th year of Nabû-kudurri-usur, king of
Babylon until the 1st year of Nergal-šarra-usur, king of Babylon.”
Note 2: Lines 2 and 5 are both dated to year 37. But as argued by van
Driel/Nemet-Nejat, line 2 shows the balance brought forward from the previous
year, i.e., the total number of sheep and goats (137) that had been entrusted the
shepherd, “Nabû-ahhē-šullim, the descendant of Nabû-šum-iškun,” in year 36.
Zawadzki (p. 100) agrees:
“Van Driel’s discussion of the accountant’s method of reckoning is correct.
The starting point of each subsequent account is the number of stock in the
herd specified in the account for the previous year, from which the scribe
subtracted … the dead animals (called KUŠ = mašku, ‘hides’), the animals
given as wages (idî) and for shearing (referred to as ‘x animals ina gizzi’ in
‘Grand total’).”
To the remaining number were then added the lambs and kids born during the
previous year, resulting in the new “Grand total” in line 5, “176” (actual total as
shown in Table 1: 174) at the beginning of year 37. (Zawadzki, pp. 102, 103) The
birthing and shearing took place around the turn of the year, “in the months Adaru-
Aiaru”, i.e., from month XII to month II, which “provided the opportunity to count
the stock” and pay the herdsmen “for the shearing after its completion.” (Zawadzki,
p. 100, including note 7)
The collations of Elisabeth Payne
Line 11: Elisabeth Payne says that “the tablet reads MU.38.KAM [year 38], as copied.”
Furuli claims (p. 248) that van Driel/Nemet-Nejat’s drawing “seems to be MU.28.KAM2,”
but he is wrong. A close look at the drawing shows three Winkelhaken, not just two, so they
clearly read “38”, which agrees with the tablet as Payne points out. Sack reads “year 29”,
which is adopted by Furuli, but this is wrong according to Payne.
Actually, we would have expected “year 39” in this line. Instead, the tablet seems to name
two successive years “year 38”, while year 39 is omitted. The total number of years remains
the same, of course. Interestingly, van Driel/Nemet-Nejat (p. 48) note in the margin of their
drawing that year number “38” is “written over erasure”, which might indicate that it is an
error for “39”. On the other hand, as the annual shearing and counting took place around
the turn of the year, it may have happened in some years that the shearing and counting
took place twice, first early in the year as usual, and the next annual shearing and counting in
the last month (Addaru) of the same year instead of early next year (39). This may very well
have been the case here.
Line 14: Sack’s drawing clearly shows “year 40” at this place, while van Driel/Nemet-Nejat
read “year 41”. In their drawing, however, the sign for “1” is not a normal wedge, as the
vertical line below the head is either too short or the wedge is turned diagonally upwards
toward the left. This is also seen on the photo of the tablet received from Yale. Elisabeth
Payne says: “The scribe clearly wrote MU.41.KAM, but there are traces of a possible
erasure. It is unclear to me how this line should be read. Either is possible…” As the next
year number in line 17 clearly is 41, the most logical conclusion is that “40” is the correct
reading here. This, in fact, is also how Rolf Furuli reads the number. (Furuli, pp. 248, 249)
Line 17: Sack has “year 31”, van Driel/Nemet-Nejat “year 41”, and Furuli “year 42”. Who is
right? The original tablet, according to Payne, has 41: “Year 41 is correct”. Sack’s and
Furuli’s numbers, therefore, are both wrong.
Line 20: Sack has “year 32”, but Payne does not hesitate: “Year 42 is correct,” she says. Van
Driel/Nemet-Nejat and Furuli agree.
Line 23: The year number is damaged, but it would logically be “43” as the next year is
dated to the “1st year of Amēl-Marduk,” the successor of Nebuchadnezzar. Van
Driel/Nemet-Nejat have “43” in their transliteration and translation, but suggest a possible
“42” on page 54. Actually, the last part of the number, “3,” is still legible. Payne explains:
“This line is, indeed, badly damaged, but there are legible traces. Read: P[AB.M]A.ME {87
MU.43.KAM} (erasure … ) The text continues after the erasure as read by vD/NN. The ‘3
UDU’ they have in this line, however, is NOT there – it is the +3.KAM from the date.”
Thus “43” is undoubtedly the correct restoration of the original number.
Line 28: The year number on this line is read as “year 1” by van Driel, but Sack, followed by
Furuli, reads “year 2”. Elizabeth Payne, who collated the line on November 14, 2008,
explains:
“I would read this section of the text as ‘mu.1!.kam’, as there are traces of a
second ‘tail.’ It is, however, markedly different from line 31, where there are
clearly two vertical wedges (mu.2.kam). In my opinion, the interpretation of
vD [van Driel] and NN [Nemet-Nejat] is correct, but the copy omits these
traces.”
In conclusion, the tablet obviously gives an annual count of the herd, with no years missing.
Furuli’s claim (p. 248) that “we cannot know that the tablet represents accounts of
successive years” is nothing but wishful thinking. That the tablet gives annual reports is also
confirmed by the calculations, as summarized in the Table 1 above. As the “Grand total” of
the previous year is the same as the BF (balance brought forward) of the next year during
the whole ten-year period, it is impossible to add any “unknown kings” or “extra years” to
the period. The BF – CF totals tie each year directly to the next year without break. Any
insertion of “extra years” or “unknown kings” would immediately destroy these obvious
connections and require more annual increases.
This is also confirmed by the annual increase of the herd. Furuli discusses this on page 257,
but his calculation is invalid because he includes the 104 animals in line 27 in the annual
increase of the herd, while in fact it was added from an external source as shown above.
Zawadzki, on the other hand, who takes this into consideration, finds that “the average
yearly growth of the herd (excluding the addition of new animals in AmM 1) was about
18%.” (Zawadzki, pp. 104, 105)
Thus the tablet NBC 4897 does show, clearly, that Nebuchadnezzar ruled for 43 years, and
that his son and successor Amēl-Marduk ruled for 2 years and was succeeded by Neriglissar.
Part V: Were there unknown Neo-Babylonian kings?

[Note: The first edition of Rolf Furuli’s volume 2 was published in the autumn of 2007.
Later in that year Part I of my critical review was published on this website. It was
demonstrated that Furuli’s attempt (in chapter 6 and Appendix C) to redate the lunar
observations recorded in the astronomical diary VAT 4956 was untenable. Evidently due to
my criticism, Furuli rewrote parts of his discussion of VAT 4956 and quickly had a second
revised edition of his book published in May, 2008. He even reclaimed copies of the first
edition he had sent out about that time, telling the recipients that he would send them a
copy of the new edition.
An examination of Furuli’s revisions, however, shows them to be just another failed
attempt to get rid of the historical reality as attested by VAT 4956. Very few changes were
made in the rest of the book. Thus chapter 4 that is discussed in this part of my review is
the same in both editions, the only difference being that chapter 4 in the first edition is
found on pages 65-87 while it is found two pages later, on pages 67-89, in the second
edition. The page references below are to pages in the first edition.]
As stated in Part III of this review, there are only two ways of extending the Neo-
Babylonian period to include the 20 extra years required by the Watchtower Society’s
chronology and thus also by Rolf Furuli’s so-called “Oslo Chronology”: (1) Either the
known Neo-Babylonian kings ruled longer than indicated by Berossus, the Royal Canon
(often misnamed “Ptolemy’s Canon”), and the Neo-Babylonian cuneiform documents, or
(2) there were other, unknown kings who belonged to the Neo-Babylonian period in
addition to those established by these ancient sources. The first option was discussed and
refuted in Part III of this review. The second alternative will be examined here.
In chapter 4 of his book (pages 65-87) Furuli presents “twelve possible Neo-Babylonian
kings,” some of whom he suggests may have ruled somewhere between the reigns of
Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus. This, he feels, would open up for the possibility that their
combined lengths of reign could move the reign of Nebuchadnezzar 20 years backwards in
time, as required by his Oslo version of the Watchtower Society’s “Bible chronology”. The
names of these “possible [additional] Neo-Babylonian kings” are:
(1) Sin-šarra-iškun (7) A king before Nabunaid
and his son
(2) Sin-šumu-lišir (8) Mar-šarri-us,ur
(3) Aššur-etel-ilāni (9) Ayadara
(4) Nadin-Ninurta(before (10) Marduk-šar-us,ur
Neriglissar)
(5) Bel-šum-iškun (father of (11) Nebuchadnezzar, son
Neriglissar) of Nebuchadnezzar
(6) Nabû-šalim (12) Nebuchadnezzar, son
of Nabunaid
The kings that Furuli suggests may have ruled as Babylonian kings during the Neo-
Babylonian period will be discussed one by one. In order to move the reign of
Nebuchadnezzar backwards it is important for the Watchtower Society and its Oslo
apologist to have the supposed extra kings ruling after Nebuchadnezzar. It would not be of
any help for them to place them as Babylonian kings before the reign of Nebuchadnezzar or
before the reign of his father Nabopolassar.
(1) “Sin-šarra-iškun”, (2) “Sin-šumu-lišir”, and (3) “Aššur-etel-ilāni”
The three Assyrian kings Sin-šarra-iškun, Sin-šumu-lišir, and Aššur-etel-ilāni are well-known
to authorities on Assyro-Babylonian history. Aššur-etel-ilāni and Sin-šarra-iškun were both
sons and successors of Assurbanipal, and Sin-šumu-lišir was a high official at the Assyrian
court whom Assurbanipal had appointed as tutor or mentor of Aššur-etel-ilāni,
Assurbanipal’s heir and immediate successor to the Assyrian throne. This is information
given by cuneiform texts from this period. The strange thing is that Furuli does not mention
any of these facts! He does state on page 65 that the three kings are “believed to have ruled
in Assyria after Sennacherib” (704-681 BCE). But he does not explain that they actually
ruled after the grandson of Sennacherib, i.e., after Assurbanipal (668-627 BCE).
Arguing that these three kings in reality may have ruled in Babylonia after the Neo-Babylonian
king Nebuchadnezzar (604-562 BCE), Furuli first claims that they were not Assyrian but
Babylonian kings. On page 66 he states that “the dated tablets show that they were kings in
Babylon (not Assyria) for 7 years, 4 years, and 1 year respectively.” On page 65 he says:
“The data regarding these kings show that they reigned at least 7, 1, and 4
years respectively, but the tablets dated in their reigns show that they were
Babylonian kings. This is problematic from the point of view of the traditional
chronology, because there is no room for these reigns, even if there was
some kind of coregency.” (Furuli, p. 65)
By claiming that these kings were Babylonian and not Assyrian kings Furuli creates a problem
that does not exist: If they were Babylonian kings, they cannot have ruled in Babylonia at
the same time as Nabopolassar, but must have reigned in Babylonia before this king. The
problem created by this conclusion is that there is “no room” for their reigns of 7+4+1
years between Kandalanu and Nabopolassar. (Furuli, p. 66) This paves the way for Furuli’s
idea that they may have ruled after Nebuchadnezzar:
“On the basis of the problems of finding room for these kings before
Nabopolassar, we may ask whether one or more of these kings ruled
Babylon during the years where we completely lack historical data, namely,
after Nebuchadnezzar and before Nabunaid. In other words, can any of
these kings fill a part of the possible gap of twenty years in the Neo-
Babylonian Empire?” (Furuli, p. 67)
The statement that we “completely lack historical data” from the period between the reigns
of Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus is false. Chronology belongs to the “historical data” as
it is the very “back-bone of history,” and the chronology of this period is completely
known. There are also other historical data from this period. A Babylonian Chronicle, BM
25124 (= Chronicle 6 in A. K. Grayson’s Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Eisenbrauns 2000
reprint of the 1975 edition) gives information about a campaign by Neriglissar in his third
year. Some of Nabonidus’ inscriptions also give information about his predecessors. (Paul-
Alain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556-539 B.C., New Haven and London:
Yale University Press, 1989, pp. 21, 84-97, 106, 110-111, 123-125) Further, Berossus, who is
known to have used sources from the Neo-Babylonian period, gives both chronological and
historical information about the four kings who succeeded Nebuchadnezzar: Amel-Marduk,
Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk, and Nabonidus. – See Stanley Mayer Burstein, The
Babyloniaca of Berossus (Malibu: Undena Publications, 1978), p. 28.
Were Sin-šarra-iškun, Sin-šumu-lišir, and Aššur-etel-ilāni Babylonian kings, really?
The claim that Aššur-etel-ilāni, Sin-šarra-iškun, and Sin-šumu-lišir were Babylonian kings, not
Assyrian, is demonstrably false. Contemporary sources prove that all of them were Assyrian
kings, who after the death of Kandalanu in 627 BCE attempted to retain the Assyrian
control over Babylonia and crush the revolt of the Chaldean general Nabopolassar. Dr.
Grant Frame explains:
“To the best of my knowledge, of these four contenders for control of
Babylonia only Nabopolassar ever used the title ‘king of Babylon’ or ‘king of
the land of Sumer and Akkad,’ or was called ‘king of Babylon’ in the date
formulae of Babylonian economic texts. In these economic texts, Aššur-etil-
ilāni, Sin-šumu-lišir, and Sin-šarra-iškun were called either ‘king of Assyria,’
‘king of (all) lands,’ ‘king of the world,’ or simply ‘king.’ The Babylonian
scribes obviously wished to avoid stating that any of these three was a true
king of Babylonia.” – G. Frame, Babylonia 689-627 B.C. (Leiden: Nederlands
Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1992), p. 213.
In a more recent work Grant Frame gives the following information about each of the three
Assyrian kings:
Aššur-etel-ilāni:
“Assurbanipal was succeeded as ruler of Assyria by his son Aššur-etel-ilāni
(or Aššur-etelli-ilāni). No inscription ever calls Aššur-etel-ilāni ‘king of
Babylon,’ ‘viceroy of Babylon,’ or ‘king of the land of Sumer and Akkad,’ nor
is he included in the various lists of rulers of Babylonia, which put Sin-šumu-
lišir or Nabopolassar after Kandalanu. However, a number of royal
inscriptions of Aššur-etel-ilāni do come from Babylonia and describe actions
in that land and thus these must be included here. Over ten economic texts
dated by his regnal years as ‘king of Assyria’ or ‘king of the lands’ come from
Nippur and these attest to his accession, first, second, third, and fourth
years.” – Grant Frame, Rulers of Babylonia. From the Second Dynasty of Isin to the
End of Assyrian Domination (1157-612 BC) (Toronto, Buffalo, London:

