@scholar
You have presented several
arguments defending 607 BCE as the date of Jerusalem’s
destruction (instead of the scholarly 587/586 BCE date). These arguments
involve claimed scholarly “disagreements” in chronology, interpretations of
Jeremiah’s 70-year prophecy, statements by the historian Josephus, and even an
astronomical tablet (VAT 4956). Below is a respectful but firm, evidence-based
point-by-point rebuttal addressing each claim. The goal is to clarify the
historical and biblical facts and show why the 587/586 BCE
date is strongly supported by multiple lines of evidence,
whereas the 607 BCE date is not.
1. Secular
Chronology and the “609 vs. 606 BCE” Argument
Claim: Because secular scholars allegedly disagree
(e.g. whether the 70 years began in 609 vs. 606 BCE), the entire secular
chronology for this period is unreliable – implying the JWs’ 607 BCE
might be just as valid.
Response: This claim misrepresents the nature
of scholarly discussion. In reality, historians overwhelmingly agree
on the absolute chronology of Neo-Babylonian kings and the fall of Jerusalem;
minor differences (such as 605 vs. 609 BCE as a starting point
for a prophecy) do not invalidate the chronology. All standard
historical sources place Jerusalem’s destruction in 587 or 586 BCE, not twenty
years earlier. The “609 vs. 606” issue is not a dispute over
Jerusalem’s fall at all – it concerns how to interpret Jeremiah’s 70-year
period of Babylonian dominance. Some scholars count Babylon’s 70-year empire
from 609 BCE (the final fall of Assyria), while others count
from 605/604 BCE (Babylon’s victory at Carchemish and first
subjugation of Judah). Either way, the 70 years ends with Babylon’s
fall in 539 BCE. This discussion in no way implies a 20-year
uncertainty on Jerusalem’s destruction – it remained about 587/586 BCE in both
interpretations.
In fact, the apparent “one
or two year” differences one finds in historical references (e.g. some sources
list Nebuchadnezzar’s reign as 605–562 vs. 604–561 due to different new-year
reckoning) are well-understood and limited to a year or less,
not decades. Such minor adjustments (e.g. 587 vs. 586 BCE) result from ancient
calendar differences (Babylon’s year began in spring, not January. They do
not indicate a lack of consensus – certainly not an opening for an
alternate date as far off as 607. In summary, secular chronology for this era
is built on massive evidence (see Section 9 below) and is
consistent within a year or so. There is no serious dispute
among historians that Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th regnal year – when Jerusalem was
destroyed – fell in 587/586 BCE, not.
2. Jeremiah’s
70-Year Prophecy – Scope and Context
Claim: Jeremiah 25:11-12 and Jeremiah
29:10 refer exclusively to Judah’s exile and prove a
70-year desolation from 607 BCE (Jerusalem’s fall) to 537 BCE (Jewish return).
In this view, secular history’s ~50-year exile (587–537) contradicts Scripture.
Response: A careful reading of Jeremiah shows
the 70 years are not described as 70 years of Judah’s desolation only,
but 70 years of Babylonian dominance over “these nations.”
Let’s examine the key verses:
- Jeremiah 25:11-12 – “This whole land will be a
desolation and an astonishment, and these nations
will serve the king of Babylon seventy years. Then after the seventy years are
completed, I will punish the king of Babylon…” Notice: Jeremiah says
“these nations” (plural) would serve Babylon for 70 years. Indeed, Jeremiah 25
lists many nations besides Judah – “Judah, Egypt, the land of the
Philistines… the kings of the Medes” and others – all to be conquered by.
The prophecy is not restricting the 70 years to Judah’s exile;
it’s describing Babylon’s period of regional supremacy. As one analysis
explains, the various nations did not all start serving Babylon at the same
moment – their subjugation occurred “one after another” as
Babylon’s campaign swept through the Near East. Thus, the 70 years
refers to the span of Babylonian imperial rule over the region, not a literal
70-year empty land exile for every nation.
- Jeremiah 29:10 – “When seventy years are completed for
Babylon, I will come to you and fulfill My good word to bring
you back to this place.” Here God’s promise to the exiles is tied to 70
years for Babylon, after which He would bring the Jews home. It does not
say 70 years of Jewish exile in Babylon, but 70 years at Babylon –
again pointing to Babylon’s tenure as the dominant power. Significantly,
Jeremiah 29:10 was written to exiles already in Babylon (in 594 BCE, to those
taken in Jehoiachin’s earlier deportation) and told them they would be there
until Babylon’s 70 years were finished (i.e. until Babylon’s empire fell).
What was the
70-year period?
Historically, Babylon’s period of supremacy ran from its final defeat of
Assyria and Egypt in the late 7th century BCE until its own fall in 539 BCE.
Depending on how one marks the start, it’s roughly 609–539 BCE or 605–539 BCE –
about 70 years. For example, historians often mark 605 BCE (Battle of
Carchemish and the first subjugation of Jerusalem) as a key starting point.
Counting 70 years from 605 brings us to 535 BCE, which is
within a year or two of the Jewish exiles returning (537 BCE). Alternatively,
one could count from 609 BCE (Babylon’s conquest of Assyria’s last stronghold)
to 539 BCE – exactly 70 years to Babylon’s collapse. Either way, the end
point of the prophecy is clearly the fall of Babylon.
Jeremiah 25:12 explicitly says “then after the seventy years
are completed, I will punish the king of Babylon…” – which happened in 539 BCE
when Cyrus conquered Babylon. That same year (539), Babylon’s empire ended and
Persian rule began; only then could the Jews go free, which
they did shortly afterward (Cyrus’s decree in 538 leading to return by 537).
