@scholar
Claim 1: Critics “Ignore”
the Exile’s Threefold Structure
JW Claim: Opponents of
the 607 BCE date allegedly deny the Jewish Exile and its supposed
threefold framework of Exile–Servitude–Desolation for 70 years.
Rebuttal: No serious
historian denies the Babylonian exile of the Jews – what’s rejected is the Watchtower’s
interpretation that these three aspects formed one exact 70-year period
starting in 607 BCE. Secular scholars recognize the exile happened in stages
(deportations in 597 and 587 BCE, etc.) and that Judah’s servitude to Babylon
began even earlier. Jeremiah’s prophecy of 70 years (Jer. 25:11–12) is usually
understood as a round-number period of Babylonian domination, not
strictly 70 years of complete land desolation. Critics do not “ignore” the
exile at all – they simply disagree that all three elements (exile of the
people, servitude of nations, and desolation of the land) overlap exactly
for 70 years beginning in 607 BCE. This threefold 607–537 timeline
is a Watchtower construct, not a biblical necessity. Even the Bible’s
own writers present the 70-year period in different ways. For example, the
Chronicler (2 Chron. 36:20–23) links the 70 years to land sabbaths ending with
Cyrus’s decree, whereas Zechariah (Zech. 1:12) speaks of “these 70
years” in 518 BCE – a context that fits roughly 587–518, not a 607–537 exile.
Far from “denying” scripture, mainstream scholars are interpreting the texts
in context. It is actually the Watchtower’s harmonization of
“Exile–Servitude–Desolation” into one rigid 70-year block that departs from
both biblical evidence and historical facts. Indeed, as historian Lester
L. Grabbe observes, the insistence on a literal 70-year desolation of
Judah’s land is a naïve reading of prophetic texts (ancient history - When was Jerusalem destroyed by the
Babylonians? - History Stack Exchange). In short, critics fully
acknowledge the Exile; they reject the 607 timeline because it forces
the historical data into an unsupportable framework.
Claim 2: Josephus
“Confirms” a 607–537 BCE Exile
JW Claim: The
first-century historian Flavius Josephus purportedly supports the
Watchtower’s teaching of a 70-year exile from 607 BCE (Jerusalem’s fall) to
537 BCE (return under Cyrus). Josephus “confirms”
this chronology.
Rebuttal: Josephus’s
writings do not consistently support the Watchtower’s 607 BCE date – in
fact, Josephus gives conflicting statements about the length of
Jerusalem’s desolation. The Watchtower cherry-picks one Josephus passage while
ignoring others that align with standard chronology (587 BCE). For example, Against
Apion I.19 in older translations seems to say the Babylonians “burnt the
temple, … and the city lay desolate for seventy years until the time of Cyrus.”
On the surface this might sound like a 70-year desolation. However, Josephus
is plainly in error here. He misplaces the Temple’s destruction,
claiming it happened under Nebuchadnezzar’s father (Nabopolassar), 18 years too
early. This confusion led him to start counting 70 years from 605 BCE.
Josephus’s own translator (Thackeray) notes that Josephus likely interpolated
the Temple burning into Nabopolassar’s reign “erroneously”. In other words,
Josephus garbled the timeline from his sources.
Crucially, just two paragraphs later (Apion I.21), Josephus actually affirms
the conventional chronology. He there quotes the Babylonian historian
Berossus’s list of Neo-Babylonian kings (Nebuchadnezzar 43 years, Evil-Merodach
2, Neriglissar 4, Labashi-Marduk ~0.75, Nabonidus 17) and says “this account
is in accordance with our books.” Why did he consider it correct? Josephus
explains that scripture recorded the Temple’s destruction in
Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th year, that the Temple lay waste for 50 years, and
that in Cyrus’s 2nd year the reconstruction began. Indeed, 50 years is
exactly the period from 587 BCE to 537 BCE. Thus, Josephus elsewhere
acknowledges a 50-year desolation, not a 70-year one, matching the
traditional 587 BCE date. He even ties this 50-year span to the biblical
timeline (“in accordance with our books”). Far from being a cheerleader for
607 BCE, Josephus here implicitly supports 587 BCE.
In summary, Josephus is not a reliable witness for a 607–537 exile.