University of Toronto Press, 1995), p. 261.
As an example, tablet VAT 13142 calls Aššur-etel-ilāni “king of the world (and) king of
Assyria, son of Ashurbanipal, king of the world (and) king of Assyria.” (Frame, 1995, p. 264)
Sin-šarra-iškun:
“The last Assyrian king to exercise any control over at least part of Babylonia
was Sin-šarra-iškun, a son of Ashurbanipal. Exactly when he became ruler of
Assyria and when he held authority in Babylonia is unclear, but his reign
over Assyria ended in 612 BC. Only the Uruk King List includes him among
the rulers of Babylonia, assigning the year following the reign of Kandalanu
and preceding the reign of Nabopolassar (626 BC) to Sin-šumu-lišir and Sin-
šarra-iškun jointly (Grayson, RLA 6/1-2 [1980] p. 97 obverse 4´-5´). No
known inscription gives him the title ‘king of Babylon,’ ‘viceroy of Babylon,’
or ‘king of the land of Sumer and Akkad.’ …
No Babylonian royal inscriptions of Sin-šarra-iškun are attested and his
Assyrian inscriptions will be edited elsewhere in the RIM series [The Royal
Inscriptions of Mesopotamia] (as A.0.116). Approximately 60 economic texts
were dated by his regnal years in Babylonia. These indicate that he controlled
Babylon, Nippur, Sippar, and Uruk; the earliest texts come from his
accession year and the latest from his seventh year. None of these economic
texts, however, gives him the title ‘king of Babylon’; he is called instead ‘king
of Assyria,’ ‘king of the lands,’ and ‘king of the world.” (Frame, 1995, p. 270)
It should be added that, although Nabopolassar’s revolt was successful, it took some years
before he had attained control over all cities of Babylonia. A few Babylonian cities remained
under Assyrian control for a few years after the accession of Nabopolassar to the
Babylonian throne.
Sin-šumu-lišir:
“No royal inscriptions of Sin-šumu-lišir are attested from Babylonia. At least
seven Babylonian economic texts (including four from Babylon and one
from Nippur) are dated by his accession year. In these he is either given no
title, or called ‘king of Assyria’ or simply ‘king.’” (Frame, 1995, p. 269)
The legible dates on the tablets dated to Sin-šumu-lišir are only from months III and V of
his accession year. The Uruk King List gives the “kingless” year after the death of
Kandalanu in 627 BCE (the last tablet before his death is dated in month III, i.e., May/June)
to “Sin-šumu-lišir and Sin-šarra-iškun” jointly, undoubtedly because both were fighting for
retaining Assyrian control of Babylonia this year (626 BCE). Whether both also were kings in
this year is another question. It is known from contemporary cuneiform inscriptions that
Aššur-etel-ilāni, not Sin-šarra-iškun, was the immediate successor of Assurbanipal. This
information is provided by a cuneiform tablet designated KAV 182 IV. – Joan Oates,
“Assyrian Chronology, 631-612 B.C.,” Iraq, Vol. XXVII (1965), p. 135.
Not only the Adad-guppi’ inscription (Nabon. No. 24; see C. O. Jonsson, The Gentile Times
Reconsidered, 4th edition [henceforth GTR4], Atlanta: Commentary Press, 2004, pp. 113-116)
but also Berossus state that Assurbanipal ruled for 42 years. When his brother Shamash-
shum-ukin (Berossus: Samoges), Assyria’s vassal king in Babylonia, died in Assurbanipal’s 21st
year (648 BCE), Assurbanipal (Berossus: Sardanapallos) “ruled over the Chaldeans for 21
years.” (Burstein, op. cit., p. 25) This would indicate that Assurbanipal during the last 21 years
of his reign ruled both Assyria and Babylonia, in Assyria as Assurbanipal and in Babylonia
under the throne name Kandalanu. This is a view shared by a number of modern historians.
His last regnal year, then, was 627 BCE and the first regnal year of his son and successor
Aššur-etel-ilāni was 626/625 BCE. As the last tablet from his reign is dated to month VIII,
day 1, of his 4th year, the accession year of his brother Sin-šarra-iškun should fall in 623
BCE according to this chronology.