In short, Jeremiah’s
prophecy is about Babylon’s 70-year reign of terror over the nations,
Judah included, ending with Babylon’s judgment. It is not a 70-year
exile of Judah running from 607–537. In fact, “the Bible
nowhere states that the Jewish exile lasted 70 years” – that phrase is
simply not in Scripture. The JW interpretation that the land of Judah lay
desolate for exactly 70 years is reading something into the text that isn’t
there. Yes, Judah did suffer desolation, but Jeremiah presents that as a consequence
of Babylon’s domination, not as the sole definition of the 70 years. The Watchtower’s
own insistence on making the 70 years strictly the period 607–537 BCE forces
a contradiction between “secular” history and the Bible where none actually
exists . When we understand Jeremiah correctly, there is perfect harmony: Babylon’s
70-year period of empire (ending in 539 BCE) overlaps with roughly 50 years of
Jerusalem’s desolation (587–537 BCE) – the desolation happened during
those 70 years of Babylonian power. There is no need to skew the chronology to
make it “fit” 70 exactly.
3. When Did the 70
Years End: Babylon’s Fall in 539 BCE, or Jewish Return in 537 BCE?
Claim: The 70 years ended only when the
Jews returned to Judah in 537 BCE, not when Babylon fell in 539 BCE. JWs argue that since Jews were freed in 537, that must mark the end of the 70-year
period (counting back to 607 BCE).
Response: Biblically and historically, the critical
end-point of the 70 years is Babylon’s downfall (539 BCE)
– not the mere arrival of Jews back in their homeland. As noted above,
Jeremiah 25:12 ties the end of 70 years to Babylon’s punishment, which occurred
in 539. Jeremiah 29:10 likewise implies that once Babylon’s 70 years
were complete, God’s restoration could begin – which logically would
be when Babylon was conquered by Cyrus. The Jews did not immediately trek home
that same year, but the obstacle to their return (Babylonian rule) was removed
in 539. Cyrus issued the decree allowing their return by his first regnal year
(538 BCE), and groups of exiles were back in Judah by 537 BCE. In other words, the
exile ended as a result of Babylon’s fall,
but the prophetic 70-year clock stopped ticking at 539. The extra year or two
for the Jews to physically return is incidental – the prophecy was concerned
with Babylon’s dominance, not the travel itinerary of the exiles.
Importantly, the
Bible itself provides evidence that the 70 years did not
extend to 537. Daniel 9:1-2 describes Daniel in Babylon “in
the first year of Darius the Mede” (right after Babylon fell in 539)
coming to understand Jeremiah’s prophecies of the 70 years. Daniel realized
that with the fall of Babylon, the 70 years were fulfilled and
the restoration was at hand. He then prayed for God to act, which God did –
moving Cyrus to free the Jews. If the 70 years were only up in 537, Daniel’s
sense of urgency in 539/538 BCE (when he read Jeremiah’s “70 years” and prayed)
would be premature. Clearly, Daniel (living through those events) connected the
completion of 70 years with Babylon’s collapse (539 BCE) and immediately
expected the return. And indeed, by 537 the return was
accomplished – just as one would expect after the prophesied period
ended. Thus, 539 BCE marks the close of the 70 years in
biblical terms, and 537 marks the resettlement that followed.
Even the JWs’ own cited
scriptures hint at this. 2 Chronicles 36:20-23 says that to fulfill
Jeremiah’s words, the land lay desolate until “the kingdom of Persia
began to reign” – which is 539 BCE – and then God stirred Cyrus to
make his decree. So the Chronicler acknowledges the key moment was the Persian
takeover ending Babylon’s empire. The two-year difference
between 539 and 537 is simply the interval between decree and the completed
journey/homecoming. It is not part of the servitude; it’s the beginning of
restoration. Insisting the 70 years had to end precisely when the Jews set foot
back in Judah (537) is an over-literalization not demanded by the text.
To summarize: Babylon’s
70-year period ended in 539 BCE with its fall. The Jews’ return by 537
was a direct consequence that confirmed the end of that era,
but the Bible doesn’t require the count to extend to that exact year. This
understanding removes the need for the unhistorical 607 BCE date entirely –
because Scripture and history both align with an exile of about 49–50 years
(587 to about 538/537) within a 70-year Babylonian domination (c.609–539).
There is no biblical or historical requirement for a 70-year exile starting in
607.
4. What Josephus
Really Said (Desolation: 70 Years or 50 Years?)
Claim: The ancient historian Flavius
Josephus supposedly supports the JW view, as he mentions a
70-year desolation of Judah. The JW argument quotes Josephus to claim that
Jerusalem lay desolate for 70 years (thus 607–537).
Response: It is true that Josephus, in his
writings, alludes to the biblical 70-year period – but context
is key. In one place, Josephus paraphrases the prophecy by saying
“Judea and Jerusalem… continued in a desolate state for seventy years”.
However, elsewhere Josephus explicitly calculates the time between the temple’s
destruction and the rebuilding of the temple as about 50 years. For example, Josephus’s
Against Apion 1.21 states: “Nebuchadnezzar,
in the eighteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in
that state of obscurity for fifty years; but
that in the second year of the reign of Cyrus its foundations were laid…”.
Here Josephus is being specific: from the 18th of Nebuchadnezzar (587 BCE) to
Cyrus’ 2nd year (537/536 BCE) he counts 50 years of the temple being desolate.
This aligns with the actual historical interval (~50 years).
How do we reconcile
Josephus mentioning “seventy years” elsewhere? Josephus was
simply referencing the prophecy of Jeremiah in a general way, not
declaring a precise chronological calculation of his own. In Antiquities of
the Jews (Book X, ch. 7, §3), he paraphrases Jeremiah’s prediction
that the land would be desolate and the people in servitude for 70 years. In Antiquities
Book XI, §1, he notes that the Jews were released “in the first year of
Cyrus, that the word of Jeremiah might be fulfilled, that Jerusalem lay
desolate seventy years.” These are references to prophecy –
essentially Josephus saying “as Jeremiah foretold, 70 years.” But
Josephus knew the actual history was about 50 years of desolation, as
his more precise statement in Against Apion shows. There is no
conflict once we realize Josephus is not infallible Scripture; he sometimes
mirrors biblical language (70 years) but elsewhere gives the factual timeline
(50 years).
