|
Does The
Watchtower Unwittingly Support 587 B.C.E. for Jerusalem's
Destruction?
Some have put forth the argument that the Neo-Babylonian chronology seen in Watchtower publications unwittingly
or unintentionally supports 587 B.C.E. for Jerusalem's destruction. This line of reasoning can be made in four
steps, listed below:
Step 1:
Quote Watchtower references on Neo-Babylonian kinglist chronology. For instance, the January 1, 1965 issue of The
Watchtower had an article entitled "The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived" that stated on page
29:
"Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar,
who reigned for four years, which time he spent mainly in building operations. His underage son Labashi-Marduk,
a vicious boy, succeeded him, and was assassinated within nine months. Nabonidus, who had served as governor
of Babylon and who had been Nebuchadnezzar's favorite son-in-law, took the throne and had a fairly glorious reign
until Babylon fell in 539 B.C.E." (underscore added) (This was also stated in the 1963 Watchtower publication
"Babylon the Great Has Fallen" God's Kingdom Rules! on page 184.)
Regarding the length of Nabonidus' reign, the August 15, 1968 issue of The Watchtower had an article entitled
"The Book of Truthful Historical Dates" that stated on page 491: "In the
seventeenth year of King Nabunaid [Nabonidus], Babylon fell to Cyrus the Persian." (underscore added)
Lastly, Nebuchadnezzar is given "43 years" per the February 1, 1969 issue in the article "Babylonian
Chronology - How Reliable?" on page 89.
Step 2:
With the above information, a list and table like this has been made:
- Nabonidus - 17 years
- Labashi-Marduk - 1 year (9 months actually)
- Neriglissar - 4 years
- Evil-merodach - 2 years
- Nebuchadnezzar - 43 years, but we only count from the 19th year according to 2 Kings 25:8 and Jeremiah 52:12,
thus 24.
| King |
Reign |
| Nabonidus |
17 years |
| Labashi-Marduk |
1 year (9 months actually) |
| Neriglissar |
4 years |
| Evil-merodach |
2 years |
| Nebuchadnezzar |
24 years |
Step 3:
Do the math: Total the lengths of reign 24+2+4+1+17=48 years from Jerusalem's destruction to 539 B.C.E. Finally,
539-48=587. (48 years prior to 539 B.C.E. takes us to 587 B.C.E.)
Step 4:
Declare that Watchtower publications unwittingly support 587 B.C.E.
Problems with the argument
Problem 1:
When the above 1968 Watchtower stated that Nabonidus' reign was seventeen years, it was under the premise
that the Nabonidus Chronicle stated that. However, the May 15, 1971 issue of The Watchtower acknowledged
in its article "Testimony of the Nabonidus Chronicle" on page 316 that this in fact is not the case,
that there is a lacuna where the year evidently appeared originally. (See the Footnote
A to the 1968 Watchtower article.)
Problem 2:
According to current Watchtower publications, as seen in the encyclopaedic two-volume Insight on the Scriptures,
the Neo-Babylonian chronology looks like this:
Nabonidus: "Even if Nabonidus' reign was of greater length than is generally supposed [seventeen years],
this would not change the accepted date of 539 B.C.E. as the year of Babylon's fall, for there are other sources
pointing to that year." (Volume 2, page 459)
Labashi-Marduk: Under "Nabonidus" it states: "Nabonidus' ascension to the throne followed
the assassination of Labashi-Marduk." (Volume 2, page 458) No length of reign is given.
Neriglissar: Under "Babylon" it states: "Little is known about the reigns of Neriglissar,
evidently the successor of Evil-merodach, and of Labashi-Marduk." (Volume 1, page 239) Furthermore, under
"Chronology" it states: "For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Marduk [Evil-merodach],
contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year." (Volume 1, page 453)
Evil-merodach: "Berossus, quoted by Josephus, attributes to him a reign of two years. Josephus himself
assigns him 18 years. Supposedly slain as the result of a plot, Evil-merodach was replaced by Neriglissar (Nergal-sharezer).
Reliable confirmation of these details is lacking." (Volume 1, page 773) Furthermore, under "Chronology"
it states: "tablets dated up to his second year of rule have been found." (Volume 1, page 453)
Nebuchadnezzar: "ruled as king for 43 years". (Volume 2, page 480)
See also the 1969 Watchtower article under Additional Reading:
"Babylonian Chronology - How Reliable?" under "Solid History or Questionable
Synthesis?" This article concluded with this observation: "The reader can judge for himself whether the
reckonings and conjectures of modern historians have produced a dependable Babylonian chronology. Probably it can
be said that they have a system that brings some semblance of order out of the relative chaos of ancient secular
records." So we can see that by 1969 it became more evident to the Watchtower research staff that Babylonian
chronology is not as clear as we would like. Additionally, by 1971 it was realized that the Nabonidus Chronicle
also is not as clear as we would like, as it has lacunae in important places.
Thus, a more accurate, up-do-date list and table would look like this:
- Nabonidus - 17 or more years
- Labashi-Marduk - ?ftn1
- Neriglissar - 4 or more years
- Evil-merodach - 2 or more years
- Nebuchadnezzar - 43 years, but we only count from the 19th year according to 2 Kings 25:8 and Jeremiah 52:12,
thus 24.
| King |
Reign |
| Nabonidus |
17 or more years |
| Labashi-Marduk |
? |
| Neriglissar |
4 or more years |
| Evil-merodach |
2 or more years |
| Nebuchadnezzar |
24 years |
Thus we can see that the "Step 2" above is destroyed, which deflates the rest of the argument. Therefore,
The Watchtower and Jehovah's Witnesses do not unwittingly support 587
B.C.E. for Jerusalem's destruction.
Footnotes
1. This name does
not appear in Claudius Ptolemy's Canon of Kings. Ptolemy had 66 years from Nebuchadnezzar to the end of Nabonidus.
(See In-Depth number 12.) (back)
- Josephus: Seventy or Fifty Years?
- The Babylonian Exile of the Jews – The Bible Versus the Traditional Chronology
by Rolf Furuli
- Does The Watchtower Unwittingly Support 587 B.C.E. for Jerusalem's Destruction?
Back to main article
|