Two tablets from the reign of Sin-šarra-iškun and one or perhaps two from the reign of Sin-
šumu-lišir are from Babylon. It is to be noted, however, that all of them are dated only in
their accession years. This, too, would support the conclusion that Sin-šarra-iškun’s accession
year fell in 623 BCE, because the Babylonian Chronicle BM 25127 (= Chronicle 2 in A. K.
Grayson, Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles [ABC], New York: J.J. Augustin Publisher, 1975;
reprinted by Eisenbrauns in 2000, pp. 87-90) mentions a “rebel king” in the third year of
Nabopolassar (623/622 BCE) who ruled for “one hundred days”. For a brief period in that
year, therefore, Nabopolassar seems to have lost control over the capital. The “rebel king”
may have been Sin-šarra-iškun.
With respect to Sin-šumu-lišir, prosopographical evidence strongly indicates that his brief
reign of about three months fell in 626 BCE, before Nabopolassar’s enthronement in
Babylon. – Rocío Da-Riva, “Sippar in the Reign of Sîn-šum-lîšir (626 BC),” Altorientalische
Forschungen, Band 28, 2001, pp. 53-57.
The three kings discussed above were demonstrably kings of Assyria, not of Babylonia. This
cannot be changed by the fact that Assyria continued to retain control over a few
Babylonian cities during the first years of the reign of Nabopolassar. There is absolutely no
reason for trying to find room for the reigns of these three kings among the Neo-
Babylonian rulers, neither before Nabopolassar nor after the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, as
Furuli claims. They belonged to the Assyrian kingdom. As that kingdom continued to exist
for seventeen years after Nabopolassar’s conquest of Babylon in 626 BCE, there was
enough room for their rule as Assyrian kings during the final stage of Assyria’s existence.
Furuli’s emphatic claim that “we have three kings who reigned over Babylonia for at least 11
years who cannot be fitted into the traditional chronology of Babylonia” is completely
groundless. (Furuli, p. 70) The Assyrian rulers during the final stage of Assyria were
contemporary with the Babylonian ruler Nabopolassar.
This is also confirmed by the Babylonian Chronicle BM 21901, which covers the period
from the 10th year of Nabopolassar until his 18th year (616/15–608/607 BCE). The
chronicle describes the conquest and destruction of Nineveh, the Assyrian capital, in the
14th year of Nabopolassar and states: “At that time Sin-sharra-ishkun, king of Assyria, [died]
… .” – Grayson’s ABC (1975, 2000), Chronicle 3: 44, p. 94.
Thus Sin-šarra-iškun was still “king of Assyria” in the 14th year of Nabopolassar! How, then,
can it be claimed that he was a Babylonian king and that his reign, therefore, has to be placed
before that of Nabopolassar, and, because there is no room for him there, it has to be placed
after the reign of Nebuchadnezzar? The whole idea is preposterous and bears witness to an
astounding historical ignorance on the part of Rolf Furuli.
The same chronicle (BM 21901) goes on to tell that after Sin-šarra-iškun’s defeat at the fall
of Nineveh (in 612 BCE) he was succeeded by Ashur-uballit, who “ascended the throne in
[the Assyrian provincial capital] Harran to rule Assyria.” There he was finally defeated in the
17th year of Nabopolassar (609 BCE), and with that Assyria ceased to exist. From then on
Babylonia was in possession of the hegemony in the Near East. – Grayson, ABC (1975,
2000), Chronicle 3: 49-75, pp. 94-96.
In my discussion of the attempts by scholars to reconstruct the final stage of Assyrian
history and the reigns of its rulers, I briefly described the solution of the problems presented
by Joan Oates in Iraq, Vol. XXVII (1965), pointing out that it had been accepted by some
other scholars as “most probably the correct one.” (The Gentile Times Reconsidered, 4th ed.
[hereafter GTR4], Atlanta: Commentary Press, 2004, p. 331) In her more recent chapter on
“The Fall of Assyria (635-609 B.C.)” in The Cambridge Ancient History (2nd ed., Vol. III:2,
Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 162-193) Oates once again develops her solution of
the problems and also adds some new information in support of it.
The dwindling extent of Assyrian control of Babylonia after the accession of Nabopolassar
Furuli’s description of the extension of the Assyrian control of Babylonia after the accession
of Nabopolassar is false. He claims that “Sin-šarra-iškun reigned over a great part of, or the
whole of Babylonia during his 7 or more years of reign”, and that “the contract tablets show
that he was ruler over all Babylonia during his 7 or more years.” (Furuli, p. 69)
On pages 65 and 66 Furuli states:
“Of the 57 tablets dated to Sin-šarra-iškun, 22 are from Nippur (central
Babylonia), 2 from Babylon (in the northeast), 9 from Uruk (in the south), 5
from Sippar (central Babylonia), 1 from Kār Aššur, and 18 are without the
name of the city.”
This makes five cities, two of which were not even Babylonian cities. Strangely, Furuli
reckons the lack of city names on some tablets as a sixth city, stating on page 67 that “tablets
from six Babylonian cities are dated in the reign of Sin-šarra-iškun.”
Of the five cities controlled by Assyria after Nabopolassar’s accession in Babylon in 626,
only three were unquestionably Babylonian cities. Kār Aššur, which was situated north-east of
Babylonia, had been constructed by Assyria in the eighth century BCE. In his first campaign
in 745 BCE the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III is stated to have brought captives from
cities in eastern Babylonia and resettled them in Kār Aššur. – A. K. Grayson in The
Cambridge Ancient History, 2nd ed., Vol. III:2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991),
p. 81.
Nippur came under Assurbanipal’s control at the end of 651 BCE during the revolt of his
brother Šamaš-šum-ukin. It remained an Assyrian city during the rest of Assurbanipal’s
reign as shown by documents from Nippur dated by his name, while tablets from other
Babylonian cities were dated by the name of Kandalanu during the same period. Dr. Stefan
Zawadzki explains:
“Consequently, regardless of whether we accept the identity of Ashurbanipal
and Kandalanu or not, the dates clearly indicate that Nippur was not
under Babylonian control but directly under Assyrian
administration. This situation prevailed later also: Aššur-etel-ilāni dates
on business documents come exclusively from Nippur. Lastly, Nippur
remained for the longest (along with Uruk and Kar-Aššur) in the hands of
the [next to] last Assyrian king, Sin-šar-iškun. This has led scholars to
conjecture that Nippur could have been the site of a powerful Assyrian
garnison established there with the aim of wielding control over central
Babylonia. Thus, during the period from Ashurbanipal assumption (with an
intermission of 660-651) until the end of Assyrian presence in Babylonia,
Nippur was considered to be [an] almost integral part of Assyria.
Therefore, the fact that documents there were dated under Ashurbanipal’s
name cannot stand in the way of identifying him as Kandalanu.” – Stefan
Zawadzki, The Fall of Assyria and Median-Babylonian Relations in the Light of the
Nabopolassar Chronicle (Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University Press, 1988), p.
59. (Emphasis by S. Zawadzki; cf. also the discussion by Steven W. Cole,
Nippur in Late Assyrian Times, c. 755-612 BC. Vol. IV in the State Archives of
Assyria Studies, University of Helsinki, 1996, pp. 78-83.)
Furuli’s claim (p. 69) that Sin-šarra-iškun was ruler over most or all of Babylonia, then, is
false. Only a few of the many cities in Babylonia remained under Assyrian control for a brief
period after the accession of Nabopolassar. According to the economic tablets, Sin-šarra-
iškun’s control over the city of Babylon is limited only to a part of his accession year. His
control over Sippar is dated only until the beginning of his 3rd year. His control over Nippur
(which, although situated in southern Babylonia, in this period was an Assyrian city as
shown above) lasted until his 6th year, while his control over Uruk is dated in his accession
year and in his years 6 and 7. After that Nabopolassar had full control over all Babylonia and
could start to attack Assyria proper in the north. – J. A. Brinkman and D. A. Kennedy,
“Documentary Evidence for the Economic Base of Early Neo-Babylonian Society,” in
Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 35/1-2 (1983), pp. 52-59.
(4) “Nadin-Ninurta (before Neriglissar)”
On pages 77-78 Furuli suggests that a king named “Nadin-Ninurta” may have ruled in the
period after Nebuchadnezzar and before Neriglissar. This idea is based upon Furuli’s
discussion of the Neo-Babylonian “ledger” NBC 4897 in his Appendix A (pp. 247-257 in
the 2007 edition; 251-262 in the 2008 edition). As this ledger has already been discussed in
Part IV of my review and the idea that line 26 may refer to some other king than Amēl-
Marduk was thoroughly refuted, there is no need to repeat that discussion here. The claim
that the signs for the royal name in line 26 of the ledger, transliterated LÚ-dŠÚ, can be read
in many different ways and refer to at least 24 different royal names is unfounded and false.
See Part IV, section “Does the tablet indicate another king between Nebuchadnezzar and
Amēl-Marduk?”
(5) “Belšumiškun, king of Babylon”
On page 80 Furuli mentions another four “possible unknown Neo-Babylonian kings,” the
last of which is Belšumiškun, the father of Neriglissar. Furuli refers to one of the Neo-
Babylonian royal inscriptions translated by Stephen Langdon, which he quotes as saying:
“I am the son of Bel-šum-iškun, king of Babylon.”
The second volume of Langdon’s work on the Neo-Babylonian royal inscriptions, however,
which included the inscriptions from the reign of Neriglissar, was never published in
English. The manuscript was translated into German by Rudolf Zehnphund and published
under the title Die neubabylonischen Königinschriften (Leipzig 1912). The inscription that is
supposed to give Belšumiškun the title “king of Babylon” is listed as “Neriglissar Nr. 1”.
The original Akkadian text as transliterated by Langdon reads in Col. I, line 14 (pp. 210,
211):
“mâr I ilu bêl-šum-iškun šar bâbiliki a-na-ku”
This is verbatim translated into German as,
“der Sohn des Belšumiškun, des Königs von Babylon, bin Ich,”
A literal translation of this into English would be “the son of Belšumiškun, the king of
Babylon, am I,” rather than “I am the son of Bel-šum-iškun, king of Babylon.”
This is probably also what was written in Langdon’s English manuscript. In W. H. Lane’s
book Babylonian Problems (London, 1923), which has an introduction by Professor S.
Langdon, a number of the translations of the Neo-Babylonian inscriptions is published in
Appendix 2 (pp. 177-195). They are said to be taken from the work, “Building Inscriptions
of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, by STEPHEN LANGDON, translated by E. M.
LAMOND.” The last of these royal inscriptions is “Neriglissar I” (pp. 194, 195). Line 14 of
the text says (p. 194):
“the son of Belšumiškun, King of Babylon, am I.”
It is obvious that this statement may be understood in two ways. Either the phrase “King of
Babylon” refers back to Belšumiškun as king or it refers to Neriglissar himself. As no
contract tablets have been found that are dated to Belšumiškun as king of Babylon, the
statement is most likely a reference to Neriglissar. Do we know anything about
Belšumiškun, more than that he was the father of Neriglissar?
It is known that Neriglissar, before he became king, was a well-known businessman, and in
several business tablets he is referred to as “Neriglissar, the son of Belšumiškin.” In none of
these tablets is Belšumiškun stated to be, or to have been, king of Babylon.
It is important to notice that Neriglissar mentions his father in another building inscription,
“Neriglissar Nr. 2,” not as king but as “the wise prince.” The same title is also given him on
a damaged clay cylinder kept in St. Louis Library. – S. Langdon, (1912), pp. 214, 215; J. A.
Brinkman, Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Vol. 25 (1976), pp. 41-50.
If Belšumiškun really was, or had been, a king, why would he be degraded to the role of a
prince, even by his own son?
Actually, the real position of this Belšumiškun is known. The so-called “Court List,” a prism
found in the western extension of Nebuchadnezzar’s new palace, mentions eleven district
officials of Babylonia. One of them is Belšumiškun, who is there described as the “prince”
or governor over “Puqudu,” a district in the north-eastern part of Babylonia. The officials
on the “Court List” held their positions during the reign of Nebuchadnezzar. – Eckhard
Unger, Babylon (1931), p. 291; D. J. Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1985), pp. 62, 73-75.
So why should Neriglissar in one of his royal inscriptions call his father “King of Babylon,”
when he had never occupied that position, and is denied that title in all other texts that
mention him? If Furuli’s quotation, as translated from German, had been correct, a possible
explanation could have been that Neriglissar, who had usurped the Babylonian throne in a
coup d’état, attempted to justify his course of action by claiming royal descent. In the
inscription where Neriglissar seems to be calling his father “the wise prince” (“Neriglissar
Nr. 2”), this title is followed by other epithets: “the hero, the perfect, mighty wall that
eclipses the outlook of the country.” If this description really refers to Belšumiškun and not
to Neriglissar himself (the text is somewhat ambiguous), it would reflect a tendency to
glorify the descent of Neriglissar. But to state in a royal inscription that Belšumiškun had
been “King of Babylon” would have been foolish, as everyone in Babylonia would know
that the claim was false.
It is true that P.-R. Berger in his work Die neubabylonischen Königsinschriften (1973), in which the
inscription “Neriglissar I” is designated ”Ngl Zyl. II, 3,” says the following on page 77 about
the title in Col. I, line 14:
”In Zylinder II, 3 schliesslich steht hinter dem Vaternamen der Königstitel
b. Nach dem bisher üblichen Inschriftsbrauch wären es Aussagen über den
Vater und nicht den Autor. Dafür würde auch die wenigstens graphisch
präteritale Verbalform des Relativsatzes sprechen.”
Translation:
“In Cylinder II, 3, finally, the royal title b. [‘King of Babylon’] stands behind
the name of the father. According to the use in inscriptions common so far,
this would be statements about the father and not about the author. The
graphic preterite verbal form of the relative clause, at least, would also speak
in support of this.”
However, it is quite clear that the phrase in Akkadian is ambiguous. This is shown, for
example, by J. M. Rodwell, who in an article in the work, Records of the Past, Vol. V (London,
1892), translated the phrase without the second comma sign (cuneiform, of course, did not
use comma signs at all), so that the title “king of Babylon” is naturally given to Neriglissar:
“son of BEL-SUM-ISKUN, King of Babylon am I”. (Page 139)
Modern experts on cuneiform agree that this translation is just as possible as the other one.
One of my correspondents sent a question to Dr. Jonathan Taylor at the British Museum
about this matter. In an email dated October 25, 2006, Dr. Taylor answered:
“Dear . . ..,
While one might expect the royal title to refer here to the father -- note also
that Neriglissar refers to himself as king only a few lines earlier -- it is not
impossible that the title refers to Neriglissar. It is not unknown for rulers to
conclude a paragraph with an affirmation of their kingship. …
Jon
(Jon Taylor)”
The same correspondent also wrote to Michael Jursa, another well-known Assyriologist and
specialist on cuneiform and the Akkadian language. In an email dated October 23, 2006 he
explained:
“Dear Mr. ---,
the Akkadian is indeed ambiguous. If one wanted one could take ‘king of
B[abylon]’ as referring to the preceding name, i.e. to Neriglissar’s father,
rather than to Neriglissar himself. But the other explanation (i.e. the king is
Neriglissar) is just as good, and we know of course that it is correct:
the passage means ‘I am N[eriglissar], son of BSHI [Belšumiškun], the king
of Babylon’ - or in German where this is clearer because of the case endings
– ‘Ich bin N, der Sohn des BSHI, der König von Babylon’. It is more a
problem of English language that a literal translation which preserves the
word order of the original Akkadian makes BSHI a king, rather than his son.
In Akkadian, this is not so. I am surprised that Langdon should have got it
wrong – possibly the work of an uninformed translator who misunderstood
the English original.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Jursa”
Belšumiškun, then, was never a Neo-Babylonian king. No documents of any kind have been
found that are dated to his reign. In the politically neutral economic tablets he is never called
a king, and Neriglissar himself calls him “prince”, which was evidently the correct title of
Belšumiškun. The claim that Neriglissar once, in one of his boastful building inscriptions,
calls him “king of Babylon,” seems clearly to be based on a mistranslation.
(6) “Nabû-šalim”
Another “unknown king” that Furuli believes may have ruled during the Neo-Babylonian
period somewhere after Nebuchadnezzar is named “Nabû-šalim,” or “Nabû-ušallim” as his
name is usually spelled. In note 113 on page 78 Furuli refers to a tablet held at The
Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery designated “1982.A.1749”. This reference is wrong.
The correct designation is “1982.A.1772”. A copy, transliteration and translation of the
tablet is published in an article by Dr. Michael Jursa, “Neu- und spätbabylonische Texte aus
den Sammlungen der Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery,” Iraq, Vol. LIX (1997), pp. 97-
174. The tablet on which the name Nabû-ušallim appears is No. 47 of the 63 tablets
presented by Michael Jursa in the article.
As Furuli explains, the tablet “is dated to ud.8.kam mu.4.kam idAG-GI, which is translated ‘8
Elulu, year 4, Nabūnaid.’ However, regarding the signs idAG-GI, Jursa comments: ‘An error
for idAG-I.” The signs for idAG-I mean “Nabonidus,” while the signs for “idAG-GI” mean
“Nabû-ušallim.” Thus it would seem that the tablet is dated to the 4th year of an unknown
king named Nabû-ušallim.
What Furuli does not tell his readers, however, is that the name Nabû-ušallim appears at
three places on the tablet, in lines 2, 4, and 16, and that it is only in line 16 it is used of the
king. Lines 1-4, with the other two occurrences of the name, read (in translation from
German):
“Three and a half shekels of silver from the ilku-debt of Nabû-ušallim have
Nabû-taklak and Palitu, the wife of Bēl-ušallum, received from Nabû-
ušallim.”
Nabû-ušallim was, in fact, a well-known businessman during the Neo-Babylonian period.
(He is not to be confused with an earlier businessman by the same name, see Hermann
Hunger, “Das Archiv des Nabû- Ušallim,” Baghdader Mitteilungen, Band 5, 1970, pp. 193-
304). His name appears regularly in business contracts from the 40th year of
Nebuchadnezzar until the 7th year of Nabonidus. – Cornelia Wunsch, Die Urkunden des
babylonischen Geschäftsmannes Iddin-Marduk, Vol. I (Groningen: STYX Publications, 1993), pp.
27, 28.
In view of this, Furuli’s claim that Nabû-ušallim may have been a king “for at least 4 years”
– which, of course, he must place in the period between Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus –
is refuted by the business documents, which present him only as a businessman during all
these years and even longer.
So what about idAG-GI instead of idAG-I in line 16 on the tablet? As Furuli points out, the
close similarity between the two names appears only in the transliterated forms, not in the
Akkadian (the cuneiform signs for Nabû-ušallim and Nabû-nā’id):
‘We should remember that although gi and i have some resemblance in
English, that is not the case in Akkadian. In the name of the king, gi and i are
not letters or syllables but logograms. Thus they represent two different
words.’ (Furuli, p. 80)
This is true of the latter part of the names. But the first part of the names, ‘Nabû-’, is
identical in cuneiform. It is not so strange, therefore, that the scribe, on beginning to write
the signs for ‘Nabû-nā’id’ in line 16, inadvertently happened to repeat the name he had just
written twice earlier in the text, ‘Nabû-ušallim.’ This kind of error, called dittography, is a
common one. Obviously, the king intended was Nabonidus, as also Jursa rightly points out
in his note on page 128 of his article.
(7) “A king before Nabunaid and his son”
On pages 76, 77 of his book Furuli believes he has found another “unnamed king” who may
have ruled between Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus. He feels he has found this new king
on a tablet at the British Museum known as “The Dynastic Prophecy.” Its museum number
is 40623. The tablet is translated and discussed by A. K. Grayson on pages 24-37 of his
work Babylonian Historical-Literary Texts (Toronto and Buffalo: University of Toronto Press,
1975. On page 24 Grayson describes the contents and state of the tablet as follows:
“It is a description, in prophetic terms, of the rise and fall of dynasties or
empires, including the fall of Assyria and rise of Babylonia, the fall of
Babylonia and rise of Persia, the fall of Persia and the rise of the Hellenistic
monarchies. Although as in other prophecies no names of kings are given,
there are enough circumstantial details to identify the periods described. …
“The main tablet appears to have had an introductory section (i 1-6) of
which only a few traces are preserved. After a horizontal line the first
‘prophecy’ appears (i 7-25). Although only the ends of lines are preserved, it
is clear that this section contained a description of the fall of Assyria and the
rise of the Chaldaean dynasty.”
This section ends with a horizontal line, which Furuli claims (page 77) marks the end of the
reign of Nebuchadnezzar II. There is no evidence of this. As Grayson points out (page 24),
the various details given “suit admirably for the reign of Nabopolassar.”
The first three lines of the next section in column ii are damaged and illegible, but lines 4-10,
quoted by Furuli, give the following information (the words within brackets are suggested
restorations by Grayson, but the horizontal line after line 10 is on the tablet):
4. will go up from [… …]
5. will overthrow [… …]
6. For three years [he will exercise sovereignty]
7. Borders and … [… …]
8. For his people he will [… …]
9. After his (death) his son will [ascend] the throne ([ … ])
10. (But) he will not [be master of the land].
________________________________________________
Grayson argues (pp. 24, 25) that, “Since the following section (ii 11-16) is clearly about
Nabonidus, this paragraph must concern some period after the reign of Nabopolassar and
before Nabonidus.” As he goes on to note, the preserved information in lines 6-10 seems to
refer to Neriglissar and his son and successor Labashi-Marduk. That Nebuchadnezzar and
his son Amel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach) are left out is understandable, as the “prophecies”
focus on the rise and fall of dynasties and empires and therefore do not deal with all reigns.
With respect to the “three years” in line 6, Grayson adds in footnote 3 on page 25: “Perhaps
one should restore ‘(and) eight months’ in the break.” In that case line 6 would originally
have read: “For three years [and 8 months he will exercise sovereignty].”
Furuli’s comment on this is that, “We see that Grayson adds words and translates in
accordance with the traditional chronology.” (Furuli, p. 76) He is wrong. In the traditional
chronology (as for example in the “Royal Canon”) Neriglissar is given a reign of 4 years.
What Furuli does not tell his readers is that Grayson uses the chronology presented on
another cuneiform tablet, the Uruk King List, which gives Neriglissar a reign of “’3’ years 8
months” and Labashi-Marduk “(…) 3 months”. (Grayson, p. 25, including n. 2; cf. GTR4,
pp. 105-108) The preserved portions of the Uruk King List start with Kandalanu (647-626
BCE) and end with Seleucus II (246-225 BCE). The preserved portions of the Dynastic
Prophecy start with the gradual overthrow of Assyria by Nabopolassar after the death of
Kandalanu and end somewhere in third century BCE. Grayson’s use of the chronology of
the Uruk King List, then, is quite natural, as both tablets cover roughly the same period and
seem to have been composed during the same century.
The statement in the Uruk King List that Neriglissar ruled for 3 years and 8 months does
not conflict with the traditional chronology. The Royal Canon (often misnamed “Ptolemy’s
Canon”), gives whole years only, while the Uruk King List at this place gives more detailed
information. As J. van Dijk observes, “the list is more precise than the Canon and confirms
throughout the results of the research.” – J. van Dijk in Archiv für Orientforschung, Vol. 20
(1963), p. 217.
Furuli disagrees with this, stating that “we have tablets dated in the reign of Neriglissar from
month I of his accession year until month I, and possibly month II, of his year 4. Thus
Neriglissar reigned at least for 48 months and not just for 3 years and 8 months (44
months).” (Furuli, p. 77)
This claim has already been discussed and refuted in Part III of the present review of
Furuli’s book. Fresh collations of the “anomalous” dates on the tablets used by Furuli for
dating the reign of Neriglissar show that they are either too damaged to be legible, have
been misread by modern scholars, or seem to be just scribal errors. The actual reign of
Neriglissar seems clearly to have started in month V of his accession year and ended in
month I of his 4th regnal year – a period of 3 years and 8 months, exactly as is stated on the
Uruk King List.
Furuli uses the only preserved words – “for three years” – on the otherwise illegible line 6 to
argue that they refer to another, “unnamed king” than Neriglissar who ruled for no more
than 3 years. He says in his last paragraph on page 77:
“If the scribe gives correct information regarding the three years of reign of
the king mentioned in line 6, this must have been a king who is not
mentioned by Ptolemy, and who is not found in the traditional list of kings
of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. This king also had a son who may have
ruled as king as well. So, the Dynastic prophecy may have given us two extra
Neo-Babylonian kings. … In any case, a king that ruled for three years is
unknown by Ptolemy and those who accept his chronology.”
Furuli should have added that such a king was also unknown by the astronomical compilers
of the Royal Canon from whom Ptolemy inherited “his” Canon, by Berossus in the early 3rd
century BC, by the compiler of the Uruk King List in the same century, by the accountant
who in the 1st year of Neriglissar wrote the “ledger” NBC 4897 (see Part IV of my review),
by Adad-Guppi’, the mother of Nabonidus, and by the scribes who wrote the tens of
thousands of contract tablets dated to the Neo-Babylonian period.
And, of course, the astronomical documents, in particular the five known astronomical
tablets that records observations dated to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar – the diary VAT
4956, the lunar eclipse tablets LBAT 1419, LBAT 1420, and LBAT 1421, and the planetary
tablet SBTU IV 171 – inexorably block every attempt to move the 43-year reign of
Nebuchadnezzar backwards in time in order to create room for more kings and twenty
more years between Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus.
Furuli’s use of just three words (“for three years”) from an otherwise illegible sentence on a
damaged line on the obverse of a very damaged tablet reveals how desperate and futile the
search for the “unknown kings” is that he needs for giving his “Oslo Chronology” at least a
semblance of credibility.
(8) “Mar-šarri-uşur” and (9) “Ayadara”
Among his “possible unknown Neo-Babylonian kings” Furuli mentions two names that
were found inscribed on objects discovered during William Frederic Badè’s excavations
between 1926 and 1935 at Tell en Nasbeh about 8 miles northwest of Jerusalem in Israel.
The site was (and still is) identified as ancient Mizpah, the city where the Babylonians
appointed Gedaliah as vassal ruler of Judah after their destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE.
The dates of the two inscriptions are difficult to determine. W. F. Albright, George
Cameron, and A. Sachs suggested dates that varied between the 11th and the 5th centuries
BCE. (Chester C. McCown, Tell en-Nasdbeh I: Archaeological and Historical Results. Berkeley and
New Haven: ASOR, 1947, pp. 150-152, 167-169) More recently some scholars have
suggested that they may have been found in what is now designated “Stratum 2,” which is
dated to the period following the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. – Jeffrey Z. Zorn,
“Mizpah: Newly Discovered Stratum Reveals Judah’s Other Capital,” in Biblical Archaeology
Review (BAR), Vol. 23:5, 1997, pp. 28-38, 66; also André Lemaire, “Nabonidus in Arabia
and Judah in the Neo-Babylonian Period,” in O. Lipschits and J. Blenkinsopp (eds.), Judah
and the Judeans in the Neo-Babylonian Period (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 2003), pp.
292, 293.
Mar-šarri-uşur
The name of the first individual was found on a potsherd. What remains of the inscription,
which had been engraved before firing and probably is written in Hebrew, has usually been
read as “[?B]N MR ŠR ZR [KN]” and is translated “[?s]on of Mār-šarri-zēra-[ukīn].” (C. C.
McCown, op. cit., pp. 167-169) Recently, however, Professor André Lamaire has argued that
the name could be read “[?]N MRŠRŞR[?, [?]?”, which he translates “Mar-šarri-uşur[?”. –
André Lemaire, op. cit., pp. 292, 293.
If the first two letters were “BN” (ben, “son”), the name of the son (the owner of the pot) is
not preserved. If the name of his father is correctly restored as Mar-šarri-uşur, his title and
position is not known. Furuli’s suggestion, that he was a king who reigned in Babylon, is just
an unfounded guess. Quoting a name without a title on a potsherd found in Judah and
suggesting that it refers to a king who may have been reigning in Babylon during the Neo-
Babylonian period is, of course, pure guesswork and a game that no scholar who wants to
be taken seriously would run the risk of becoming involved in. The name, written in
Hebrew characters, is either Assyrian or Babylonian, and if the inscription found at Mizpah
dates from the 6th century BCE, he (or his son) may perhaps have been one of the
Babylonian officials known to have been stationed there after the destruction of Jerusalem.
(J. Zorn, op. cit., pp. 38, 66)
Ayadara
The name of the second individual was found on a fragment of a slender bronze circlet with
an incised cuneiform inscription that originally consisted of 30-35 characters, of which only
11 are preserved. The inscription was not discovered until 1942 in Berkeley, when some
supposedly unimportant metal fragments were cleaned in a hot bath with caustic soda and
zinc. Jeffrey Zorn states:
“Since only a small part of the inscription survives, its translation is
problematic. It may have read ‘… Ayadara, king of the world, for (the
preservation of) his life and …’ This is clearly a dedicatory inscription of
sorts, but the words indicating what is being dedicated, and to whom, have
been lost. Even the identification of Ayadara is unknown; no one with his
name bearing the title ‘king of the world’ is known from any period. What is
remarkable is that such a dedicatory inscription should turn up on a small tell
in ancient Judah.” – Zorn, op. cit., p. 66.
A photo of the inscription, held at the Badè Museum of Biblical Archaeology in Berkeley,
California
Referring to the two inscriptions, Furuli believes he has found two more “unknown kings”
here who may have been ruling during the Neo-Babylonian period. He says:
“Babylonian kings by the names Mar-šarri-uşur and Ayadara are unknown in
the period covered by Ptolemy’s canon, but the discovery of these names
suggests that two kings with these names reigned in Babylon.” (Furuli, p. 80)
The discovery of the two names suggests nothing of the kind.
To find out if the name “Ayadara” really is totally unknown to scholars, a correspondent of
mine wrote to several Assyriologists and asked them if they knew anything about this king.
One of them, Dr. Stephanie Dalley at the Oriental Institute in Oxford, England, who turned
out to be working on texts from the Sealand dynasties, answered in an email dated 10
October 2007:
“The king is Aya-dara, abbreviation for Aya-dara-galam-ma, of the First
Sealand dynasty [dated to the mid-second millennium BCE]. I am editing a
very large archive of that king plus a few texts of his predecessor. The
abbreviated form of the name is known from King-list A.”
The form of the name in King-list A as translated by A. K. Grayson is “A-a-dàra.” – See p.