The Watchtower’s argument relies on an out-of-context reading of his
flawed statement, while ignoring his later correction. Even Watchtower scholar
R. Furuli admits Josephus’ figures are problematic, yet Furuli still quoted the
outdated Whiston translation that gave Nabopolassar a bogus 29-year reign.
Scholarly rebuttals note that had Furuli used a modern critical text, he’d see
Josephus did not actually list a 29-year Nabopolassar. In short,
Josephus’s ambiguous statements cannot override the massive contemporary
evidence dating Jerusalem’s fall to 587/586 BCE. Appealing to Josephus for
607 BCE is not only selective, it hinges on Josephus’s own chronological
mistake, which he effectively corrected elsewhere.
Claim 3: 586 vs. 587 BCE
– Does Scholarly Disagreement Undermine Secular Chronology?
JW Claim: Historians
dispute whether Jerusalem fell in 586 BCE or 587 BCE, and this alleged
uncertainty in secular chronology supposedly shows it is flawed –
implying the Watchtower’s 607 BCE date (which they view as biblically
certain) is more reliable.
Rebuttal: This
argument greatly exaggerates the significance of a minor academic
debate. The difference between 586 and 587 BCE amounts to one year,
stemming from how ancient regnal years are counted (Judah’s calendar vs.
Babylon’s, accession-year counting, etc.). Scholars overwhelmingly agree Jerusalem
was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar’s army in the late 580s BCE, specifically
in Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th regnal year. The only question is whether that
regnal year corresponds to 587 or 586 BCE – a technicality. Both dates are
within the same historical framework, which is anchored by numerous
Babylonian records. In contrast, the Watchtower’s date (607 BCE) is a full 20
years earlier, a discrepancy of a completely different magnitude. It’s
misleading to equate a scholarly 586 vs. 587 discussion with the Watchtower’s wholesale
revision.
The scholarly process actually highlights the strength of the
evidence: researchers debate 587 vs 586 because the evidence narrows the
destruction to that tiny window. All lines of historical evidence –
Babylonian chronicles, datable economic tablets, astronomical observations –
point to the late 580s, not to 607. For example, Babylonian Chronicle
ABC 5 pinpoints Nebuchadnezzar’s campaign in Judah to 587 BCE (his year
18) by modern dating, and the astronomical diary VAT 4956
independently fixes Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year to 568 BCE, which means
year 18 was 587 BCE. At most, an alternative counting could place it in
586 BCE. This tiny uncertainty is no “flaw” in the chronology – it’s
normal scholarly precision. It certainly doesn’t imply we can throw out two
decades of well-attested history.
Ironically, even Watchtower publications have flip-flopped on whether the
destruction was in 587 or 586 before ultimately insisting on 607. Thus, the Watchtower’s
own history reflects uncertainty until they imposed their dogmatic
solution. In contrast, secular historians remain confident in the 580s BCE
timeframe. The bottom line: a one-year debate does not equal an open door
for a twenty-year error. Claiming otherwise is a false equivalence.
By this logic, one could argue scholars’ debates about 33 CE vs 30 CE
for Jesus’ death invalidate the whole timeline – which is clearly absurd. Minor
academic debates are a far cry from the Watchtower’s chronological overhaul,
which is not supported by any reputable evidence.
Claim 4: A “Single,
Unified” 70-Year Biblical Timeline (607–537 BCE)
JW Claim: The Bible
supposedly presents a single, unified 70-year period for Judah’s exile that must
run from the fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE until the Jewish return in 537 BCE.
In this view, all biblical references to “70 years” share one clear meaning
tied to that timeframe.
