According to the Watchtower, correctly understanding the 70 year prophecy, as mentioned in several places in Scripture, is crucial to understand the date for when Jerusalem was destroyed. And according to them, Jerusalem fell in 607. And if Jerusalem didn’t fall in 607, then the chronology falls apart and 1914 is no longer true. So, if we were to investigate such an important issue, we should not find any holes or inconsistencies for such an important doctrine. And so what I’m going to do in this video is test the Watchtower’s chronology and see if it holds up to scrutiny.
*** si p. 84 par. 35 Bible Book Number 14—2 Chronicles ***
The closing verses of Second Chronicles (36:17-23) give conclusive proof of the fulfillment of Jeremiah 25:12 and, in addition, show that a full 70 years must be counted from the complete desolation of the land to the restoration of Jehovah’s worship at Jerusalem in 537 B.C.E. This desolation therefore begins in 607 B.C.E.—Jer. 29:10; 2 Ki. 25:1-26; Ezra 3:1-6.
According to the Watchtower, the seventy years ended in 537. And the only way to arrive at the correct date for the destruction of Jerusalem is to count backwards 70 years, which would end up in 607.
*** gm chap. 9 p. 123 par. 16 Prophecies That Came True ***
In 539 B.C.E., the time of Babylon’s rule as the preeminent world power came to an end when the vigorous Persian ruler Cyrus, accompanied by the army of Media, marched against the city.
Here we have 539 not as the date for the end of the 70 years, but for the end of Babylon’s rule, which was then taken over by Cyrus.
*** kc p. 189 Appendix to Chapter 14 ***
Daniel relied on that word, trusting that the 70 years were not a ‘round number’ but an exact figure that could be counted on.
In this reference, we have an explicit and clear declaration by the Watchtower that the 70 years has to be 70 years, not 68, 69, or 71, but 70.
Let’s review what we have so far:
According to the Watchtower,
1. The seventy years ended in 537 (si p. 84 par. 35)
2. Babylon’s rule came to an end in 539 (gm chap. 9 p. 123 par. 16)
3. The 70 years cannot be a round number (kc p. 189)
Now, let’s test these three points against what the Scriptures teach.
“And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years. “ (Jeremiah 25:11, NWT)
Here we have a mention of the seventy years, which the Watchtower believes started with the destruction of Jerusalem in 607 and ended in 537.
“And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation.” (Jeremiah 25:12, NWT)
With this verse, there is one very important detail that we need to notice: Babylon falls after the 70 years are fulfilled. And according to the Watchtower, when did the 70 years end? Didn’t they say 537? But didn’t they also say that Babylon fell in 539? This is a very noteworthy discrepancy. So, just to make sure I’ve got all of this right, let’s review the facts.
1. Jeremiah 25:12 says that the King of Babylon will be punished after the 70 years have been fulfilled.
2. The Watchtower says that Babylon’s rule came to an end in 539 (gm chap. 9 p. 123 par. 16)
3. Therefore, the seventy years must have ended in 539, not in 537.
We have a choice to make. Either the Bible is right in the 70 years ending with Babylon’s fall in 539, or the Bible is wrong, since the Watchtower claims the 70 years had to of ended in 537.
Just to clarify, it was not my intention to show that the Watchtower is in agreement with the fact that 587 is the date for the destruction of Jerusalem. It is simply to show that by counting back from 539 in using the lengths of each King's reign as provided by the Watchtower, one comes to the date of 587 for the destruction of Jerusalem.
Though it is no secret that the Watchtower believes that secular chronologies are largely unreliable (please see, w69 2/1 p. 88 Babylonian Chronology—How Reliable?), they nonetheless have provided the lengths of each of these kings reigns. Thus, it would be safe to assume that unless there are specific qualifications made, the rank-and-file will naturally read the pages of their Watchtower without questioning its details. For instance, when a JW reads:
*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***
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.