91 in D. O. Edzard (ed.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Band 6
(1980).
In a more recent letter to this author Stephanie Dalley explains:
“Although it was certainly unexpected to find that king’s name and titles at
Mizpah, I have no doubts about the identification. An abbreviated form of
his name, though with a different spelling, is already known from one of the
king-lists, and the title ‘king of the world’ is substantiated from one of Aya-
dara-galama’s year-names. The incorrect re-interpretation of readings given
by Horowitz and Ishida contains a basic grammatical error, among other
difficulties. All the sign values on the circlet have parallels in mid-second
millennium texts.” – Letter Dalley–Jonsson, received December 4, 2008.
Dalley states in her letter that more details “are forthcoming from my edition of texts from
the First Sealand Dynasty, which is now with the publisher, CDL Press.” Clearly, Ayadara
cannot be placed in the Neo-Babylonian period.
(10) “Marduk-šar-uşur”
One of the “unknown Neo-Babylonian kings” Furuli has referred to several times in the
past first appeared in 1878 in a lengthy article by an early Assyriologist named W. St. Chad
Boscawen. He placed the name, “Marduk-šar-uşur,” together with another mysterious
name, “La-khab-ba-si-kudur,” in a separate “Addenda” because he was uncertain about their
places in his chronological table. But another, contemporary scholar, Dr. Julius Oppert,
soon discovered that the second name was simply a misreading for Labashi-Marduk, the son
and successor of Neriglissar. – W. St. Chad Boscawen, “Babylonian Dated Tablets, and the
Canon of Ptolemy,” Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology (TSBA), Vol. VI (London,
1878), pp. 262, 263 (including footnote 1).
The “Marduk- šar-uşur” tablet is dated to day 23, month 9 (Kislev), year 3. However, it was
soon discovered, this time by Boscawen himself, that the name was a misreading for Nergal-
šar-uşur (Neriglissar). This information, too, was published in the very same volume.
Excusing himself, Boscawen explained:
“When we have some 2,000 tablets to go through, and to read names, which,
as everyone who has studied Assyrian knows, is the most difficult part,
because it is not easy always to recognize the same name, as it may be
written four or five different ways, you may judge it is an arduous task. I
have copied two apparently different names; but afterwards found them to
be variants of the same name.” – TSBA, Vol. VI (1878), pp. 78, and 108-
111)
That “Marduk- šar-uşur” was a misreading for Nergal-shar-usur was also somewhat later
confirmed by two other early Assyriologists, T. G. Pinches and J. N. Strassmaier.
Despite this, Furuli continued to insist that “Marduk- šar-uşur” is a possible reading of the
name, and that he may have been an unknown king who reigned during the Neo-Babylonian
period!
As Boscawen did not mention the BM (British Museum) number of the tablet, it has been
difficult to locate. Not until Ronald H. Sack published it as No. 83 (BM 30599) in his book
on Neriglissar could it be identified – by Furuli himself! The date on BM 30599 is the same
as that given by Boscawen, “month Kislev, 23rd day, in the third year.” In his “Addenda”
Boscawen noted that “the contracting parties are Idina-Marduk son of Basa, son of Nursin;
and among the witnesses, Dayan-Marduk son of Musezib.” (TSBA VI, p. 78) The same
individuals also appear on BM 30599 (the latter not as a witness, actually, but as an ancestor
of the scribe). It is clearly the same tablet. Sack, however, reads the royal name on the tablet,
not as Marduk-šar-uşur but as Nergal-šarra-usur (transliterated dU+GUR-LUGAL-SHESH). –
Ronald H. Sack, Neriglissar—King of Babylon (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1994),

pp. 224, 225.
To check if it really is possible for a modern Assyriologist to misread the name of Nergal-
shar-usur (Neriglissar) as “Marduk-šar-uşur”, I sent an email message to C. B. F. Walker at
the British Museum back in 2003 and asked him to take a look at the original tablet (BM
30599). In his answer, he explains:
“I have just taken BM 30599 out to check it, and I do not see how anyone
could read the name as anything other than dU+GUR-LUGAL-SHESH. A
reading Marduk-shar-usur would seem to be completely excluded. Our
records show that the tablet was baked (and cleaned?) in 1961, but it had
been published by T G Pinches in the 5th volume of Rawlinson’s Cuneiform
Inscriptions of Western Asia, plate 67 no. 4 in a copy which clearly shows
dU+GUR. It was also published by Strassmaier in 1885 (Die babylonischen
Inschriften im Museum zu Liverpool: Brill, Leiden, 1885) no. 123, again clearly
with dU+GUR. So the reading cannot be put down to our cleansing the
tablet in 1961, if we did.” (Walker to Jonsson, October 15, 2003)
How, then, could Boscawen misread the name? Another Assyriologist, Dr. Cornelia
Wunsch, who also collated the original tablet, pointed out in an email to one of my
correspondents that “the tablet is in good condition” and that there is “no doubt about
Nergal, as published in 5R 64,4 by Pinches. More than 100 years ago he already corrected
the misreading by Boscawen.” She goes on to explain that “Boscawen was not a great
scholar. He relied heavily on the notes that G. Smith had taken when he first saw the tablets
in Baghdad.”
But Furuli still seems unwilling to give up the idea that an unknown Neo-Babylonian king
named Marduk-šar-uşur might have existed. He argues on page 80:
“Sack read the name as Nergal-šar-uşur, and if this is the same tablet as the
one read by Boscawen, I can confirm that Sack’s reading is correct, because I
have collated this tablet myself at the British Museum. If both scholars read
the same tablet, a Neo-Babylonian king with the name Marduk-šar-uşur
never existed. However, the broken tablet BM 56709, the signs of which are
Neo-Babylonian, refers to year 1 of a king whose name begins with Marduk-.
So we cannot exclude that Boscawen read a tablet different from the one
read by Sack, and that a king with Marduk in his name reigned in the Neo-
Babylonian Empire.”
This tablet is listed in the Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum (CBT), Vol. 6
(London: The Trustees of the British Museum, 1986, p. 215). In an unpublished list of
“Corrections and additions to CBT 6-8” (my copy is dated March 18, 1996), which
Christopher Walker kept at the British Museum, Walker gives the following comments on
the text:
“56709 Marduk-[…] 12/–/1 Dated at Borsippa. CT 55, 92 (not CT 56,
356).
The tablet is probably early Neo-Babylonian.”
Note the words “probably” and “early Neo-Babylonian.” This is a suggestion. Furthermore,
scholars often use the term “Neo-Babylonian” to describe a more extended period than
625-539 BCE. The Assyrian Dictionary, for example, starts the period at about 1150 BCE and
ends it in the 4th century BCE. (Cf. GTR4, Chapter 3, n. 1) Maybe this is how Walker uses
the term here. The names of about a dozen Babylonian kings between ca. 1150 and 625
BCE begin with Marduk-, including Marduk-apla-iddina II (the Biblical Merodach-Baladan,
Isa. 39:1, who ruled in Babylon twice, 721-710 and 703 BCE), and Marduk-zakir-shumi II
(703). Thus, as the royal name is only partially legible and we do not know exactly to which
period the tablet belongs, it is useless for chronological purposes. Placing the king in the
Neo-Babylonian period somewhere after the reign of Nebuchadnezzar is based on nothing