Rebuttal: There is no
consensus even within the Bible itself that the 70 years are a single
period of total exile from 607–537. This claim glosses over the complexity and diverse
perspectives found in Scripture. The prophecy in Jeremiah 25:11–12
foretells 70 years of nations serving the king of Babylon (implying Babylonian
supremacy). Jeremiah 29:10, addressed to exiles, speaks of 70 years “at
Babylon” (often understood as Babylon’s domination or the exile in a broad
sense, not specifically the land lying empty). By contrast,
2 Chronicles 36:20–21 interprets Jeremiah’s 70 years as the land enjoying
its Sabbaths during its desolation, but then immediately says this period
lasted “until the first year of Cyrus” – which historically was about 50 years
after Jerusalem’s fall. Meanwhile, Daniel 9:2 reflects on Jeremiah’s prophecies
of 70 years, and Daniel (writing near the end of those years) seems to treat
them as nearly complete in his time (c. 538 BCE). Zechariah 1:12
(in 520 BCE) refers to God’s indignation on Jerusalem “these seventy
years,” which from 520 would backdate to ~590 BCE. This suggests different
starting reference points (perhaps the initial Babylonian incursions or exile
of 597 BCE) rather than a neat 607 BCE start. In short, the biblical
texts do not unanimously pinpoint a 607 start – that date is an
inference the Watchtower makes by forcing all references into one mold.
Furthermore, the Bible never explicitly links the destruction of
Jerusalem with a countdown of exactly 70 years. The prophets simply
foretold a 70-year Babylonian period of judgment and exile. History shows that
period was roughly 605–538 BCE (from Babylon’s rise to Babylon’s fall).
The Watchtower’s insistence on 607–537 is actually a modern interpretation
driven by their prophetic chronology (1914 calculation), not a plainly stated
biblical timeline. The claim of a “single context” oversimplifies scripture. As
Grabbe and other scholars note, treating the 70 years as a literal block of
desolation for Judah is a theologically driven reading that ignores
the historical context. The Bible’s message about the 70 years is thematic
(judgment and restoration) rather than a precise chronological formula to be
calculated to the month. In fact, no biblical writer explicitly says
“Jerusalem will lie desolate for seventy years from its fall.” That is a
harmonization the Watchtower imposes. Therefore, the supposed “unity” of the
70-year period is an illusion – it is the product of selective interpretation
rather than a clear scriptural statement.
Claim 5: The Bible Never
Defines the 70 Years as Babylonian Domination
JW Claim: Scripture never explicitly defines the prophesied
70 years as a period of Babylonian imperial domination, implying that
the 70 years must instead be defined by Judah’s exile/desolation (as the
Watchtower teaches).
Rebuttal: This claim
is misleading. While it’s true the Bible doesn’t use the exact phrase
“70 years of Babylonian empire,” the plain sense of Jeremiah’s original
prophecy is indeed the period of Babylon’s rule over the nations. Jeremiah
25:11 clearly says “these nations shall serve the king of Babylon
seventy years.” That is a definition by the Bible itself – servitude to
Babylon for 70 years. The Watchtower tries to redefine “serve” as if it
meant the Jews were exiled for 70 years, but Jeremiah was addressing multiple
nations, not just Judah. Similarly, Jeremiah 29:10 (written to exiles in
Babylon) said “when seventy years for Babylon are completed, I will bring
you back.” Notice it says “for Babylon,” indicating the period is
tied to Babylon’s timeframe (i.e. its dominance), not explicitly “for
Jerusalem.” Thus, the Bible very much frames the 70 years around Babylon
– specifically the time of Babylonian ascendancy and later Babylon’s punishment
after those years (Jer. 25:12).
The Watchtower argument often emphasizes that 2 Chron. 36 and Daniel
refer to the desolation of Jerusalem, insinuating the Bible’s 70 years must be
about Jerusalem’s condition exclusively. But 2 Chronicles doesn’t say “70
years of desolation” – it says the land kept sabbath “to fulfill seventy
years” (alluding to Jeremiah) and that Cyrus’s decree came “in order to
fulfill the word of the LORD by Jeremiah”. In other words, the Chronicler
understood Jeremiah’s 70-year word as fulfilled by Cyrus’s decree ending
Babylonian rule. This is perfectly compatible with the domination
interpretation – Babylon fell to Cyrus after ~70 years of regional power.
Indeed, Babylon’s empire effectively began with its conquest of Assyria and
regions (around 609–605 BCE) and ended in 539 BCE – a period of about
70 years. Biblical scholars widely hold that the “70 years” is a round
number symbolizing a long, complete period of exile and foreign domination, not
necessarily an exact calendar interval for an empty land. The Watchtower’s
complaint that “the Bible never calls it Babylonian domination” is a straw man;
the language of Jeremiah does exactly that, and later biblical writers
allude to Jeremiah without redefining the period in a radically different way.