The Watchtower publications
have selectively emphasized the word “desolate” in Josephus’s
70-year phrasing to claim he meant a full 70-year desolation. But note
Josephus’s wording: “our city was desolate during the
interval of seventy years, until the days of Cyrus.” If
emphasis is on “during,” it implies the desolation occurred at some point
during that 70-year interval, not that it lasted the entire interval.
Josephus likely understood Judah’s desolation as a subset of the 70-year
domination by Babylon. In fact, that reading makes Josephus consistent:
Babylon ruled ~70 years, during which Jerusalem lay desolate for about 50 of
them. Thus, Josephus’s accounts – far from bolstering 607 BCE – actually
harmonize with the standard 587 BCE date when properly understood. And of
course, Josephus was not inspired, but even if we take his
histories at face value, he does not unambiguously support a
607–537 exile. He explicitly says 50 years of desolation, matching the historical
reality.
In addition, Josephus
elsewhere provides details consistent with the conventional chronology. For
instance, he recounts that the first deportation of Jews to Babylon (with
Daniel and King Jehoiachin) occurred in Nebuchadnezzar’s 8th year, and the
final destruction in his 18th year – which lines up with 597 BCE and 587 BCE
respectively. There’s no hint in Josephus of adding an extra 20 years to
Babylon’s timeline. Thus, any misuse of Josephus to defend 607
is taking his words out of context. Modern archaeology and all contemporary
Babylonian records confirm the shorter (~50-year) exile, and
Josephus’s more precise remarks agree with that.
5. Archaeological
and Historical Evidence for 587/586 BCE
(Related to Josephus,
but broader:) The
JW claim was that there is “not one line of evidence” disproving 607 BCE. In
reality, there is an overwhelming convergence of evidence on
the 587/586 date. Before specifically addressing VAT 4956 (in the next
section), consider the collective witness of archaeology and historical
documents:
- Babylonian Chronicles: Clay tablets (Akkadian chronicles)
record year-by-year events. The “Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle”
notes his campaigns, including the capture of Jerusalem in his 7th year (597
BCE). The sequence of these chronicles aligns perfectly with Nebuchadnezzar’s
18th year falling in 587/6. No chronicle places a campaign in 607.
- Business and Administrative Tablets: More than two thousand
dated cuneiform documents from Neo-Babylonian times have been found.
These are contracts, receipts, legal documents dated by the reigning king’s
year. They cover every single year of the Neo-Babylonian kings
in sequence – ensuring no “gap” in the timeline. Raymond P. Dougherty noted
back in 1929 that the reigns of these kings are securely fixed by thousands of
dated tablets, calling this “the ultimate criterion” for the
chronology. For Nebuchadnezzar II specifically, his 43-year reign
is abundantly documented from year 1 through year 43 without interruption.
There is no room for an “extra” 20 years. If Jerusalem had really fallen in
607, Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year would be 607 – but then his documented 37th
year (which we can tie to 568 BCE by astronomy) would land around 588 BCE,
adding 20 unaccounted years to his reign. That would imply Nebuchadnezzar
reigned 63 years, which he did not – no king lists,
inscriptions, or tablets support such a fantasy. In fact, economic tablets show
Evil-Merodach (Nebuchadnezzar’s son) began ruling immediately
after Nebuchadnezzar’s 43rd year, with overlap evidence suggesting
Nebuchadnezzar died in 562 BCE (his 43rd year) and Evil-Merodach’s accession
started then () (). There’s zero evidence of a 20-year
coregency or gap.
- Queen (Mother) Adad-guppi Stele: This inscription of Nabonidus’s
mother Adad-guppi traces her long life span across the reigns of Neo-Babylonian
kings, giving their reign lengths. It matches the established timeline
(Nabopolassar ~21 years, Nebuchadnezzar 43, Evil-Merodach 2, Neriglissar 4,
Labashi-Marduk <1, Nabonidus 17) and confirms no extra kings or years. If
one were to insert 20 extra years, Adad-guppi would end up absurdly old (well
over 120). The prosopography (study of individuals named in
documents) also shows many individuals active across reigns – adding 20 years
would make them improbably old (many over 100). This is a powerful internal
consistency check that the JW chronology fails.
- Archaeological Destruction Layers: Excavations at Jerusalem and other
Judean sites (Lachish, etc.) show widespread destruction layers dated to the early
6th century BCE. Archaeologists consistently date the destruction of
Jerusalem’s First Temple to about 587/586 BCE based on pottery, stratigraphy,
and Babylonian arrows, etc. For example, the Encyclopaedia Britannica
and archaeological publications note destruction evidence at multiple sites
around 586 BCE. No layer of destruction c. 607
has been found – because none happened then. In fact, every line of
archaeological evidence lines up with Babylon’s campaign at the end of
Zedekiah’s reign (587/6). As one summary states: “There is not a single known
case of a town in Judah being continuously inhabited during the exile” – the
Babylonians “made a clean sweep” in 587/6. This confirms the biblical
outline of events, but with the timing pinned to
587/586. Archaeology is silent about any separate event in 607.
Given this consilience
of evidence – Babylonian written records, chronological lists,
administrative documents, and archaeology – historians are as certain as one
can reasonably be that Jerusalem fell in 587/586 BCE. It is not a mere
preference for “secular” sources over the Bible; rather, when understood
correctly the Bible’s narrative fits perfectly into this timeline.
The 607 BCE date, by contrast, has no support outside the
interpretations of JW publications. It requires positing that all these
independent evidences (including astronomical data we’ll cover
next) are somehow misdated by exactly 20 years – an almost impossible
conspiracy of errors. The claim that there is “not one line of evidence”
against 607 is therefore demonstrably false: there are literally tens
of thousands of lines – on cuneiform tablets – that contradict 607 and
firmly support the 587 date. In the face of such evidence, insisting on 607
because of an interpretation of a single prophecy is misguided. As one
researcher aptly put it, by insisting on 607, an “artificial
conflict” is created between the Bible and the evidence, when in fact
no conflict exists if we interpret the 70 years correctly.