else but wishful thinking.
(11) “Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nebuchadnezzar”
Contemporary sources mention seven of Nebuchadnezzar’s children, but none of these
bore the same name as their father. (D. J. Wiseman, Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon, Oxford
University Press, 1985, pp. 9-12) Furuli’s reference to a son of Nebuchadnezzar of the same
name is based on a much later source, a rabbinic work known as “The Chronicles of
Jerachmeel,” written by Eleazar ben Ašer in the twelfth century CE. (English translation by
M. Gaster, The Chronicles of Jerahmeel, London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1899) The chronicle
relates that Amel-Marduk had become victim to a slander campaign which caused his father
Nebuchadnezzar to sentence him to prison and make a younger son, named
Nebuchadnezzar, king:
“… Nebuchadnezzar the Great did not keep his faith with him, for Evil-
Merodach was really his eldest son; but he made Nebuchadnezzar the
Younger king, because he had humbled the wicked. They slandered him to
his father, who placed him (Evil-Merodach) in prison together with
Jehoiachin, where they remained together until the death of
Nebuchadnezzar, his brother, after whom he reigned.” – M. Gaster, pp. 206-
207; quoted by Irving L. Finkel, “The Lament of Nabû-šuma-ukîn,” in J.
Renger (ed.), Babylon: Focus mesopotamischer Geschichte, Wiege früer Gelehrsamkeit,
Mythos in der Moderne (Berlin: SDV, 1999), p. 335.
Furuli uses this very late and seemingly legendary story to argue that this “Nebuchadnezzar
the Younger” may have ruled one year as the immediate successor of Nebuchadnezzar the
Great before Amel-Marduk came to power. (Furuli, p. 79) This is indicated, he says, by the
conclusion (argued earlier in his chapter 3, p. 58) that Jehoiachin was released from prison
44 years, not 43, after Nebuchadnezzar had begun to reign. This idea has already been
refuted in Part III, section (3) of this review, to which the reader is referred.
There may be some truth, however, to the story of Amel-Marduk’s imprisonment. This has
been argued by Irving L. Finkel, who in his article quoted above publishes a Late
Babylonian tablet (BM 40475) in which an individual named “Nabû-šuma-ukîn, son of
Nebuchadnezzar” laments his grievous situation as a prisoner because of the evil trick
played on him by his enemy. Based on another tablet, BM 34113, Finkel suggests that Nabû-
šuma-ukîn was the personal name of Amel-Marduk before he was appointed Crown Prince
and adopted Amel-Marduk as his throne name.
This is an interesting suggestion, but if it could be shown to be correct there is no room for
a rule of a brother of his after the death of Nebuchadnezzar II. Finkel explains why:
“If this suggestion is indeed correct, a terminus ante quem for the date of
Amel-Marduk’s release and the adoption of the throne name is the month of
Ellul, year 39 of Nebuchadnezzar, i.e. 566 BC. This information is shown by
the contract VAS 3 25: 12-13, where reference is made to Nabû-nūrē’a-
lūmur, the eunuch (´ša reši`) of Amel-Marduk, the Crown Prince (mār šarri).”
– I. L. Finkel, op. cit., p. 338.
If Amel-Marduk had been released from prison and been appointed Crown Prince no later
than in the 39th year of Nebuchadnezzar, he must have been the immediate successor at the
death of his father in his 43rd regnal year. This is confirmed by a number of cuneiform
sources, including the ledger NBC 4897. (See GTR4, pp. 129-133; also
http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf3/review4.htm.)
(12) “Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabunaid”
The last of the twelve “unknown kings” that Furuli feels may have ruled during the Neo-
Babylonian period is based on the fact that two of the usurpers that Darius I had to defeat
during his rise to power after the death of Cambyses in 522 BCE claimed to be a son of
Nabonidus named Nebuchadnezzar. The brief reigns of the two usurpers are described in
the Bisitun Inscription of Darius I. A number of contract tablets dated to the accession year
and the 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar have been identified as belonging, not to
Nebuchadnezzar II but to the two usurpers (Nebuchadnezzar III and IV), which confirmed
that these two usurpers really existed. So far 66 tablets have been identified as belonging to
the two usurpers. – See my article in the British interdisciplinary journal Chronology &
Catastrophism Review of 2006, pages 26-28, including note 8 on page 37.
Furuli mentions these two “Nebuchadnezzars” from the early Persian period and suggests
that a second Neo-Babylonian king by the name of Nebuchadnezzar might also lie hidden
among the about 2,400 tablets (published up to the end of the last century) dated to
Nebuchadnezzar II. He asks:
“Could there have been two Nebuchadnezzars in the Neo-Babylonian
empire instead of just one? Who can exclude this possibility?” (Furuli, p. 84)
In support of this idea he quotes David B. Weisberg, who in 1980 expressed doubts about
some of the criteria used to distinguish between Nebuchadnezzar II and the two usurpers in
522/521 BCE. One of these criteria is the titles used of the kings. Nebuchadnezzar II is
usually titled “king of Babylon,” while the title of the Persian kings usually includes the
phrase “king of the countries.” When the latter title is used in tablets dated to
Nebuchadnezzar, therefore, the king is supposed to be one of the two usurpers. However,
as pointed out by Weisberg, there is one tablet in the Yale Babylonian Collection (YBC
3437) dated to year 18 (I/30/18) of Nebuchadnezzar II with the title “king of the
countries.” This criterion, he says, “should now be modified.” – David B. Weisberg, Texts
from the Time of Nebuchadnezzar. Yale Oriental Series - Babylonian Texts, Vol. XVII [YOS 17]
(New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1980), pp. xxi, xxii.
With respect to the criterion based on prosopography, however, Weisberg admitted that it
seems to be valid and cogent. His doubts primarily concerned whether there really were two
usurpers who claimed to be “Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabonidus,” or just one. – Weisberg,
op. cit., pp. xxii-xxiv.
David B. Weisberg’s work (YOS 17) was reviewed two years later by the French
Assyriologist Francis Joannès in the Revue d’assyriologie et d’archéologie orientale (RA), vol.
LXXVI, no. 1, 1982, on pages 84-92. Of the texts published by Weisberg, 38 are listed as
dated to the accession year and the first year of Nebuchadnezzar. Of these, Weisberg assigns
13 to Nebuchadnezzar II, one to Nebuchadnezzar III, and 17 to Nebuchadnezzar IV.
Joannès, however, finds another two texts assigned by Weisberg to Nebuchadnezzar II that
he on prosopographic grounds should have assigned to Nebuchadnezzar III and
Nebuchadnezzar IV. Joannès writes:
“The third part (pp. XIX-XXVI) concerns the distinction to make for the
first regnal years (years 0 and 1) between Nebuchadnezzar II on the one
hand, and the two usurpers Nebuchadnezzar III and Nebuchadnezzar IV on
the other hand. The doubt concerns 38 texts from YOS 17, for which the
author applies himself to make a choice, presented in a synthetic way on
pages XXIV and XXV. I admit that I do not quite understand, in this
context, the reasons for the long discussion devoted to Mušêzib-Bêl, son of
Zêr-Bâbili, descendant of Ilûta-ibni (pp. XXII-XXIII). The variant Ilûta-
ibni/Attabâni is evidently interesting, but the data provided in TCL XII and
Tum 2/3 cannot leave any doubt about the dating to make in the case of text
8.
“It would have been more fruitful to look into the case of Šamaš-mukîn-apli,
son of Madânu-ahhê-iddin, descendant of Šigûa, referred to in nos. 126 and
302, whom D. Weisberg attributes to years 0 and 1 of Nebuchadnezzar II.
But Šamaš-mukîn-apli, the šâpiru of the prebendal brewers in Eanna, is
attested from the 2nd year of Cyrus to the 22nd of Darius I. Likewise, in no.
126, the carpenter Guzanu (l. 23) is referred to elsewhere in the 5th year of
Cambyses. Thus no. 126 is to be dated to Nebuchadnezzar III, and D.

Weisberg’s argument that the defeat of this king would forbid a
contemporary attestation (here the 27, 28, 29-IX) is invalid. …
“In a corresponding way no. 302 is dated to Nebuchadnezzar IV. It is
important to emphasize that in such cases the title ‘king of Babylon’ or ‘king
of Babylon and of the countries’ does not constitute a decisive criterion. It is
the prosopography that remains the most useful one, when this is possible.
“He does not enter into our intention to go back in detail to this problem,
but we would like to emphasize one point: Right up to now the view
expressed by A. Poebel permits a reconstruction that is completely coherent,
and the elements brought up by YOS 17 certainly do not question them.” –
F. Joannès, op. cit., pp. 84, 85; (translated from the French). Arno Poebel’s
reconstruction is found in his article, ’The Duration of the Reign of Smerdis,
the Magian, and the Reigns of Nebuchadnezzar III and Nebuchadnezzar
IV,’ published in AJSL, Vol. 56:2 (Apr. 1939), pp. 121-145.
A detailed discussion of the chronology of the three usurpers Bardiya, Nebuchadnezzar III,
and Nebuchadnezzar IV was presented in a lengthy article by Stefan Zawadzki published in
1994. (Zawadzki, ’Bardiya, Darius and Babylonian Usurpers in the Light of the Bisitun
Inscription and Babylonian Sources,’ Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran [AMI], Band 27,
1994, pp. 127-145, with important details added in NABU 1995-54, 55, and 56) Zawadzki’s
discussion is based on a detailed prosopographic research that conclusively establishes the
existence and precise chronology of the three usurpers. For the two Nebuchadnezzars (III
and IV) the prosopographic information presented on pages 135 and 136 of the article is
particularly enlightening. Strangely, Furuli, who questions even the very existence of these
two kings, seems to be totally unaware of Zawadzki’s important study. At least he never
refers to it.
Furuli’s theory that there may also have been a second Nebuchadnezzar who ruled during
the Neo-Babylonian period, on the other hand, is completely groundless. He is not able to
present any criteria whatsoever by which such a theory could be tested.
Summary
In the discussion above it has been demonstrated that none of Furuli’s twelve “unknown
kings” can be inserted anywhere in the Neo-Babylonian period. Three of them were
Assyrian kings, not Babylonian, and one belonged to the First Sealand dynasty. One royal
name turned out to be an old misreading, three “kings” were not kings at all, and four
others did not even exist!
And, of course, there is no room for the insertion of any “unknown kings” or any “extra
regnal years” into the Neo-Babylonian period. Tens of thousands of dated tablets that fix
the length of each reign throughout the whole period, as well as several dozens of records of
astronomical observations dated to these reigns that turn them into an absolute chronology
make any attempt to lengthen or shorten this period impossible. All attempts to revise the
chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period have failed and have forced the proponents of
such revisions to either give them up or to claim that all the ancient documents that
contradict their theories must have been falsified by later writers and copyists. When reality
is in conflict with the theory, reality has to be rejected!
General Index 551
evidence from, 185-190; reliability of tablets,