Moreover, the context of prophecy in the ancient Near East often
used idealized numbers. “Seventy years” likely conveyed a lifespan or a
fullness of time under Babylon’s yoke (note: 70 is 10×7, symbolically
complete). The Watchtower’s literalistic approach insists it must be exactly 70
years of land desolation, but that is not explicitly stated anywhere. By
contrast, Babylon’s role is explicitly mentioned by Jeremiah. In
summary, the Bible’s definitions point to Babylon’s period of supremacy
as the span of the 70 years, not a mysterious 20-year-longer Jewish exile that
defies all historical evidence.
Claim 6: Josephus
Supports 607 BCE in Multiple References
JW Claim: Josephus "consistently" supports 607 BCE, his various references harmonize with the
Watchtower’s interpretation of a 70-year desolation ending in 537 BCE. In
essence, Josephus is a witness on the JWs' side, not just in one
passage but overall.
Rebuttal: This is incorrect
– Josephus’s references on the exile are anything but consistent, and
none unambiguously endorse a 607–537 timeline when properly understood. As
discussed, Josephus made an internal error by implying a 70-year
desolation starting with an event he mistakenly placed in 605 BCE. But
elsewhere, Josephus calculates the time differently. For example, in Antiquities XI.1,
Josephus says that the first year of Cyrus was 70 years after the
prophecy of Jeremiah (which he places in the 11th year of Zedekiah) – by
Josephus’s reckoning that prophecy would have been around 587 BCE, making
70 years land in 517 BCE (long after Cyrus’s first year). This
demonstrates how Josephus struggled with the chronology, yielding
contradictory numbers. He also preserves the data from Berossus that fix the
Neo-Babylonian reigns totaling about 66 years (not 86) from Nebuchadnezzar to
Nabonidus. That matches a 587 BCE destruction, not 607.
In fact, Josephus explicitly notes that the Temple lay desolate for 50
years (from 587 BCE to about 537 BCE). This aligns with secular
chronology. The Watchtower argument typically strings together Josephus quotes
out of context. Rolf Furuli, for instance, cited Josephus’s Apion I.19
about 70 years of desolation and then immediately quoted Josephus saying
“the statement (about the kings’ reigns) is correct and according to our books”
– giving the false impression Josephus “agrees” that 70 years of desolation is
correct according to scripture. In reality, Josephus was referring to
Berossus’s list as correct, which, as noted, yields a 587 BCE timeline. By
splicing quotes, the you misrepresent Josephus’s stance.
Leading scholars have pointed out these conflicting statements in
Josephus. The inaccuracies likely stem from Josephus using different sources
(biblical and Babylonian) and not reconciling them perfectly. Thus, trying to
enlist Josephus as a firm supporter of 607 BCE is misguided. At best,
Josephus provides a confused secondary testimony that occasionally
mentions “70 years” of exile in a way the Watchtower likes. But he is not an
authority overriding primary historical data. We must remember Josephus wrote centuries
after the events, lacking our modern access to Babylonian records; where we
can test him against contemporary evidence, Josephus’s 70-year statements do
not hold up. In sum, Josephus cannot be honestly cited as consistent proof for
607 BCE – in fact, when understood properly, his work undercuts the
Watchtower chronology more than it helps it.
Claim 7: Nebuchadnezzar’s
“Seven Missing Years” Must Be Added
JW Claim: The biblical
book of Daniel (Dan. 4) says King Nebuchadnezzar temporarily lost
his sanity for “seven times” (often understood as seven years). Secular chronology "ignores" these 7 years –
implying there is a gap in the historical record. They suggest these seven
years of Nebuchadnezzar’s absence should be added to Neo-Babylonian
chronology, supporting a longer timespan that could accommodate
607 BCE.
Rebuttal: This
argument reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both ancient chronology and
the biblical account. No credible evidence indicates Nebuchadnezzar’s
43-year reign had an uncounted 7-year gap. Babylonian records from his reign
are continuous year-by-year. Business tablets are dated by the reigning
king’s year, and we have economic texts for every year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign
up to year 43. There is no sudden break of “unknown ruler” or missing
dating that would correspond to an unrecorded hiatus. If Nebuchadnezzar
truly was incapacitated for several years, he apparently remained the
official king, and the Babylonian administration kept counting the regnal
years in order. In other words, those 7 years would still fall within his
43-year reign as recorded – not in addition to it. The Watchtower’s notion of
“adding” them seems to presuppose they were somehow left out by historians, but
Babylonian scribes who lived through that period did not omit seven years
in their dated documents.