6. Astronomical
Diary VAT 4956: Does It “Prove 607 BCE” or 587 BCE?
Claim: The cuneiform tablet VAT 4956 (an astronomical
diary) has been reinterpreted by “recent astronomical research” to actually
support 607 BCE. Specifically, they claim that many planetary observations on
the tablet fit the year 588/587 BCE (which would make Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th
year = 588 and his 18th year = 607). They often note a supposed “summer
solstice” discrepancy and unclear planetary data to cast doubt on the
conventional 568/567 BCE dating of VAT 4956.
Response: This claim misrepresents the
evidence. VAT 4956 is one of the most detailed and valuable astronomical
texts from Babylon, and it unequivocally points to Nebuchadnezzar’s
37th year being 568/567 BCE – not 588/587. Mainstream scholars and
expert analyses (Neugebauer, Sachs, Jonsson, etc.) have examined this tablet in
detail. The Watchtower’s own 2011 article admitted the tablet
lists “15 sets of planetary observations” and numerous lunar
observations, but tried to claim some signs are unclear or could be interpreted
differently. Let’s break down the key points:
- Clear Matching of 568/567 BCE: VAT 4956’s first line
explicitly dates itself: “Year 37 of Nebukadnezar, king of Babylon….” and then
records positions of the moon and planets throughout that year. When these
observations are input into astronomy software or calculated, the only
year that fits all (or nearly all) the data is 568/567 BCE. For
example, the tablet notes a specific lunar eclipse and multiple exact
conjunctions/positions (e.g. “Jupiter rose exactly as the sun set on month
I, day 12”, “Mars was in the constellation Praesepe on month II, day
4”, etc.). These events line up with 568/567 to the day.
It is statistically absurd to think they could also line up in 588/587 by
chance. In fact, researchers have identified at least 5 celestial
observations on VAT 4956 that pinpoint 568/567 BCE – making it an
“absolute date” for Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year. By extension,
if his 37th year was 568/567, then counting back 19 years (to his 18th year)
lands on 587/586 BCE for Jerusalem’s fall. This is why VAT 4956 is
celebrated for confirming the 586 BCE destruction of Jerusalem.
- The “Summer Solstice” Issue: One of the tablet’s entries says
(paraphrasing) “Month III, day 9, solstice.” In 568 BCE, the summer solstice
occurred around June 29, which indeed corresponded to the 9th of month III that
year).
In 588 BCE, however, the summer solstice fell on June 29 as
well – but if one tries to align 588 with the tablet, Month III, day 9 would
fall in early July due to needing an extra month (intercalation) to fit the
observations. In other words, to make 588 work, one has to assume the
Babylonians inserted an extra month in that year very late (making Nisan begin
in May 588). But Babylonian calendar experts have noted this would be
unprecedented – intercalations were used to keep the calendar on
track, not to wildly shift it into summer. The solstice entry on
VAT 4956 fits perfectly in 568 BCE (no calendar fudging needed),
but is off by over a week if applied to 588 BCE. This strongly indicates the
tablet is describing 568’s solstice, not 588’s. As one analysis concludes: “VAT
4956 fits 568 BC hand in glove… [Whereas] the claim that 588 BC began in May is
absolutely false,” because it would put the solstice far off the recorded date.
- “Much of the data fits 588”? The Watchtower footnotes admitted
that because some planetary positions are recorded with ambiguous wording, they
chose to ignore the planetary data and focus only on easier lunar data
– then they claimed what’s left “fits” 588. This is a classic case of
cherry-picking. Yes, if you throw out a lot of specific observations (especially
the ones that don’t fit 588!), you might force a partial
match. But the best and least ambiguous data on the tablet –
e.g. the position of the moon relative to specific stars on certain nights, the
lunar eclipse, the mentioned solstice, and certain unique planetary
conjunctions – simply do not match 588. The JW argument hinges on a
few uncertainties, but even those uncertainties don’t automatically make 588
viable; they merely could be interpreted in multiple ways. When all 30+
observations are considered, only 568/567 BCE satisfies the majority of
them without contortion. There is scholarly consensus
on this point, which is why no professional historian dates Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th
year to 588. The few advocates of the 588 theory (such as some
JW researchers or sympathizers like Rolf Furuli or Gerard Gertoux) have had to
propose extremely implausible scenarios – e.g. unusual intercalary months,
copying errors for nearly every planet’s name, or dismissing the data as “open
to interpretation” when it plainly isn’t in sum total.
In conclusion, VAT 4956
powerfully supports the traditional chronology (Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th
year = 568/567, thus his 18th = 587/586). It is one of multiple astronomical
texts that do so – another example is BM 32312 which dates
Nebuchadnezzar’s 7th year by an eclipse, confirming 597 BCE for that year. The
JWs’ attempt to co-opt VAT 4956 for 607 rests on selectively
omitting data (as noted by independent researchers who reviewed the
Watchtower’s claims. When the full tablet is fairly
considered, it absolutely does not “prove 607” – on the
contrary, it disproves it by anchoring Nebuchadnezzar’s reign in line with
secular history. The so-called “recent research” touted by 607 defenders has
been reviewed and found wanting. For example, the planetary positions
in VAT 4956 are actually labeled with distinctive names that Babylonian
scholars knew (Jupiter, Venus, etc.), and analysis shows they are not as
ambiguous as claimed. The Watchtower’s own cited source (David Brown) didn’t
conclude VAT 4956 could indicate 588; he was categorizing how planets were
named in various texts, not overturning the chronology.
Bottom line: Astronomical evidence, often
considered the most precise dating method for antiquity, firmly refutes the 607
timeline. VAT 4956, rather than being an ally to the 607 theory, is one of
the strongest enemies of it – it ties Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year to
568/7 BCE with a “good measure of certainty”, leaving no room
for shifting his 18th year to 607.