358-364; computations versus observations,
General Index 184,185, 364-372; dates not revised in
Bold page numbers indicate that a person or subject is Seleucid times, 163, 164, 367- 372. See also
treated in some detail. Astronomical diaries, Saturn tablet, Lunar eclipse
texts, Strm. Kambys. 400
Aaboe, Asger, 156, 173, 184 Awel-Marduk: reign of, 98, 115, 120, 121, 124,
Abraham ben Hiyya Hanasi, 26 131-133, 316, 323-327, 348, 349
Absolute chronology, 74, 98, 153 Babylon: fal1 of, 80, 87, 90, 214, 223-225, 329,
”Absolute date”: used of 539 B.C.E., 80, 81 376
Accession years, 87, 144, 314-317, 335, 336 Bacon, John, 276
Ackroyd, Peter R., 215 Balfour declaration, 258, 259
Adad-guppi’, 113-116, 125, 126, 330-332 Barbour, Nelson H., 39, 44-50, 62, 68, 78
Adad-guppi’ stele, see Royal inscriptions Bardiya, 368
Advent Christian Church, 45, 312-314 Barnes, W. H., 223
Africanus,Julius, 81, 83, 84, 143, 301 Barry, Lloyd, 8
Against Apion (by Josephus): Jerusalem Barstad, Hans M., 22
desolated for fifty years, 298-300 Barta, Winfried, 144, 145
”Age to come” Adventists, 43, 312-314 Baruch: secretary of Jeremiah, 318, 319
Aid to Bible Understanding: article on Baumbach, H. Dale, 11, 12
“Chronology,” 19, 20 ”B.C.E.,” use of, 4, 72, 73, 75
Akibah ben Joseph, 25 Beaulieu, Paul-Alain, 98, 108-112, 138, 139,
Akitu Chronicle (BM 86379), 167, 186 171, 200, 327, 328, 331, 358
Albu, John, 284, 308 Beckwith, Roger T., 193
Albury Park Prophetic Conferences, 36, 37 Belshazzar: killed in 539 BCE, 75, 200; 1st and
Alexander Polyhistor, 91 3rd year of, 247
Allenby, Edmund, 237, 258 Bell, George, 30, 33
Almagest (by Claudius Ptolemy), 98, 99 Bengel, Johann A., 38
Amasis: reign of, 142, 143, 146, 147 Berger, Paul-Richard, 108, 109
Amble, Tor Magnus, 22, 213 Berossus, 91-94, 97, 147, 148, 164, 189, 206,
Amenophis II and III (pictures), 265 207, 289 ,295-300, 304, 324, 328
André, Béatrice, 21, 120, 322 Beru, Babylonian time unit (two hours), 181
Anshan: city and province of, 102 Bible Examiner (by George Storrs), 43, 49,50, 63,
Anstey, Martin, 193 314
Antiochus IV Epiphanes, 219, 245, 246, 270 Bible Students, 68, 71; periodicals of, 240
Antoninus Pius, 94, 95 Bickerman, Elias J., 82, 83, 90, 97, 225, 226
Apis: cult of, 140; stelae of, 140-142 Bickersteth, Edward, 38
Apla, son of Bel-iddina (a scribe), 126 Bock, Darrel L., 281
Apostates: reject 1914, 5, 6; are to be hated, 5; Bookkeeping: Babylonian, 131; the “ledger”
go to Gehenna at death, 5 NBC 4897 (with picture), 131-133
Appointed times of the nations, see Times of the Borger, Rykle, 231, 332
Gentiles Borchardt, L., 265
Apries (= Hophra): reign of, 142-146 Boscawen, W. St. Chad, 123-125, 135, 322
Armstrong, Karen, 280 Bowen, Christopher, 44
Arnold of Villanova, 28, 29, 33 Breasted, James Henry, 142, 207
Artaxerxes I, 73, 82, 83, 194, 320, 353, 368 Bright, John, 234 , 235, 316
Artaxerxes II and III, 194, 360, 371 Brinkman, John A., 96, 97, 100, 105, 136, 168,
Arthur, D. T., 39, 42, 313, 314 309
Ashkelon: desolated in 604 BCE, 199 Britton, John P., 171, 173, 177
Ashur (city of Assyria): capture of, 233 Brown, John Aquila, 32-36, 68, 69, 258, 276
Ashurbanipal: reign of, 113, 116, 330, 331 Bruce, F. F., 262
Ashur-etil-ili: reign of, 115, 116, 331, 332 Brute, Walter, 27, 33
Ashur-uballit II, 232, 233 Bullinger, E. W., 193
Associated Bible Students, 237 Burganger, Karl, 70, 84
Assyria: Final years of, 232-235, 376, 377 Burrows, Eric, 230
Astour, Michael C., 74 Burstein, Stanley Mayer, 92-94, 97, 134, 206,
Astyages (king of Media), 102, 104, 247 324, 328
Astrology: Babylonian, 155, 332, 333 Calment, Jeanne, see Longevity
Astronomical diaries: description of, 156, 157; chart Cambyses: reign of, 85, 329; conquest of
of, 158; photographs of, 160, 165; VAT Egypt, 144; “11th year” of, 322
4956, 84-87, 157-164, 186, 189, 355, 359- Campbell, Jr., Edward F., 292-294
362, 364, 365 ,367, 371; BM 32312, 165168, Campbell, W. S., 314
186, 289, 290 Carchemish: battle of, 146, 201-206, 232, 295,
297, 314, 315, 318
Astronomy: study of Babylonian texts, 153, 154; Chorbáh, see Desolation
observationa1 sites (with map), 154, 155; number
and nature of tablets, 155, 156; the astronomical
year “0”, 166; summary of
Christian era, 72, 73 103, 104; 539 BCE, fall of Babylon, 73, 75,
Chronicles: Neo-Babylonian, 100-105, 148; 78-87, 90, 103, 199, 200, 235, 251, 291, 302; 538
nature of, 100; reliability of, 104, 105; BM 21946, BCE, first year of Cyrus, 76-79, 81, 85; return
101 (picture), 102, 201-203, 207, 295, 296, 339,340, of Jewish exiles, 90, 223; 537 BCE, Watch
342, 343; Nabonidus Chronicle, 102, 103 (with picture); Tower date for return of exiles, 90, 191, 200;
BM 21901, 233; BM 22047, 346 536 BCE, end of the 70 years in Russell’s
Chronological 1inks, 129-139, 151 chronology, 78, 79, 81; 530 BCE, last year of
Chronology: central role in Watch Tower teaching, Cyrus, 85; 455 BCE, 20th year of Artaxerxes I
2, 5; absolute and relative, 74-76; Assyro- in Watch Tower chronology, 73, 82, 84, 194,
Babylonian, 97; Neo-Babylonian (tables), 98, 353, 354; 445 BCE, correct date for 20th year
117, 121, 350-352. See also Time periods: 70 years of Artaxerxes I, 82, 84, 194, 353; 70 CE,
Clarke, I. F., 64 Roman destruction of Jerusalem, 245, 279- 281;
Clement of Alexandria, 300 622, first year of the Hegira era, 32; 1798, fixed
Collins, John J., 255, 337, 338 as beginning of “time of the end” by Adventist
Conditional immortality, 43, 312-314 groups, 30, 274, 277, 278; changed by C. T.
Contenau, G., 120, 322 Russell to 1799, 277, 278; 1843, predicted end
Contract tablets, see Economic-administrative texts of prophetic time periods and the second
Cooper, David L., 193 advent, 32, 35, 38, 39, 41; later changed to 1844,
Couture, Philip, 309, 310 32, 35, 39, 42; later changed by N. H. Barbour
Cowles, J. P., 42 to 1873, date of second advent as fixed by N.
Coxon, Peter W., 255 H. Barbour, 44, 45, 49; later changed to 1874,
Cummings, Jonathan, 43 14, 43-45, 49, 241; 1914, Watch Tower date for
Cuneiform: writing and tablets, 99 the beginning of Christ’s rule and end of
Cuninghame, William, 36 Gentile times, 2-6, 39, 40 ,43, 44, 47, 48, 50, 52,
Cyaxares, king of Media, 104, 233 53, 59-63, 65-71,77-79, 229, 236, 238, 241, 243,
Cyrus: king of Anshan, 102; defeats Media, 102-104, 257-264, 266, 267, 272-278, 305, 311; end of
247; total rule 29 years, 103; ruled Babylonia for 9 Gentile times changed by PBI Bible Students to
years, 75-79, 81, 83, 85, 100, 329; foretold, 192; 1934, 236-243; 1941, predicted climax of the
decree of, 90, 224; “10th year” of, 322, 323 “time of trouble”, 15, 276.-For tables on
”Cyrus Cylinder,” 90 applications of the 1260 and 2,520 years, see pages 33
Dandamaev, M. A. 115, 118 ,119, 122, 124, and 60-61.
126, 128, 135, 136, 234, 329 Dawn Bible Students, 310
Daniel the prophet: age of, 127; brought to Dean, David Arnold, 312-314
Babylon in 605 BCE, 204-207 Delaisi, M. Francis, 64
”Darius the Mede,” 75, 78, 193 Delitzsch, Friedrich, 207
Darius I, 75, 105, 124, 194, 300, 301, 368 Belling, G., 269
Dates, specific: Depuydt, Leo, 94
776 BCE, start of Olympiad era, 82; 689 BCE, Desolation (chorbáh) of Judah, 191, 197
Sennacherib’s desolation of Babylon, 231; 652/651 Diakonoff, I. M., 104
BCE, battle at Hiritu, 165-168; 610/609 BCE, Diodorus, 81, 84
capture of Harran and fall of Assyria, 111-113, Dionysius Exiguus, 73
232-235, 346; 607 BCE, desolation of Jerusalem Dougherty, Raymond Philip, 91
and beginning of the Gentile times in Watch Drews, Robert, 94
Tower chronology, 7, 59, 73, 77, 79, 85, 87, 89-91, Drummond, Henry, 36, 37, 46
98, 179, 191, 229, 283, 284, 291, 294, 304-311; 606 Duffield, George, 45, 276
BCE, earlier date for the beginning of Gentile Dunlap, Edward, 20, 283
times, 39, 40, 47, 50, 52, 53, 59-61, 78, 79, 238, Ecbatana, capital of Media, 102
239; 605 BCE, battle of Carchemish, and Economic-administrative texts: discussion of, 85,
Nebuchadnezzar’s accession year, 20, 70, 201-204, 86, 118-121, 150, 190, 289; numbers published,
209, 230-232, 319, 335; 604 BCE, 1st year of 118, 119; chronological information (table),
Nebuchadnezzar, 59, 69, 98, 124, 158; 597 BCE, 121; archives of, 122; copying, reading, and
deportation of Jehoiachin, 293, 294; 589 BCE, scriba1 errors, 321-323
siege of Jerusalem begins, 227, 229; 587 BCE, 18th Edgar, John and Morton, 52, 53, 336, 337
year of Nebuchadnezzar and the desolation of Edwards, T. C., 268
Jerusalem, 7, 52, 76-78 ,81, 85, 98, 113, 128, 146- Egibi business house, 122-125, 322
152, 158, 159, 180, 186-190, 227-229, 236, 238, Éhulhul (temple of Sin): destruction of, 111,
278, 291-294; 586 BCE, alternative date for the 112; rebuilding of, 112, 329, 330
desolation of Jerusalem, 7, 76, 293, 294; 568/567 Elliott, Edward Bishop, 26, 27, 38, 39, 40, 44,
BCE, 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar, fixed by VAT 62, 69, 276
4956, 84, 158-160, 164; 550 BCE, fall of Media, Emerson, Joseph, 276
En-nigaldi-Nanna, daughter of Nabonidus, 109,
110
Enuma Anu Enlil, 110, 332, 333
Eph’al, Israel, 197
Epping, J., 153
Index 553
Eratosthenes, 83 Hastings, H.L., 313