Would not the JW read this quote in assuming that these dates as provided by the Watchtower are the correct dates? If one reads the entire article, there are many dates and years provided without any qualifications. Thus, the JW who is fully entrusting the Watchtower in doing good research will read the length of Neriglissar's reign with the same level of assurance that he reads the date of 607 when it is mentioned in the same article.
But what of Evil-merodach's reign? Is two years correct?
*** it-1 p. 773 Evil-merodach ***
There is also archaeological testimony concerning Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk, Amil-Marduk). For example, an inscription on a vase found near Susa reads: “Palace of Amil-Marduk, King of Babylon, son of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon.” (Mémoires de la mission archéologique de Susiane, by V. Scheil, Paris, 1913, Vol. XIV) 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.
Also,
*** g72 5/8 p. 28 When Did Babylon Desolate Jerusalem? ***
There is no way to be sure that Ptolemy was correct in assigning a certain number of years to various kings. For example, while Ptolemy credits Evil-merodach with only two years of rule, Polyhistor assigns him twelve years. Then, too, one cannot be certain that just five kings ruled during this period.
As we can see, there is controversy as to whether it was two years, 12 years, or 18 years. Furthermore, the Watchtower asserts that "reliable confirmation of these details is lacking," and, "one cannot be certain that just five kings ruled during this period. If such is the case, then why did w65 1/1 p. 29 mention two years for Evil-merodach's reign instead of 18? Or why wasn't there a footnote? Could it be that, though "reliable confirmation" is lacking, the two years is the best estimate in light of the available evidence? It would seem to be so. Furthermore, in w60 6/15 p. 377 Part 40, does not the Watchtower list the Kings as well as dates? One can do a search in their Watchtower CD Library for any of the King's lengths of reign. It would seem that according to Watchtower standards, there can be confusion among historians on the length of the king's reign, which means that secular chronologies are no longer reliable. This creates the allusion that the Watchtower "just goes with what the Bible says." What is really the case, is that if a secular document lists a particular length of reign that agrees with Watchtower chronology, then that date is accepted. Just as an example, if there were discrepancies amongst secular records that Nebuchadnezzar's reign wasn't 43 years, would the Watchtower then say, "well, I guess we can't know for sure?" Of course not. The Watchtower tries to do what any historian does: look into the evidence and come up with the best conclusion.
The fact of the matter is, the two years length is extremely well testified. That is, the Neo-Babylonian Chronicles, the Uruk King List, and the Royal Inscriptions all unanimously agree that Evil-merodach's reign was two years. And though one might carry the attitude of "I favor the Bible over secular chronology," this doesn't address the fact that our best available evidence shows that the reign was two years. As far as whether or not this agrees with the Bible, that is another issue.
*** w68 8/15 p. 490 The Book of Truthful Historical Dates ***
THE ABSOLUTE DATE OF 539 B.C.E. 12 One such fixed or absolute date is in connection with the events recorded in the fifth chapter of Daniel, verses one to thirty-one. That was concerning the time when the Medes and Persians under Cyrus the Great broke up Belshazzar’s notorious carousal, captured the city of Babylon, and overthrew the Third World Empire. The year was 539 B.C.E. on the Gregorian calendar, four years after the Buddhist Era began in India.
*** w55 2/1 p. 95 Questions From Readers ***
It is well to understand that all Bible chronology dates for events prior to 539 B.C. must be figured backward from the Absolute date of 539 B.C. In the sure date of 607 B.C. for the fall of Jerusalem we have an anchor for the chronology establishment of the important year of 1914. By an overwhelming number of physical facts occurring since 1914, this great turning-point year in man’s history, 1914, has been abundantly confirmed.
II. Nabonidus reigned 17 years, beginning in 556-539
*** it-2 p. 457 Nabonidus ***
On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556-539 B.C.E.).
III. Labashi-Marduk reigned 9 months in 556
*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***
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.
IV. Neriglissar reigned 4 years from 560-556
*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***
Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years.
V. Evil-merodach reigned 2 years from 562-560
*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***
Evil-merodach reigned two years and was murdered by his brother-in-law Neriglissar, who reigned for four years.