7. Nebuchadnezzar’s
“Seven-Year Absence” – No Evidence for a Gap
Claim: Some have suggested Nebuchadnezzar
had a period of incapacity (often linked to the biblical account in Daniel 4
where he is insane for “seven times,” interpreted as seven years) that is not
reflected in Babylonian records – possibly implying a gap that could account
for extra years in chronology. The argument would be that secular history
“missed” a seven-year period in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign, perhaps making room for
the 607 date.
Response: This theory doesn’t hold up. First,
even if Nebuchadnezzar was temporarily incapacitated, the Babylonians still
counted his reign continuously. There is no indication he abdicated or
was replaced during those “seven times” – the Bible story itself shows his
kingdom was kept intact for him (Daniel 4:26). Babylonian records do not show
any break in the regnal years of Nebuchadnezzar. Documents are dated to each
year from his accession to his 43rd year. Business tablets have been
found from Nebuchadnezzar’s 1st, 2nd, 3rd … through 43rd years
without exception. If there had been an unrecognized co-regency or interregnum
of 7 years, we would find contracts dated to some other person or an unexplained
gap – but we don’t. The year after Nebuchadnezzar’s 43rd is explicitly the start
of his son Evil-Merodach’s reign in the tablets () ().
Furthermore, the
lengths of reigns are well documented by multiple sources (Ptolemy’s
Canon, Berossus, Babylonian king lists, etc.), all of which agree Nebuchadnezzar
reigned 43 years total. There’s no mysterious “+7 years” anywhere. If the
“seven times” of Daniel 4 were indeed seven years of madness, those years were
still part of Nebuchadnezzar’s 43-year reign – they don’t add extra years
beyond the 43. In other words, even if one believes the biblical account
literally, Nebuchadnezzar would have ruled (on paper) for 43 years, with
perhaps a hiatus in his ability; but his officials would have kept dating
documents in his name. And that’s exactly what we see – continuous dating in
Nebuchadnezzar’s name up to year 43 ().
This means there is no
“vacancy” in Babylon’s kingly line where an extra seven (or twenty)
years could be inserted. Some JW writers once speculated about overlaps (for
example, that Evil-Merodach’s accession might overlap Nebuchadnezzar’s last
year or two). But new evidence even showed that any minor overlap at the
transition was just a matter of months at most, not years () (). In fact, newly
examined tablets show Nebuchadnezzar was still being acknowledged as king up
until the time of his death, and Evil-Merodach’s accession year started just
before Nebuchadnezzar died – a co-regency of only weeks (). So rather than adding
years, these findings tighten the timeline even more. One scholarly source put
it plainly: Nebuchadnezzar reigned 43 years — which agrees with history.
Therefore, we cannot add 20 (or even 7) years to Nebuchadnezzar)
In short, there is no
evidence whatsoever from Babylonian history of an unrecorded
multi-year gap in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. All evidence indicates a continuous
reign and a continuous timeline from Nebuchadnezzar down to Cyrus with
no room for padding. The “seven times” of Nebuchadnezzar’s madness are
sometimes brought into the 607 argument, but they actually undercut
it: if one insists on reading those as literal years, then one must also accept
that those years were counted within Nebuchadnezzar’s 43-year reign, which
again fixes his 18th year in 587, not 607. If instead one interprets “seven
times” prophetically (as JWs do for the Gentile Times – see next
section), then it has nothing to do with chronology gaps in Nebuchadnezzar’s
actual reign anyway. Either way, the secular record is intact and matches the
Bible’s own outline of successive kings.
8. Carl Olof
Jonsson’s Work and the Exile
Claim: You claimed that Carl Olof Jonsson’s research (in The Gentile
Times Reconsidered and related writings) failed to address the biblical
70-year exile issue – implying his work is incomplete or avoids scripture.
Response: This is a mischaracterization of
Jonsson’s work. Carl Olof Jonsson (a former JW elder) extensively researched
both the secular evidence and the biblical texts
regarding the 607 vs. 587 debate. Far from ignoring the exile or Jeremiah’s
prophecy, Jonsson directly confronted it. For example, in his critique “When
Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?” (responding to a 2011 Watchtower
article), Jonsson wrote: “The Bible nowhere states that the Jewish
exile lasted for 70 years. Jeremiah clearly states that the 70 years would be a
period of Babylonian rule (‘seventy years for Babylon’), when the nations in
the Near East would ‘serve the king of Babylon.’ (Jeremiah 29:10; 25:11) This
servitude ended in 539 B.C.”. This single sentence shows Jonsson did
address the issue head-on: he explained the meaning of the 70 years in
Jeremiah, citing the verses, and identified the end as 539 BCE. Jonsson also
discussed 2 Chronicles 36 and Daniel 9, demonstrating that a 70-year
servitude/desolation can be understood in harmony with a 587
destruction date.
In fact, Jonsson devotes
sections of his book to examining the Watchtower’s interpretation
of the 70 years and why it is flawed. He notes that the insistence on tying the
70 years strictly to Jerusalem’s desolation forces JW writers to “misrepresent,
misapply, and twist the Bible” (strong words, but illustrating how far
from the text their interpretation is). Jonsson shows that if one lets the
Bible speak – acknowledging Jeremiah 25 and 29 refer to Babylon’s period –
there is no conflict between the “secular” 587 date and Scripture
. The conflict is only between secular facts and the Watchtower’s interpretation
of Scripture.
Additionally, Jonsson
compiled extensive evidence from Bible chronology itself: for
instance, he pointed out that the Bible’s own timeline from the fall of
Jerusalem to the second year of Darius (Zechariah 1:12) is not 70 years, and
that Zechariah (in 520 BCE) refers to those past years in a way that doesn’t
support a 607 start. He also quotes other scholars who demonstrate that the 70-year
figure in prophecy is a round number or symbolic period common in
ancient Near Eastern literature (for example, Babylon itself was said to fall
after 70 years in Isaiah’s prophecy – which turned out to be an approximate
period). All this is to say, Jonsson’s approach was holistic:
he dealt with both the historical evidence and the biblical exegesis, and he
provided a cohesive picture where the Bible’s chronology and secular chronology
match when properly understood.