Erlandsson, Seth, 22, 195, 213, 226 Hattu: location of, 230, 204; map of, 205;
Esarhaddon, 231 Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest of, 203, 204,
Eusebius Pamphilus (of Caesarea), 81, 84, 91- 93, 295, 339
143, 299, 301 Hawkins, J. D., 203, 204
Evangelical Adventists, 313 Helck, W., & W. Westendorf, 144, 145
Evans, James, 99 Henderson, J. A., 173
Evers, Sheila M., 78, 123, 124, 322 Hengel, Martin, 264
Evil-Merodach, see Awel-Marduk Hengstenberg, Ernst Wilhelm, 82, 298, 337,
Faber, George Stanley, 276 338
”Faithful and discreet slave”, 13, 14 Herald of the Morning (ed. N. H. Barbour), 45, 47-
Fast: seventy years of, 227, 228 49, 68
Fatoohi, Louay J., 172 Herbst, Wolfgang, 276
Faulstich, E. W., 364 Herodotus: on the reign of Cyrus, 103, 329; on
Fensham, F. C., 231 the reign of Astyages, 104; on the reigns of
Feuerbacher, Alan, 21 Amasis and Psammetichus III, 143
Fiala, Alan D., see Liu, Bao-Lin Hill, John, 198
Finegan, Jack, 377 Hillah stele, see Royal inscriptions
Fishbane, Michael, 221 Himes, Joshua V., 313
Fleming, Jr., Robert, 30, 277 Hipparchus, 96, 99
Foxe, John, 29 Hippias, 83
Frame, Grant, 167, 168 Hippolytus: on the “seven times,” 255
Franz, Frederick W., 5 Hiritu, battle of, 166, 167
Franz, Raymond, 5, 17, 19-21, 62, 283, 284 Hodson, F. R., 158, 166, 172
Freedman, David Noel, 293, 294 Holmes, W. A. 38
Freedy, K. S., 320 Hophra (Jer. 44:30), 139. See also Apries
French Revolution, 30, 31, 274, 277 Horemheb (picture), 265
Frere, James Hatley, 35 Huber, Peter, 162, 173
Froom, Edwin LeRoy, 24, 27, 276, 312 Hughes, Jeremy, 301
Fry, John, 38, 45 Hulth, Hasse, 10
Furuli, Rolf, 308, 309; review of book by, 353-381 Hunger, Hermann, 21, 156, 157, 159, 161, 162,
Gadd, C. J., 112, 114, 115, 330, 331 167, 171-173, 175, 179, 188, 355, 359-363,
Gane, Erwin Roy, 312 366-371
Garelli, P., & V. Nikiprowetsky, 331 Hutchinson, Richard, 39
Gedaliah, 228, 229 Hyatt, J. P., 204, 316, 341
Generation of 1914: change of , 2-4 Iddin-Marduk, son of Iqisha, 127
Gentile times, see Times of the Gentiles Ina-Esagila-ramât, 127
Georgius Syncellus, 91, 92 In Search of Christian Freedom (by Raymond
Gerber, M., 331 Franz), 5
Gilpin, Robert, 31 Inclusive reckoning, 345n
Ginzel, F. K., 95, 334, 335 Inquisition: past and present, 15, 16
Good news: Jehovah’s Witnesses on, 4 Insight on the Scriptures:
Goodspeed, Edgar, 207 article on “Chronology” cut down, 20;
Gottwald, Norman K., 196, 215 article on the “Appointed times of the
Graebner, Theodore, 65 nations” critically examined, 243-251
Grant, Miles, 313 Inventory tablet SAKF 165,136-138
Grasshof, Gerd, 363 ”Invisible coming”: in 1844,42; in 1874, 46,
Grave stelae, 140-143 see also Apis 49; about 1875,58; in 1914, 58
Grayson, A. K., 100,104-106, 112, 116, 138, 149, 150, Ishtar (Eanna): statue of, brought to Babylon in
167, 168, 199, 201, 208, 233, 290, 295, 296, 319, 340, 539 BCE, 138, 139
341, 343, 347 Israel: division of the kingdom, 222; spiritual
”Great Disappointment,” 42, 44 Israel, 259; see also Jews
”Great tribulation,” 244 Itti-Marduk-balatu, 123, 124
Greenfield, Jonas C., 198 James, T. G. H., 234
Grew, Henry, 312, 314 Jeffrey, Arthur, 197
Griffin, Edward D., 276 Jehoahaz, reign of, 346, 347
Gruss, Edmund C., 10 Jehoiachin: deportation of, 315, 341-343; 37th
Guinness, Henry Graham, 236, 237, 258 year of exile, 348, 349
Hale, Apollos, 42 Jehoiakim: “third year” of (Dan. 1:14,316,317,
Hamath, location of, 203 335-344
Hanson, Bengt, 12 Jehovah’s Witnesses-Proclaimers of God’s Kingdom
Hananiah: prophecy of, 207, 208, 347 (1993): on C. T. Russell’s predictions for 1914,
Harkavy, A., 375, 376 62, 67-71
Harran, capture of, 111-113, 232,233, 346 Jenni, Ernst, 22, 211 ,214, 378,379
Hartner, Willy, 330, 335 Jerusalem: city of, 56,237; length of siege,
Hasel, Gerhard F., 345 347, 348; heavenly J., 258-260, 274
Jesus Christ: enthronement of, 260; universal
power of, 262, 263;”waiting” at the right hand of Luckenbill, D. D., 231
God, 264-268; ruling” in the midst of his Lunar eclipse texts (Saros cycle texts):
enemies,” 268-270; casts out Satan, 270-274. See discussion of LBAT 1417-1421,171-188
also Kingdom of Christ Lunar eclipses: 522 BCE (on Strm. Kambys. 400),
Jews, Jewish: persecution stopped in 1914,56; 85,86; 554 BCE, 109-111, 310; 568 BCE (on
immigration to Palestine, 259; nation of, restored VAT 4956), 162; description of, 172;
in 1948, 280 discussion of lunar eclipse texts, 171.-188;
Joachim of Floris, 26-28, 33, 59 penumbral eclipses, 178, 181, 183;
Johnson, Paul S. L., 79, 239, 242 retrocalculation of, 184, 185; and astrology,
Jonsson, Carl Olof: research on the Gentile times, 6, 322, 323; identification of, 333-335; and
7; correspondence with Watch Tower earth’s rotation, 334, 335
headquarters, 7-9, 11-13; hearings with, 10-12; MacCarty, William, 10, 310
excommunication of, 16-18 MacGinnis, J., 327
Josephus, Flavius, 92, 93, 255, 297-300, 304, 337. Macmillan, Alexander H., 57, 257
See also Against Apion Maitland, Charles, 27
Josiah, death of, 145, 346 Malamat, Abraham, 125, 320, 346
kairoí ethnôn (times of Gentiles), 278, 279 Manetho: on the reigns of Amasis and
Kákosy, László, 140 Psammetichus III, 143
Kandalanu: reign of, 105-107,116, 167-171, 173, Marduk, 231, 247
174, 176, 177, 184, 186-188 Mariette, Auguste, 140, 141
Keel, O., 265 Marsh, Joseph, 45
Keil, Carl F., 219, 256, 373 Maspero, G., 142
Keith, B. W., 46 Masoretic text (MT), of Jeremiah: reliability of,
Kennedy, D. A., 168 195, 196, 309
Kienitz, Friedrich Karl, 140,142-144,320 Matthias, Barnett, 42
King lists, Babylonian, 105-108 Mede, Joseph, 36
Kingdom of Christ, setting up of: in 1844, 42;from Meeus, Jean, & Hermann Mucke: eclipse canon
1878 onwards, 58, 257; in 1914, 58 ,257-262; at of, 335
Christ’s resurrection, 260-274 Megasthenes, 91
Kingdom of David: restoration of, 262 Meissner, Bruno, 122
Kingdom of God: in the book of Daniel, 244, 246, Mercer, Mark K., 341
250, 251 . See also Kingdom of Christ Meyer, G. B., 258
Kitchen, K. A., 222 Meyer, Eduard, 96
Kohler, J., and F. E. Peiser, 125 Millenarians, millennialists, 65
Koldewey, R., 108 Miller, Molly, 104, 144
Kratz, Reinhard Gregor, 246 Miller, William, 39, 41, 42
Krecher, Joachim, 125 Millerite movement, 32, 39
Kugler, Franz Xaver, 86, 94, 96, 154, 223, 357- 359 Mitchell, H. G., 226
Laato, Antti, 104 Mitchell, T. C., 90
Labashi-Marduk, reign of, 98, 107, 120, 121, 134, Morgan, G. Campbell, 258
135, 321, 322, 327-329 Morgenstein, Julian, 320
Ladd, R. E., 314 Morrison, L. V., 334
Lambert, W. G., 110 Mowinckel, Sigmund, 320
Lamsa, G, 375, 376 Mushezib-Marduk, 133
Landsberger, B, 113 Nabon. H1, B, see Royal inscriptions
Langdon, Stephen, 108, 111 Nabon. Nos. 8, 18, 24, see Royal inscriptions
Larsson, Gerhard, 295 Nabonassar, 93, 94, 96, 100, 369
Laymen’s Home Missionary Movement (LHMM), Nabonidus: reign of, 75, 80, 90, 102-104, 110,
237, 239-243 119-121, 124, 135-139, 328, 329, 356-358;
Leichty, Ede, 119, 169, 355, 359 exiled to Carmania, 200; “Verse Account” of
Lengtat, Reinhard, 20 247; “Prayer of Nabonidus”, 255
Lepsius, R., 265 Nabonidus Chronicle, 80, 81, 102, 116, 135, 136,
LeQueux, W., 64 139
”Let Your Kingdom Come” (1981); defends 607 BCE in Nabopolassar: reign of, 90, 98, 100, 102, 115,
“Appendix to Chapter 14”, 13, 284-288; appendix 129, 130, 168, 171, 186, 187; defeats
examined, 289-305 Levine, Baruch A., 222, 255 Assyria, 234; death of, 203,206
Lewy, Hildegard, 109, 110, 115 Nabû-ahhê-iddina, 123, 124, 129, 135
Life and Advent Union, 314 Nahawendi, 25
Life expectancy, see Longevity Napier, John, 30
Lindén, Ingemar, 21,42 Nebuchadnezzar II: reign of, 73, 76-78, 115,
Liu, Bao-Lin, & Alan D. Fiala: eclipse canon of, 120, 121, 124, 129-133, 153, 178-190, 323325;
176-183, 335 conquest of Egypt, 146, 147; 37th year (on
Longevity: in the Neo-Babylonian period, 125-128; VAT 4956), 84-87, 157-164; reign fixed by
in our times, 128 lunar eclipses, 177-185; defeats Necho at
Longman III, Tremper, 116 Carchemish, 201-206, 319; subjugates Hattu,
203-205, 295-298; portrait of, 202; “head of
gold,” 238; “seven times” of, 243-256, 248
Index 555
(picture); activities of, 249, 253, 254 (table) Resurrection, heavenly: dated to 1878, 58;
Nebuzaradan, 228, 229 moved to 1918, 58
Necho(h) II: reign of, 139, 142-146; defeated at Revillout, E., 144
Carchemish, 201-204, 233-235 Riblah, location of, 203
Nemet-Nejat, K. R., 131-133 Rice, D. S., 113
Neo-Babylonian period: definition of, 90, 102 Rochberg-Halton, Francesca, 333
Neriglissar: reign of, 98, 107, 115, 119-121, Röllig, W., 328
124, 133-135, 322, 325-327 Roman empire: the fourth kingdom, 268
Neugebauer, Otto, 74, 96, 154, 155, 157, 161, 173, Roth, Martha T., 125
333, 364, 365 Royal Canon (or, “Ptolemy’s Canon”): discus-
Neugebauer, P. V., 157, 163, 361 sion of, 91, 94-98, 95 (picture), 116, 148, 163,
Neumann, H., 255 189, 289
Newton, Isaac, 78 Royal Chronicle, 110, 149
Newton, Rober1 R., 99, 334, 335 Royal inscriptions, Neo-Babylonian: extant
Nisan and Tishri years, 317-320 number of, 108; arrangements of, 109; Nabon.
Nissen, H. J., et al, 131 No. 18, 109-111, 310; Nabon. No. 8 (Hillah
Nolland, John, 281 stele), 111-113,189,289,329,330; Nabon. No. 24
Nonaccession years, see Accession years (Nabon. H 1, B, or the Adad-guppi stele), 112-
Nur-Sîn (business house), 122, 125 116, 189, 289, 331, 332; summary, 149, 150
Oates, Joan, 331, 332 Rusk, Fred, 8
Oberhuber, Karl, 137, 138 Russell, Ann Eliza (Birney), 47
Olmstead, AT., 93, 184 Russell, Charles Taze, 39, 43, 47-58, 60-62,
Olshansky, S. Jay, 128 66, 68, 79, 237, 253
Olympiad Era, 81-84 Russell, Joseph L., 47
Oppenheim, A. Leo, 115, 116, 147 Russell, Philemon R., 39
Oppolzer’s Canon, 335 Rutherford, Joseph F., 58, 79, 237, 257-259
Orr, Avigdor, 215, 221 Sandia ben Joseph, 25
”Oslo Chronology” (of Furuli), 353-381 Sabbatical years (and rest of land), 222, 223
Overlapping dates, 308, 323-329, 355-358 Sachs, Abraham J., 20, 21, 154,156-159, 162,
Palmer, R. R., 31 165-167, 171-174, 183, 184, 333, 355
Pannekoek, A., 332 Sack, Ronald H., 91, 108, 118, 129, 130, 133,
Parker, Richard A., 143 323, 325, 327
Parker, R. A., & W. H. Dubberstein: on Saggs, H. W. F, 112
Babylonian Chronology, 98, 119, 120, 225, 228, Saite period: chronology of, 140-145
320, 323, 356-358 Samuel, Alan E., 83
Pastoral Bible Institute (PBI), 237-243 Saros Canon (BM 34597), 184
Payne, J. Barton, 303 Saros cycle, 171, 173, 177, 178, 330
Peat, Jerome, 136, 329 Satan: cast out of heaven, 270-274
Pelusium, 298 Saturn, observations of: 159, 161, 162, 169-171,
Penton, James, 21, 47 188, 189
Persson, Rud, 21 Saturn Tablet, 169-171, 186, 190
Petavius, Dionysius, 82, 353 Schaumberger, P. J., 154
Peterson, E. H., 373 Schmidt, E. F., 194
Pieters, Albertus, 207, 297, 315, 344 Schmidtke, Friedrich, 96, 97
Pinches, T. G., 136, 140, 156, 173, 358 Schnabel, Paul, 92, 94
Ploeger, Charles, 20 Schramm, W., 116
Plöger, Otto, 215, 225 Schreckenberg, Heintz, 299
Plummer, Alfred, 279 Schroeder, Albert D., 8
Plutarch, 83 Second Adventists, 42, 312-314
Pognon, H., 113 Seder Olam Rabbah, 193, 301, 338
Polyhistor, Cornelius Alexander, 92 Seeley, Robert, 69
Porten, B., 317 Seiss, Joseph A., 46, 69
Pritchard, James B, 90, 106, 134,247, 328 Seleucid era, 162, 164, 172
Prosopographical evidence, 121-128, 151 Seleucus II, 106
Psammetichus, grave stelae of, 142 Sennacherib, 97, 116, 174, 231
Psammetichus I: reign of, 142-145; assists Septuagint (LXX): on Jer. 25:1-12, 195, 196, 375,
Assyria in 616 BCE, 232 377-379; on Jer. 29:10, 213, 214; on Dan.
Psammetichus II & Ill, reigns of, 142-145 12:1, 244; on Dan. 4, 255; omits Jer. 52:28-
Ptolemy, Claudius, 78, 94-99, 148, 161 30,315
”Ptolemy’s Canon,” 78, 79, 81, 82, 84. See also Seven times, 35, 36, 38, 39, 69, 89, 243-256
Royal Canon Seventh-Day Adventists, 42, 312
Pym, William, 38 ”Seventh month movement,” 42
Rashi, Rabbi, 26 Seventy years, see Time periods: 70 years
Rassam, Hormuzd, 119 Shamashshumukin, reign of, 100, 116, 166-168,
Rechabites, 208 173-177, 184, 186, 322
Redeker, Charles F., 310 Shea, William H., 343
Redford, D. B., 320
Shiff, Laurence Brian, 125 355, 372-382; 1242 (Julian) years, 33 (table);
Shula (Sula): head of Egibi firm, 123, 124 1260 (lunar) years, 32, 33 (table), 69; 1260
Sign, of Christ’s “presence,” 275, 276 years, 26-32, 33 (table), 35, 36, 44, 47, 59,
Sippar Cylinder, 112, 247 252, 253, 256, 276; 1290 years, 25-29, 33
Smalley, Gene, 284 (table), 44, 59, 252; 1335 years, 25, 26, 44,
Smith, George, 78, 123 252, 276; 2300 years, 25, 26, 32, 35, 41; 2450
Snow, Samuel, 42 years, 59, 60-61 (table); 2452 years, 59, 60-
Soderlund, Sven, 196 61 (table); 2520 years, 23, 24, 32, 35, 36, 38-
Sogdianus, 368 41, 43, 47, 48, 50, 52, 53, 59, 60-61 (table),
Solar eclipse: in 585 BCE, 104 69, 79, 89, 236, 238, 243, 246, 249-253, 256-
Solomon ben Jehoram, 25 259, 278, 306; 6000 years, 44
Spiegelberg, W., 143 Times of the Gentiles, 4, 6, 23, 24, 28-30, 32,
Stager, Lawrence E., 199 36, 38, 39, 47, 50, 60, 61, 67-70, 77, 79, 89,
Stele, John M., 22, 86, 150, 173, 176, 184, 185, 187, 230, 236-244, 257-260, 276, 278-282.
359, 365, 366 Tishri years, 317-320
Stephenson, F. Richard, 110, 172, 334 Toomer, G. J., 94, 99
Sterling, Gregory E., 92 Torrey, R. A., 65
Stern, Menahem, 207 Tregelles, Samuel P., 252
Stern, Sacha, 317 Trinity doctrine, 43
Stetson, George, 47 Turner, Joseph, 42
Tyre: seventy years of, 195, 231
Storrs, George, 42, 47-50, 193, 312-314
Umman-manda (= Medes), 112, 233
Strassmaier, J. N., 153, 173, 357 Ungnad, Arthur, 123, 125
Streeter, R. E, 237, 239
”Strm. Kambys. 400,” 85-87, 359, 360 Uruk King List: on Labashi-Marduk, 98, 107;
Stuhlmueller, Carrot, 227 discussion of, 105-108; 326,327
Svensson, Rolf, 10 USH, Babylonian time unit (four minutes), 175
Swerdlow, N. M., 169, 185, 362, 365 Ussher, James, 52, 78, 82
Swingle, Lyman, 283 van der Waerden, Bartel L., 159-162, 333
Synchronisms: between Babylon, Judah, and Egypt, van Dijk, J., 106, 107, 124
139-147, 151, 153 van Driel, G., 123, 131-133
Tabouis, G. R., 202 VAT 4956, see Astronomical diaries
Tadmor, Hayim, 109, 330, 346 Victorinus, 26
Taharqah, reign of, 141 Voigtlander, E. N., 100
Talmon, Shemaryahu, 246 von Bismarck, Otto, 63
Terry, Milton S., 252, 279 Vulgate version, 378, 379
Tertullian, 193 Waddell, W. G., 143
Thackeray, H. St. J., 93, 299 Wagebald, Michael, 64
The Christian Quest (ed. James Penton), 46 Walker, C. B. F., 21, 169-171, 321, 323, 326,
The Midnight Cry (by N. H. Barbour), 45-47 357, 359
The Prophetic Times (ed. J. A. Seiss et al), 46, 69 Walker, P. W. L., 280
The Rainbow (ed. William Leask), 46 Walters, Al, 246
Theodoret, on the “seven times,” 255 Watch Tower Society: claims of, 2, 3, 13-15,
Theodotion: version of, 255; on Dan. 12:1,244; 18, 19, ,275, 305-307
on the seven times at Dan. 4, 255 Weidner, Ernst F., 157, 163, 361
Theophilus of Antioch, 300 Weingort, Saul, 125
Thiele, Edwin R., 223, 317, 320, 345, 346 Weisberg, David B., 324
Thirty Years’ War, 31 Weissbach, F. H., 322, 323, 357
Thompson, J. A., 197, 227, 315 Wellcome, Isaac C., 43, 313
Thompson, R. Campbell, 87, 88, 321 Wendell, Jonas, 45, 47,49
Thutmosis III (picture), 265 Wendell, Rufus, 314
Timaeus Sicilus, 83 Whiston, William, 299, 300
”Time,” Greek kairós, 244, 255, 256; Aram. ‘iddan, White, Ellen G., 312
253, 255, 256 Willis, D. M., 361
”Time of the end”: 1798-1873,45; not the “End of Wilson, Benjamin, 46,314
Time,” 246; 1866-1941, 276 Wilson, Curtis, 362
”Time of trouble”: will begin in 1910 and end in Wilson, Dwight, 65,280
1914,51; wil1 end after 1914,51; “a class struggle,” Wilson, Gerald H., 216
55; beginning moved to 1914, 56; will culminate Winckler, Hugo, 207
in 1941, 276 Winkle, Ross E., 235, 354
Time periods: Wiseman, Donald J., 2l , 75, 100, 118, 119, 184,
3 1/2 days (Rev. 11:8), 26; 40 year-days (Num. 201, 204, 207, 232, 234, 249, 255, 256, 318,
14:34; Ez. 4:6), 24; 390 year-days (Ezek. 4:5), 24; 322, 323, 346, 347
70 weeks (Dan. 9:24-27), 25; 192-194, 246; 42 Woman, in heaven, 271 (picture), 272
months (Rev. 11:2), 279; 7 times (Dan. 4), see World War I: “a major turning point,” 31;
Seven times; 70 years, 76-79, 191, 194-235, 238, expectations for, 50, 51; expectations not
fulfilled, 55-57, 257; reinterpretation of, 58;
295-304,
year of not foreseen, 63, 276-278
Index 557
World’s Crisis, 43, 45, 312, 313 24:10-12 343