Moreover, many scholars interpret Daniel 4’s story theologically or
symbolically – it’s possibly a didactic tale about humility, not a precise
chronicle requiring us to amend Babylonian king lists. But even if one takes it
literally, Nebuchadnezzar’s “seven times” could well be seven periods of a
few months (since the text uses “times,” not explicitly years) or simply a
figurative way to say “a complete period of punishment.” There is no solid
basis to insert a literal seven-year gap into secular history. The Neo-Babylonian
chronology is tightly confirmed by multiple lines of evidence. For example,
a royal inscription by Nebuchadnezzar’s daughter (the Adad-guppi’ Stele)
and numerous contract tablets show a consistent timeline of kings with no room
for extra regnal years. If we erroneously added 7 years to Nebuchadnezzar, we
would have to push all subsequent events 7 years later, wrecking the synchronism
with Persian records and astronomically dated tablets.
In fact, Watchtower defenders themselves seldom agree on how to apply these
“missing years.” Some suggest Nebuchadnezzar ruled 7 years longer than recorded
(making his reign 50 years), others speculate a coregency or an otherwise
unattested ruler took over. All such scenarios collide with hard evidence.
Notably, no Babylonian text mentions Nebuchadnezzar’s supposed period of
madness – which is odd if it lasted a long time. This silence suggests either
the episode was brief, non-literal, or simply kept out of official annals.
Regardless, the chronological record doesn’t show a gap. As a result,
historians have never needed to “add” these years. The only ones insisting on
doing so are trying to force-fit a predetermined 607 BCE date. In short,
Nebuchadnezzar’s seven “missing” years are a mirage – a conjecture that
finds zero support in the detailed Babylonian chronology, where every
single year is already accounted for.
Claim 8: Furuli’s
Research Is Unrefuted Since Critics Avoid Peer-Review
JW Claim: Jehovah’s
Witness scholar Rolf Furuli’s revisionist chronology (supporting
607 BCE) supposedly stands unrefuted because critics have not
challenged it in peer-reviewed academic journals. The implication is that
mainstream scholars “cannot” disprove his “Oslo Chronology,” or they
fear engaging it, so it remains valid by default.
Rebuttal: This claim
is demonstrably false. Furuli’s work has been refuted – and notably, it has
been reviewed in at least one peer-reviewed publication. In 2004, Prof. Lester
L. Grabbe (a respected historian of ancient Judaism) published a scathing
review of Furuli’s first volume in the Journal for the Study of the Old
Testament. Grabbe characterized Furuli as “an amateur who wants to
rewrite scholarship” and dismantled his arguments about Persian chronology
and the 70 years. Grabbe highlighted how Furuli’s methodology cherry-picks data
and relies on naive literalism of biblical texts (ancient history - When was Jerusalem destroyed by the
Babylonians? - History Stack Exchange). So the idea that Furuli has
not been addressed “in peer review” is simply wrong – it has, and the verdict
was negative.
Beyond formal journals, subject matter experts have weighed in. The
renowned Assyriologist Dr. Hermann Hunger (University of Vienna)
authored a detailed critique of Furuli’s second volume, pointing out egregious
errors in how Furuli handled Babylonian astronomical texts (this review was
made available online to inform interested readers). Hunger, an authority on
cuneiform astronomy, showed that Furuli’s interpretations of tablets like
VAT 4956 were flawed and that his proposed chronologies were untenable.
Likewise, analyst H.G. Halsey published a three-part examination of the
Watchtower’s use of VAT 4956, further refuting Furuli’s astronomical
claims with meticulous analysis. These are serious, substantive refutations –
the fact they weren’t printed in Watchtower-friendly venues doesn’t erase them.