If possible, get hold of
Jonsson’s Gentile Times Reconsidered – you will find entire chapters
on the 70 years. Jonsson even addresses why the Jews of the
post-exilic period (and thus the Bible writers) used the figure of 70: it had
theological significance (the land “enjoyed its sabbaths” for 70 years, 2
Chron. 36:21) and it neatly spanned the era of Babylon’s reign of terror. But
he emphasizes that the Bible nowhere says “the Jews were
exiled for 70 years.” That phrase is an interpretation the Watchtower
superimposes. In reality, the Jews were exiled for 50 years – exactly as
archaeology, Josephus, and the Bible’s own timeline indicate – and that 50-year
exile occurred within the prophesied 70 years of Babylonian domination. Jonsson
absolutely covers this, quoting scripture extensively. Any claim that he
“didn’t address the exile” is unfounded. On the contrary, it is the Watchtower
that often fails to address the full range of biblical evidence
(like the verses in Jeremiah that mention other nations, or Zechariah’s timing,
or the context of 2 Chronicles) when promoting 607.
In summary, Carl Olof
Jonsson’s work remains one of the most thorough examinations of this topic. He
gives the Bible its due respect and respects the secular data,
showing they harmonize on 587/586 BCE. He even sympathizes with the desire to
uphold Scripture – but shows we must be careful how we interpret
Scripture. His conclusion: The Watchtower’s 607 chronology is an
interpretation that creates a conflict with facts, whereas the Bible itself,
read in context, does not require 607 at all. So dismissing Jonsson as
not addressing exile is simply incorrect – he did, and he demonstrated that the
exile’s length as understood by JWs is a misunderstanding.
9. “Gentile Times”
(Daniel 4) – Why the 2520-Year Calculation is Invalid
Claim: Even if 607 vs. 587 is debated,
JWs believe that 607 BCE is crucial as the start of the “Gentile
Times” – a prophetic period of 2520 years leading to 1914 CE (based on
Daniel 4’s “seven times”). Therefore, they argue, 607 must be defended for
theological reasons, not just historical.
Response: The “Gentile Times” doctrine is a
distinct JW teaching that lacks any explicit biblical basis
tying it to 607 BCE or to a 2520-year span. Here’s why the calculation is
widely considered invalid by non-JW Bible scholars and historians:
- Misapplication of Daniel 4: Daniel chapter 4 is about King
Nebuchadnezzar’s dream of a great tree that is cut down for “seven times”
(periods of time) as a punishment until he learns humility. The straightforward
interpretation – which Daniel himself gives – is that it was a prophecy of
Nebuchadnezzar losing his sanity and kingdom for a period, then being restored.
Nothing in Daniel 4 indicates this dream’s “seven times” should be
applied to a long-range timeline beyond Nebuchadnezzar. The chapter
concludes with Nebuchadnezzar praising God after his reason returned. There is
no mention of Jerusalem, the Gentiles, or the Messiah’s kingdom in that chapter.
JWs derive the idea that the “seven times” represent 7 years = 2520
days = 2520 years and that it represents a long period where God’s
throne is overturned, from Jerusalem’s fall until Christ’s kingship in 1914.
However, this is a string of interpretations that the Bible itself never
connects. It’s essentially an interpretive leap: taking a
symbolic dream and reinterpreting it as a global prophecy. Most Bible
commentators see Daniel 4 as fully fulfilled in Nebuchadnezzar’s experience – period.
- No Biblical Link of “Seven Times” to Luke
21:24: The
phrase “Gentile Times” comes from Luke 21:24 where Jesus says Jerusalem will be
trampled by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are fulfilled. JWs link
this to Daniel 4’s “seven times.” But Jesus did not cite Daniel 4 there. If
anything, some link Luke 21:24 to Daniel chapter 7 or 8 or to
general prophecies of Gentile domination. There is zero indication
Jesus intended a 2520-year chronology. In fact, early Watchtower leaders acknowledged
that the 2520-year calculation originated not from exegesis of Daniel 4 by
Miller or Russell, but from an earlier 19th-century writer (John Aquila Brown)
who speculated on Leviticus 26’s “seven times” of punishment, combining it with
the idea of a “day for a year.” Charles Taze Russell originally thought the
Gentile Times ran from 606 BCE to 1914, but had to adjust to 607 due to the
no-zero-year issue. This shows the calculation’s origin is rooted in
Adventist-era speculative prophecy charts, not plain Scripture.
- Arbitrary Start Date (607) and End Date (1914): The only reason 607 was chosen as
the start of the Gentile Times is because it was believed Jerusalem fell that
year. If Jerusalem actually fell in 587, the 2520 years from then would end in
1934 – which JWs do not teach. So the entire doctrine hinges on the
premise of 607. If 607 is wrong, 1914 loses its only tether. And as we’ve shown
above, 607 is historically wrong,
which already undermines the 1914 calculation. But even assuming for a
moment 607 was right, one must ask: where does the Bible say that the span from
Jerusalem’s fall to God’s Kingdom would be 2520 years? It doesn’t. The Watchtower’s
argument is essentially: “Seven times” in Daniel 4 = 7 prophetic
years of 360 days (they assume a 360-day ancient year) = 2520 days. Then they
cite Ezekiel 4:6’s day-for-year principle (which was a specific symbolic action
of Ezekiel, not a blanket formula) to get 2520 years. Then they attach those
years to “Jerusalem’s fall” (607) and get 1914. Each step is conjectural.
Even the 360-day year is an oversimplification – the Jews used lunar years with
intercalary months, not a fixed 360-day calendar for long periods. Nowhere are
we instructed to do this math in connection with Nebuchadnezzar’s dream. It’s
telling that no one in Christianity taught this “seven times = 2520 years”
doctrine until the 19th century. It’s not an ancient understanding; it arose
from date-setting enthusiasm leading up to 1914.