Wright, G. Ernest, 292 24:10-17 210, 296, 349
Wunsch, Cornelia, 127 24:11,12 254
Xerxes, 82, 194, 368 24:12 130, 315, 325
Yahweh, Jehovah, 22 24:14 - 296
Yamauchi, Edwin M., 194 24:18-25:30 315
Year-day principle, 24, 251-253 25:1 227, 254, 347
Young, Edward J., 192, 245, 255, 270, 345 25:1,2 229
Zagros mountains, 363 25:1-4 348
Zawadzki, Stefan, 136, 233, 324, 327 25:2-4 229
Zedekiah, reign of, 73, 347 25:2,8 73, 87, 91, 153
“Zero year,” 79, 166 25:6,20-21 203
Zevit, Ziony, 198 25:8 293, 294, 315
Zodiacal belt, 361, 362 25:8,9 229
25:8-12 318
Scripture Index 25:22-25 229
25:27 348
Where the page number is in italics this indicates that
the text reference is in a footnote. Where the page 25:27-30 254, 316
number is in bold, this indicates that the passage is 2 Chronicles
discussed in some detail. 3.5:20-25 346
36:1 346
Genesis 36:6 343
5:12 231 36:7, 10, 18 341
7:4 252 36:9,10 342, 343
11:26 231 36:10 130, 254, 325, 349
46 231 36:20-23 221-225
50:3 231 36:20 200,223
Exodus 36:20,21 214, 372, 373
1:5 231 36:21 90, 336
15:27 231 36:21-23 302
24:1 231 36:22,23 75 , 90,224, 225
Leviticus Ezra
25:1-7 222 1:1-4 75, 79, 90, 192
25:3,4,8,9 25 1:1-3:1 90, 200
25:8-28 223 1:5-2:70 90
26:12-28 36 3:1 90
26:31,33 197 3:1,2 303
26:34,35 222 3:8-10 303
Numbers 4:24 300
11:16 231 Nehemiah
14:34 24, 252 1:1 319
Deuteronomy 2:1 320, 353
10:22 231 2:17 197
30:1-6 218
Psalms
Judges 2:1-3 272
1:7 231 2:6-9 272
8:30 231 90:10 128, 231
12:14 231 103:19 250
2 Kings 110:1,2 260, 264, 266, 267
10:1 231 110:5,6 268
22:2-23:23 318 145:13 250
22:3-10 318
23:21-23 318 Isaiah
23.29 139, 145 14:12-15 270
23:29,30 346 23:15 231
23:31-35 203 23:15-18 195
23:34-37 338 44:28 192
24:1,2 204, 208, 209, 298, 338, 339,341 45:1 251
24: 1-7 230, 341 45:13 192
24:7 204, 235 49:19 197
24:8-17 342 Jeremiah
1:3 318
9:11 197 33:21 348

25:1 201, 203, 247, 254, 295, 315, 344 33:24,27 197
25:1-12 195 36:34 197
25:10-12 76-78, 90, 195-204, 207, 209, Daniel
214, 226, 229, 238, 297, 301-304 1:1 207, 238, 241, 242, 254, 316, 318, 344
336, 372, 374 ,375 1:1,2 206, 208, 229, 293, 298, 302, 335-345
25:19-26 231 1:1,4,6 127
27:1,3,12 207 1:1-4 204, 209, 230, 295, 304, 342
27:2 207 1:2 205
27:7 232, 374, 375 1:3,4 297
27:7-9,11 198 1:21 127
27:17 199 2:1 206, 229, 230, 241, 242, 247,
28:1 207, 210, 254 254, 302, 304, 337-339, 344
28:1-4 347 2:1,37,38 238
28:2,3 208 2:8,9 253
28:10,11 208 2:21 250, 253
29:1,2 210 2:36-44 268
29:1,20 217 2:44,45 246
29:1-30 254 3:5,15 253
29:1-32 216 4 236, 244-256
29:8,9 210 4:3, 34-37 251
29:10 76, 77, 90, 209-215, 217, 219, 4:16,23,25,32 244, 255, 256
224-226, 229, 230, 235, 302, 4:17 250, 251
336, 372, 373, 375-379 4:26,36 253
29:12-14 218 4:28 245
32:1,2 254 4:29 247
34:22 197 4:30 247,249
35:1 208 4:33 245
35:11 208 5:26-31 75, 215
36:1-6 318, 319 5:30 200
36:1-32 196 5:31 300
36:9 319 6:28 75
36:22 377 7:1 247, 344
36:29 196 7:12 253
39:5-7 203 7:13,14,18,22,27 246, 264
40:13-41:10 229 7:25 253, 256
43:10f. 254 8:1 247, 344
44:22 197 8:1-4, 20 247
44:30 139, 146 8:9-12 270
46:2 139, 146, 201, 203, 204, 234, 254, 8:9-14,23-26 246
314, 316, 318, 335, 338, 344
8:10,11 245
47:5-7 199 8:14 25,32
51:64 315
52:4 227 8:17, 19 246
9:1 75, 247, 344
52:4-16 254
52:6,7 229 9:1,2 215-220, 300
52:9-27 203 9:2 25, 78, 90, 219, 220, 336, 372, 373
52:12 91, 293, 315 9:3 218
9:4-19 216, 217
52:12,13 228
9:11 218
52:28 254 ,315, 325
52:28,29 294 9:13 218
52:28-30 296, 297, 315 9:24 25
‘ 52:29 91, 293 9:24-27 25, 82, 192, 252, 353, 354
52:31 316, 325, 348 9:27 244, 245
52:31-34 254, 316 10:1 127, 247, 344
10:2,3 25
Ezekiel 11:13,27,35,40 246
4:6 24, 252 11:31 244, 245
8:11 231 11:36,37 245
21:27 257, 258 12:1 244, 245
24:1,2 227, 347 12:1-3 246
26:1,7 254 12:7,11,12 252
29:1-20 254
12:11 25, 28, 244, 245
Index 559
12:11,12 25 1 Corinthians
Amos 15:24,25 267, 268
15:24-26 269
5:18-20 246 15:24-28 266
9:11f. 262 15:25 266
Jonah Ephesians
3:4 252 1:20-23 263
Haggai 1:21,22 269, 272
1:1,14,15 225 2:1,2 269
2:18,19 226 6:12 269
Zechariah Colossians
1:7 226 1:13,14 260, 261, 269
1:7-12 225-227 ,229, 230, 304 ,380
1:15, 16 269
1:12 226, 227, 379, 380 2:10 263
1:16,17 227
7:1 228 2:15 269
7:1-5 225, 228-230, 304 3:14 18
7:5 242, 379, 380 2 Thessalonians
8:19 229 2:3-5 245
Malachi Hebrews
1:4 197 1:5 272
Matthew 2:8 269
4:13-16 270 2:14,15 270
5:34 264 5:5 272
7:15-23 11 8:1 264
18:16 284 10:12,13 266
18:20 19 10:13 267
21:43 281 11:1 291
24:14 4 12:2 264
24:15 244, 245 1 Peter
24:21 244, 245 3:15 307
24:34 2 3:22 269
24:37,39 46
1 John
24:45-47 14 1:3 19
24:47 13
26:64 264 Revelation
28:18 262, 272 1:5 263
2:10 27
Luke 2:26,27 273
1:32 262 3:21 260, 262, 264
1:51,52 251 7:3 52
10:1,19 271 11:2 28, 35, 279
10:15 270 11:2,3 252
10:17,18 271 11:3 27, 28
21:24 4, 23, 28, 36, 59, 69, 89, 243, 11:15 261
244, 256, 259, 278, 280, 281 11:15-18 272
22:69 264 11:17,18 258
John 11:19 26
3:13 262 12:1-6 258, 272
6:68 19 12:1-10 260
9:30, 34-39 19 12:1-12 271-273
12:31 271 12:5 272, 273
17:21-23 19 12:6,14 28, 30, 252, 256
Acts 12:7-12 273
4:25-28 272 12:9,10 273
10:1-48 281 12:13-17 273
13:32,33 272 16:8,9 277
15:13-18 262 22:1,3 264
Romans
1:4 272
11:25 281

The Gentile Times Reconsidered

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Gentile Times Reconsidered

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Gentile Times Reconsidered

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE GENTILE TIMES

Carl Olof Jonsson

COMMENTARY PRESS • ATLANTA • 2004

ASV American Standard Version

THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED

FIRST EDITION © 1983 by

THIRD EDITION, REVISED AND EXPANDED © 1998

T HE SUBJECT of the “Gentile times” is a crucial one today for

Gentile Times Reconsidered, now in its fourth printing.

With respect to the subject field I am particularly familiar with,

T HE DISILLUSIONING and sometimes dramatic process that

The role of chronology in the teachings of the

1914 — The Generation That Would not pass away!

definition an arbitrarily added factor, namely, that the “generation”

Watch Tower leadership. On the contrary, The Watchtower of

meantime, however, I was repeatedly cautioned not to reveal my

And further, in a letter dated May 15, 1980, they stated:

I accepted such advice, as I was given the impression that my

Judging from these and similar statements, Watch Tower

from European Watch Tower branch offices. At that meeting, he

few examples of the widespread defamation, one that has gone on

destroy that which addresses their insecurity or to banish it to the

failed to defend its position successfully, but the evidence against it

Such an argument, however, is invalid if the Society’s suppositions

discover and punish heretics and apostates.”14 What was the

wanted to change my attitude, they had to start with the burden of

organizations, political as well as religious. It is a mechanistic unity

produce the Society’s Bible dictionary, Aid to Bible Understanding.

In view of this, in writing the article on ‘Chronology’ I devoted

London; Professor Abraham J. Sachs in the U.S.A; Professor

Carl Olof Jonsson

A LL IDEAS have a beginning. People who believe in an idea,

From the Awake! magazine of October 8, 1973, page 18.

Abraham bar Hiyya Hanasi (c. 1065–1136) speculated that the

the 1,260 days of Revelation 11:3 were 1,260 years, Maitland

prophetic interpretations. During the following centuries

hundred and sixty days,” the period of trampling spiritual

Political and social upheaval fuels prophetic

18 Professor Robert Gilpin, “The Theory of Hegemonic War,” The Journal of

study. A voluminous body of literature on the prophecies was

TABLE 1: THE MULTIPLE, SHIFTING APPLICATIONS

Expositor Publication Application Remarks

in Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of the chopped-down tree in Daniel,

[These] would, therefore, be considered as a grand week of

Of course if calculated from Nebuchadnezzar’s own accession

E. B. Elliott’s Horae Apocalypticae, Vol. III (1844)

The “1843” chart

Nelson H. Barbour was born near Auburn, New York, in 1824. He

translation of the New Testament [translated and published by

restarted in June 1875 as the Herald of the Morning, thereby

Herald of the Morning of September 1875

of the 2,520 years and hellfire doctrines. He was in a serious

began in 606 B .C.E. and would end in 1914 C.E.—precisely the

We know of no reason for changing a figure: to do so would

might be out of the correct reckoning on the subject a number of years. We

Two months later Russell seemed to be on the point of rejecting

With the outbreak of the war in Europe in August 1914, Russell’s

Like other millenarian authors, Russell believed that the

February 15, 1916: “In STUDIES IN THE SCRIPTURES, Vol.

the Watch Tower Society, began to explain, step by step, what