I do not know if anyone has done the same here , but I wrote to Dr. Ronald H. Sack , quoted in the Watchtower , and he answered me . See below:
Hi Dr. Sack,
The Watchtower magazine of November, 2011 published an article on Neo-Babylonian chronology. The magazine mentions that the sources that support the date 587 BC for destruction of Jerusalem are not reliable. To support this point of view, they quote you some times, among other experts. See a example below:
“What have experts said? R. H. Sack, a leading authority on cuneiform documents, states that the chronicles provide an incomplete record of important events. He wrote that historians must probe ‘secondary sources . . . in the hope of determining what actually happened.’
“What do the documents show? There are gaps in the history recorded in the Babylonian chronicles.3 (See the box below.) Logically, then, the question arises, how reliable are deductions”.
So I ask, do you agree somehow with Watchtower on this application? Is there really any chance of the year 587 BC be wrong?
I am a Brazilian researcher who writes about ancient history and I would appreciate your response.
Adelmo Medeiros www.adelmomedeiros.com
(Soon also into English...)
Dr. Sack said:
I have already responded to many who have asked this question. The Watchtower misrepresents me entirely. The date for the destruction of Jerusalem is 587 BC. The article in the Watchtower is unsigned and a complete misrepresentation of my work. Marjorie Alley of the Atchaeological Institute of America has correctly represented me on her webpage where she correctly quotes my book Neriglissar---King of Babylon, pp 25-26. If anyone here wants to tell me something, please send a message to my email address indicated on my website ("contato"). Thanks!