- Gentile Times Already Fulfilled? Another perspective: Many Christian
scholars think “the times of the Gentiles” Jesus mentioned simply referred to
the indefinite period of Gentile dominion over Jerusalem
(which indeed started with Babylon’s conquest and continued through the
Persian, Greek, Roman, even Islamic periods). Jesus didn’t quantify it. One
could argue it ended in 1967 when Jerusalem came back under Jewish control, or
one could see it as ending when Christ returns – but the Bible doesn’t
specify. Importantly, the early Christians did not preach
that Christ’s kingdom would begin in 1914 or any distant date; they believed
Jesus was made king in the 1st century (see Matthew 28:18, “All authority
has been given me…”). The JWs uniquely insist Jesus only became King in
1914. This entire teaching thus stands on a very shaky foundation: an
interpretation of a dream, an assumption about a start date, a mathematical
conversion, and a modern historical event.
Given the dubious
underpinnings, it’s not surprising that outside Jehovah’s Witnesses, no
historians or biblical scholars accept the 607 B.C.E. to 1914 calculation.
Even many JW-origin offshoots (like the Bible Student groups) have abandoned
that approach when faced with evidence. In fact, the Watchtower itself
once admitted that if not for its interpretation of prophecy, everyone
would accept 587 B.C. as the correct date. They prioritize their interpretation
of “infallible Scripture” over “fallible secular data” – but as we’ve seen,
it’s really prioritizing a particular reading of Scripture over both
evidence and even other scriptures.
In summary, the “Gentile Times” calculation is
invalid because it lacks scriptural mandate and conflicts with established
facts. It is a lynchpin doctrine for 1914, which is perhaps why so much effort
is made to defend 607. But if one is willing to reconsider that doctrine, the
whole weight on 607 can be lifted. The Bible’s prophecies about the end of
Gentile rule and the Messiah’s kingdom do not require a 2520-year count
starting in 607. That idea is an interpretive tradition of the Watchtower, not
a clear biblical teaching. Therefore, insisting on 607 to save the 1914
doctrine is trying to save a house built on sand. Christians can affirm God’s
Word and accept the clear evidence that Jerusalem fell in 587/6,
without any theological crisis – once we realize the 2520-year Gentile Times
concept isn’t actually taught by Jeremiah, Daniel, or Jesus in the way the
Watchtower asserts.
10. “Not One Line
of Evidence against 607”? – Think Again
Finally, to directly answer
the challenge that “there is not one line of evidence disproving 607 BCE”: This
claim could not be further from the truth. There are countless lines of
evidence, from diverse sources, all converging on the conclusion that
Jerusalem was destroyed around 587/586 BCE and not in 607. To
recap some of the most powerful pieces of evidence (each a “line” of evidence
in its own right):
- Babylonian Cuneiform Records: Over 100,000 cuneiform tablets
from the Neo-Babylonian period have been excavated. Thousands are dated
business records mapping an unbroken timeline through the reigns of Babylon’s
kings. The dates on these tablets align with 587/6 BCE for Jerusalem’s
fall and leave no gap for an alternative 607 chronology. If 607 were
true, every one of these dated records from Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year onward
would be misdated by 20 years – an impossibility given they mesh with lunar
eclipses, seasonal references, and later Persian dates.
- Royal Inscriptions and King Lists: Babylonian king lists (such as the
Uruk King List) and Ptolemy’s Canon (a later compilation of reigns) both list
the lengths of reigns of Neo-Babylonian kings that add up to the period 609–539
BCE. This matches the historical timeline. Inserting an extra 20 years (as 607
requires) would create too large a total and conflict with the well-known date
of 539 BCE for Cyrus. Remember, even the Watchtower accepts 539 BCE from
secular history – but 539 to 607 is 68 years, not 70. They
quietly rely on secular chronology from Cyrus onward; it’s inconsistent to
accept 539 BCE and reject everything that leads to 587 BCE.
- Contemporary Historians: Ancient historians like Berosus
(Babylonian priest) and Josephus (as discussed) relay data
that agrees with the conventional chronology. Berosus (3rd century BCE)
explicitly gave the lengths of the Neo-Babylonian kings which match the figures
we have today (and thus place the fall of Jerusalem in 18th of Nebuchadnezzar =
586/7). No ancient historian mentions an earlier 607 date or extra kings to
cover such time.
- Archaeology in Judah: Stratigraphic evidence shows cities
like Lachish and Jerusalem were destroyed in the late 7th/early 6th century
BCE. Not only that, but no habitation continued through that period
– indicating the land was desolate, but only until about the
mid-6th century when returnees resettled. The timeline of pottery styles,
ruins, and even carbon dating, if applicable, all line up with a destruction ~587
and resettlement in the Persian period. This physical evidence would have to be
wrong by 20 years for 607 to hold – an extremely unlikely scenario because
tree-ring chronologies and other benchmarks anchor the dating.
- Biblical Synchronisms: The Bible itself provides
cross-dates that back 587. For example, 2 Kings 25:8 and Jeremiah
52:12 note that the temple was burned in Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year, and Jeremiah
52:28-30 lists exiles taken in years 7, 18,
and 23 of Nebuchadnezzar. We know from Babylonian records that
Nebuchadnezzar’s year 7 was 598/597 (matching Jehoiachin’s exile in 597), his
year 18 was 588/587 (fall of Jerusalem), and year 23 was a later campaign
(582). These align with the 587 chronology perfectly. To put Jerusalem in 607,
one has to redefine Nebuchadnezzar’s year 18 as 607, which contradicts
all those other anchor points. It would also put year 7 at 618 BCE, meaning
Jehoiachin and Daniel went into exile then – a date no historian accepts and
which finds no support (the Babylonian Chronicle fixed that event in 597 BCE).
Thus, even the Bible’s internal timeline of events in Nebuchadnezzar’s reign
points to a later date than 607.
