I have one comment and one question. First, my comment:
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.
The reference looked familiar--lo and behold, there's this very same book in my bookcase, not four feet away from me. The Bible and the Ancient Near East is really quite an awesome little collection of seminal essays in honor of W.Albright. Anyway, I flipped to p. 281 and read the comment by Campbell in context. Now, the comment itself is NOT taken out of context. However, the chart he introduces and about which he makes that comment begins in 3800 BC and ends in 400 BC, and encompasses not just the Neo-Bab chron., which is a mere 80 years or so, but Egyptian, Palestinian, Syrian, and Assyrian. In other words, it's incredibly broad in scope and the years in question, pertaining to the destruction of Jerusalem, are a tiny, tiny part of it.
Moreover, if the writer of the WT article had this book in his clutches, then surely he could have turned to the beginning page of the essay in which Campbell's words and chart appear (p. 265) which provides a contextual framework for understanding the import of the charts. Following is a quote from the opening paragraph:
No modern reconstruction of Biblical chronology can ignore the fixed dates provided by extra-Biblical sources; and the Biblical dates must be modified in accordance with the pattern of Near Eastern chronology now firmly established for the second and first millenia B.C., within limits that decrease from a generation in the earlier periods to a few years in the central section to certainty in the latter part. (Emphasis mine.)
So this explains how to interpret Campbell's disclaimer, which occurs several pages later and is selectively quoted by the WT. The degree of uncertainty to which Campbell refers applies primarily to the "earlier periods," and subsides to zero, "to certainty" in the "latter part," which is, of course, exactly where the NeoBabylonian period is located. What the WT is doing is taking his words, which, within the context of the whole essay, are clearly meant to apply to the earlier portions of the chart, and applying them to the latter portions so as to make it appear as if the degree of uncertainty he is expressing pertains to the period under consideration.
Okay, I just wanted to add that. Now for my question: Why hasn't anyone mentioned Egibi? Isn't there any English sources for these important tablets?