@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)