*** it-1 p. 773 Evil-merodach ***
The Babylonian king who succeeded Nebuchadnezzar to the throne
VI. Nebuchadnezzar ruled 43 years from 605-562
>*** dp chap. 4 p. 50 par. 9 The Rise and Fall of an Immense Image ***
Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned for 43 years, headed a dynasty that ruled over the Babylonian Empire. It included his son-in-law Nabonidus and his oldest son, Evil-merodach.
V. Jerusalem destroyed on Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year.
*** it-2 p. 481 Nebuchadnezzar ***
in the 11th year of Zedekiah’s reign (Nebuchadnezzar’s 19th year if counting from his accession year or his 18th regnal year), a breach was made in Jerusalem’s wall.
*** w60 6/15 p. 377 Part 40—“Your Will Be Done on Earth” ***
Just to clarify, it was not my intention to show that the Watchtower is in agreement with the fact that 587 is the date for the destruction of Jerusalem. It is simply to show that by counting back from 539 in using the lengths of each King's reign as provided by the Watchtower, one comes to the date of 587 for the destruction of Jerusalem.
Though it is no secret that the Watchtower believes that secular chronologies are largely unreliable (please see, w69 2/1 p. 88 Babylonian Chronology—How Reliable?), they nonetheless have provided the lengths of each of these kings reigns. Thus, it would be safe to assume that unless there are specific qualifications made, the rank-and-file will naturally read the pages of their Watchtower without questioning its details. For instance, when a JW reads:
*** w65 1/1 p. 29 The Rejoicing of the Wicked Is Short-lived ***
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.
Would not the JW read this quote in assuming that these dates as provided by the Watchtower are the correct dates? If one reads the entire article, there are many dates and years provided without any qualifications. Thus, the JW who is fully entrusting the Watchtower in doing good research will read the length of Neriglissar's reign with the same level of assurance that he reads the date of 607 when it is mentioned in the same article.
But what of Evil-merodach's reign? Is two years correct?
*** it-1 p. 773 Evil-merodach ***
There is also archaeological testimony concerning Evil-merodach (Awil-Marduk, Amil-Marduk). For example, an inscription on a vase found near Susa reads: “Palace of Amil-Marduk, King of Babylon, son of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon.” (Mémoires de la mission archéologique de Susiane, by V. Scheil, Paris, 1913, Vol. XIV) 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.
As we can see, there is controversy as to whether it was two years, 12 years, or 18 years. Furthermore, the Watchtower asserts that "reliable confirmation of these details is lacking," and, "one cannot be certain that just five kings ruled during this period. If such is the case, then why did w65 1/1 p. 29 mention two years for Evil-merodach's reign instead of 18? Or why wasn't there a footnote? Could it be that, though "reliable confirmation" is lacking, the two years is the best estimate in light of the available evidence? It would seem to be so. Furthermore, in w60 6/15 p. 377 Part 40, does not the Watchtower list the Kings as well as dates? One can do a search in their Watchtower CD Library for any of the King's lengths of reign. It would seem that according to Watchtower standards, there can be confusion among historians on the length of the king's reign, which means that secular chronologies are no longer reliable. This creates the allusion that the Watchtower "just goes with what the Bible says." What is really the case, is that if a secular document lists a particular length of reign that agrees with Watchtower chronology, then that date is accepted. Just as an example, if there were discrepancies amongst secular records that Nebuchadnezzar's reign wasn't 43 years, would the Watchtower then say, "well, I guess we can't know for sure?" Of course not. The Watchtower tries to do what any historian does: look into the evidence and come up with the best conclusion.
The fact of the matter is, the two years length is extremely well testified. That is, the Neo-Babylonian Chronicles, the Uruk King List, and the Royal Inscriptions all unanimously agree that Evil-merodach's reign was two years. And though one might carry the attitude of "I favor the Bible over secular chronology," this doesn't address the fact that our best available evidence shows that the reign was two years. As far as whether or not this agrees with the Bible, that is another issue.
Posts