- Astronomical Tablets (Multiple): We discussed VAT 4956. There is
also BM 32312 which records an eclipse in Nebuchadnezzar’s 7th
year on Ululu 13. That eclipse can be calculated and is an exact match for 597
BCE (there was a lunar eclipse on September 597 BCE that fits) – again
confirming Nebuchadnezzar’s 7th year as 597. Likewise, other tablets from the
reign of Amel-Marduk, etc., have celestial references that tie down their
chronology to the same timeline. The stars have no bias – they
indicate the same chronology as historians use. For 607 to be right, all these
astronomical references would have to miraculously also fit a scenario 20 years
earlier, which they do not (barring extreme special pleading as we saw).
Given all of the above, to
say “not one line of evidence” disproves 607 is the opposite of reality. Every
credible line of evidence points away from 607. To date, no
archaeological find or document has been discovered that requires
a 607 date or even suggests the conventional 587 date is wrong by such a large
margin. At best, 607 proponents cherry-pick a phrase here or there (like
Josephus’s mention of 70 years, or a possible ambiguity in an astronomical
text), but when those are examined in context, they fall in line with 587/6.
Thus, we have not just “one
line” but multiple independent lines of evidence converging:
Babylonian chronology records, biblical chronology (when understood properly),
ancient historians, astronomical calculations, and archaeological layers all
converge on the 587/586 BCE destruction of Jerusalem. Not
one line of solid evidence supports 607 BCE. It exists only as a
derived date from a particular interpretation of prophecy.
Conclusion: In a respectful dialogue, one can
acknowledge that JWs uphold 607 BCE out of a sincere desire to
honor what they believe the Bible says. However, as shown above, the Bible
doesn’t actually require that date – and the overwhelming historical evidence
contradicts it. The scholarly disagreements cited by the JW
side are either misunderstandings or exaggerations (no one is disputing 20
missing years, only debating how to reckon the 70-year prophecy which itself
points to 539 BCE). Jeremiah’s prophecy, read in context,
supports the 587 timeline by defining the 70 years as Babylon’s period (ending
539). Josephus’s statements, when fully considered, align with
50 years of desolation (not 70) and thus 587. VAT 4956 and other
tablets firmly anchor Nebuchadnezzar’s reign to the conventional dates
– any “new research” claiming otherwise originates from partisan attempts that
don’t stand up to scrutiny. There is no gap or missing king in
Babylonian history to account for 607. Jonsson and other researchers
have thoroughly addressed the biblical and historical issues and found the
Watchtower’s interpretation wanting. And the Gentile Times
2520-year doctrine, while core to Watchtower chronology, is not grounded in
clear scripture – it should not be used to override hard evidence and clear
biblical context.
To anyone evaluating the
607 vs 587 question, the sensible conclusion – and indeed the one held by
essentially all historians and Bible scholars – is that Jerusalem was
destroyed by Babylon in 587/586 BCE, the Jews returned around 538–537
BCE, and the “70 years” is understood as a round number for Babylon’s empire
(or the period of servitude) from the late 7th century to 539 BCE. There is no
historical or biblical need for the year 607 BCE at all.
In light of this evidence,
the 607 BCE claim is soundly refuted. The respectful challenge
to our JW friends is to reconsider the data objectively. One line of evidence
might be explained away, but when all the lines of evidence are saying
the same thing, it’s time to re-examine the assumptions. As the old saying
goes, “If you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not unicorns.” In this
case, all the “hoofbeats” (evidence) point to 587 BCE – the
“horse” that everyone recognizes – rather than the “unicorn” of 607 BCE that
requires dismissing or contorting nearly every piece of evidence in the field.
Sources:
- Jonsson, Carl O. The Gentile Times
Reconsidered, 4th ed. (2004). (See especially analysis of Jeremiah’s 70
years ((PDF)
Carl-olof-jonsson-when-jerusalem-destroyed p2) and critique of Watchtower’s
607 defense ((PDF)
Carl-olof-jonsson-when-jerusalem-destroyed p2).)
- When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? – Watchtower
October 1 & November 1, 2011 [JW publications defending 607, as critiqued
by Jonsson].
- Dougherty, Raymond. Nabonidus and
Belshazzar (1929) – Notes 2,000 dated cuneiform records as basis for
Neo-Babylonian chronology (Facts
about 607 B.C.E., 587 B.C. and whether Jesus started ruling in 1914).
- Encyclopaedia Britannica, “Nebuchadrezzar”
& Dictionary of Biblical Archaeology – archaeological
evidence of Jerusalem’s 586 BCE destruction (Facts
about 607 B.C.E., 587 B.C. and whether Jesus started ruling in 1914).
- VAT 4956 – Astronomical diary in Babylonian text
pinpointing Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year to 568/7 BCE (Facts
about 607 B.C.E., 587 B.C. and whether Jesus started ruling in 1914); see
also analysis in Investigator magazine (2018) (VAT
4956 | aperi mentis).
- Josephus, Against Apion I.21 (Facts
about 607 B.C.E., 587 B.C. and whether Jesus started ruling in 1914) and Antiquities
X-XI (Facts
about 607 B.C.E., 587 B.C. and whether Jesus started ruling in 1914) (Facts
about 607 B.C.E., 587 B.C. and whether Jesus started ruling in 1914) – on
the 50-year desolation vs. 70-year prophecy.
- Investigator Magazine No. 182 (2018) – “Babylon;
Jerusalem and 70 Years — 586 BCE or 607 BCE?” (Anonymous) (Archaeology
and the Babylonian Exile and 607 BCE vs 586 BCE) (Archaeology
and the Babylonian Exile and 607 BCE vs 586 BCE) (Archaeology
and the Babylonian Exile and 607 BCE vs 586 BCE). This article concisely
addresses the 70-year prophecy context and archaeological confirmations.
- JWfacts.com – “607 BCE and the 70 years of desolation”
(accessed for collation of sources) (Facts
about 607 B.C.E., 587 B.C. and whether Jesus started ruling in 1914) (Facts
about 607 B.C.E., 587 B.C. and whether Jesus started ruling in 1914).