The lack of multiple peer-reviewed rebuttals is not a sign of
Furuli’s strength but of its fringe status. Academic journals rarely waste
pages rebutting every fringe theory (especially one self-published by
its author, as Furuli’s books were). It’s telling that when Furuli attempted to
present his work to actual experts, it did not persuade them – it drew
criticism. In scholarly discourse, silence does not equal endorsement.
By this logic, one could claim young-earth creationism is “unrefuted in peer
review” – which is misleading, since mainstream scholars consider it already
refuted by basic science and thus don’t engage on its terms. Furuli’s
chronology is analogous: it’s so at odds with established evidence that
specialists see little to debate. In sum, Furuli’s research is far from
unrefuted. It has been addressed and found wanting by those qualified to
evaluate it (ancient history - When was Jerusalem destroyed by the
Babylonians? - History Stack Exchange). The onus was on Furuli to
convince experts with solid evidence, but he has not – instead his work has
been largely ignored in academia because it lacks merit, not
because it’s unassailable.
Claim 9: Critics Don’t
Use Furuli’s Methodology, So Rebuttals Are Invalid
JW Claim: Critics of Furuli (and the 607 BCE chronology)
haven’t followed the same “methodology” Furuli used; therefore, their
counter-arguments are supposedly flawed or irrelevant. In other words, unless
one replicates Furuli’s exact approach, one cannot properly refute his
conclusions.
Rebuttal: This
argument tries to deflect criticism by moving the goalposts. The true
test of any methodology is whether it yields a coherent, evidence-supported
result – and Furuli’s does not. His methodology essentially involved discarding
or downplaying vast amounts of standard data (like thousands of cuneiform
tablets and well-established king lists) while giving outsized weight to a few
ambiguous or speculative points that might support a longer timeline. Scholars
are right not to emulate such a flawed approach. Instead, critics
evaluate Furuli’s claims with sound historical method, examining all
evidence, not just a select subset.
In fact, analyzing Furuli’s work reveals that his methodology is riddled
with inconsistencies and special pleading. For instance, Furuli
speculated that the astronomers’ observations might be fraught with errors,
hoping to invalidate well-dated tablets like VAT 4956 – yet he accepted
another astronomical tablet (Strm. Kambys 400) because the Watchtower had
used it in support of 607. This double standard is not how valid methodology
works. Critics rightly point out such inconsistencies rather than reproducing
them. As another example, Furuli lifted outdated figures from Whiston’s
18th-century translation of Josephus, leading him to claim “Josephus said
Nebuchadnezzar reigned 43 years, Evil-Merodach 18, Neriglissar 40,” etc. –
numbers we now know are textually corrupt. A proper method would use current
critical texts, which Furuli didn’t; critics justifiably corrected this without
needing to repeat Furuli’s error-laden process.
The suggestion that one must use Furuli’s methodology to refute him is like
saying astronomers must use Ptolemy’s geocentric model to prove heliocentrism.
In reality, one demonstrates the flaws in a method by showing how it
contradicts the evidence or established principles. That’s exactly what has
been done. Experts have shown Furuli’s approach conflicts with primary sources
and even internal logic. For example, Furuli’s “Oslo Chronology” needed
to conjure up extra kings or longer reigns to add 20 years; he scoured a
damaged tablet for the phrase “ruled for three years” to posit an unknown king,
a leap his own source material couldn’t support. Highlighting this desperate
leap is a valid refutation; one need not engage in the same speculative
treasure hunt to show it’s baseless. In short, critics have no obligation to
adopt a faulty methodology. Their task – which they have done – is to expose
its faults, and they’ve done so by relying on sound historical and textual
analysis. The academic consensus remains that Furuli (and thus
Watchtower) methodology is fundamentally flawed, as it requires dismissing an
avalanche of consistent data in favor of tenuous reinterpretations. A
methodology that produces such skewed results is not one to emulate – it’s one
to reject.
Claim 10: A 20-Year Gap
Confirms Watchtower Dating (607 BCE vs. 587 BCE)
JW Claim: There is a 20-year
gap between secular history’s timeline and the Bible’s (as interpreted by
Watchtower). Specifically, secular historians date Jerusalem’s fall around
587 BCE, whereas Watchtower says 607 BCE – a difference of about 20
years. This gap itself “proves” secular chronology is missing 20 years,
thereby “validating” the Watchtower’s 607 BCE date.
Rebuttal: This
reasoning is completely circular – it assumes what it needs to prove. Yes, the
Watchtower chronology and the academic chronology diverge by about 20 years for
the Neo-Babylonian period. But that gap is exactly the issue in question,
not evidence to end the debate. To “confirm” Watchtower dating, one must show positive
evidence for those extra 20 years. And all evidence actually runs contrary
to the gap. Decades of research into Babylonian records have found no hint
of an extra 20 years inserted anywhere. On the contrary, every reliable source
from that era lines up with the shorter chronology (587 BCE). For
instance:
- Contemporary King Lists: Ancient Babylonian king lists and chronicles
(such as the Uruk King List and Babylonian Chronicle series) enumerate the
reigns of Neo-Babylonian kings with no large breaks. Summing those reigns
from Nebuchadnezzar’s accession to the fall of Babylon yields about 66–67
years, not 86–87. There is simply no 20-year void where an
unrecorded king or extended reign could hide.
- Business Tablets: Tens
of thousands of dated economic tablets exist from Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon
and his successors. These tablets cover every year in sequence –
they “fill in” year after year with contracts, receipts, etc., all
dated to a specific king’s year. Scholars can trace families and
officials through these documents continuously from Nabopolassar through
Nabonidus. If 20 extra years existed, we would expect at least a gap or
some anomaly in these archives. We find none. The continuity of documents
from Nebuchadnezzar’s 1st year through the fall of Babylon is a strong practical
confirmation of the traditional timeline.
- Astronomical Tablets:
Perhaps most decisively, several Babylonian astronomical records pin
absolute dates to Babylonian regnal years, making it impossible to
stretch or move those years. One famous example is the astronomical
diary VAT 4956, which records planetary and lunar positions in
Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year. The only year that matches its detailed
observations is 568 BCE (not 588 BCE). Another set of texts,
the lunar eclipse tablets LBAT 1419, 1420, 1421, list lunar
eclipses in specific regnal years of Nebuchadnezzar – these also align
perfectly with 590s–580s BCE dates, locking Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th
year to 587 BCE. In total, at least five astronomical texts
from Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (including VAT 4956 and others) “inexorably
block” any attempt to shift his reign by even one year, let alone
twenty. The motions of planets and eclipses simply do not lie – they are
like time-stamped photographs of the sky. For the Watchtower’s
607 BCE to be true, all these tablets would either have to be
fraudulent or wildly misdated by ancient scribes, which credible experts
like Dr. Hunger vehemently reject.
In light of this overwhelming evidence, historians conclude there is no
missing 20 years – the gap exists only in the Watchtower’s interpretation.
That interpretation originates from a dogmatic need to make “70 years” fit a
particular theology, not from neutral analysis of data. Indeed, to bridge the
gap, Watchtower defenders have proposed far-fetched theories (e.g. inventing
new kings or equating known figures like Nabonidus’s son with extra rulers).
Furuli’s “Oslo Chronology” tried both strategies: he speculated that a
Babylonian text’s mention of a king ruling “for three years” might hint at an unknown
king, and he even argued Babylonian king Kandalanu was actually
Nabopolassar under another name – all to shuffle the timeline around. These
hypotheses have been thoroughly debunked. For instance, the “King for 3
years” line comes from a damaged prophecy text and is far too flimsy to assert
a new monarch; meanwhile, equating Kandalanu with Nabopolassar contradicts both
historical and astronomical data (the reign of Kandalanu is firmly fixed in the
640s BCE by a tablet of Saturn observations). In short, the only way to insert
20 extra years is to rewrite history with unsubstantiated speculation – and
even then, the sky itself (astronomy) refutes it.
Therefore, instead of confirming Watchtower dating, the “20-year gap” claim
simply highlights that Watchtower chronology stands 20 years apart from
reality. All real evidence confirms the conventional timeline (with Jerusalem’s
fall in 587/586 BCE), leaving 607 BCE as an outlier based on
misinterpretation. As one former Witness publication aptly put it: “The
cosmic fingerprint doesn’t lie… Watchtower chronology doesn’t stand a chance.”
(ancient history - When was Jerusalem destroyed by the
Babylonians? - History Stack Exchange)
