An uncomfortable fact for the Watch Tower organization is that the entire field of archaeology points to 587 B.C.E. as the date, some 20 years later. In response, the society obstinately insists the words of the Bible trump any tangible evidence to the contrary. Never mind the fact that using a book as proof of itself is circular reasoning, but is the organization even following the book in the first place?

In order to convince a Watch Tower-following Jehovah’s Witness of anything, only two sources may be used: the Bible and Watch Tower-produced literature. So, using only those two sources, I will demonstrate that the date of 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction cannot possibly be correct.

Tracing the line of kings

According to the Bible, archaeology and Watch Tower literature, the last king of Babylon was Nabonidus. The biblical encyclopedia Aid to Bible Understanding, published by the Watch Tower Society says on page 1195 that Nabonidus is believed to have reigned for 17 years. As far as this author knows, no clarification or correction has been made to this statement in any Watch Tower literature.

The king before Nabonidus was Labashi-Marduk, a “vicious boy” as the Watch Tower publication Babylon the Great Has Fallen — God’s Kingdom Rules states on page 184. It also says that his rule only lasted nine months, until “he had his throat cut by an assassin.”

On that same page, it names Nerigilassar as the king before that, reigning for four years, and also Evil-Merodach, reigning for two years before that.

Finally, Insight on the Scriptures, the successor (although largely identical in content) to Aid to Bible Understanding, says that Nebuchadnezzar ruled Babylon for 43 years (vol. 2 p. 480).

So the line of Babylonian kings from the start of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign can be totaled as follows:

• Nabonidus – 17 years
• Labashi-Marduk – 0.75 years
• Nergilassar – 4 years
• Evil-Merodach – 2 years
• Nebuchadnezzar – 43 years

The sum of the above figures is 66.75 years, which means there were almost 67 years from the start of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign until the fall of Babylon to the Persians. Using this number and the Bible, we can calculate the date of the fall of Jerusalem.

Calculating the fall

According to the Bible, Jerusalem’s destruction took place in the 19th year of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign (2 Kings 25:8, 9). Since Nebuchadnezzar had ruled for a full 18 years and was in his 19th, he had a little more than 24 years until his kingship over Babylon ended when Jerusalem was sacked. Let’s see what happens when we start with the date of 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction.

607 – 24 = 583 B.C.E., the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and the start of Evil-Merodach’s

583 – 2 = 581 B.C.E., the end of Evil-Merodach’s reign and the start of Nergilassar’s

581 – 4 = 577 B.C.E., the end of Nergilassar’s reign and the start of Labashi-Marduk’s

577 – 9 months = 577/576 B.C.E., the end of Labashi-Marduk’s reign and the start of Nabonidus’s

577/576 – 17 = 560/559 B.C.E., the end of Nabonidus’s reign and the invasion of Babylon by the Persians.

But wait! Something isn’t right here. Does not the society teach that Babylon was overthrown in 539, some 20 years later than our calculation resulted? It does! Since the Jews were send back to the ruins of Jerusalem two years later, in 537, this is the very basis for the calculation of 70 years, arriving at the date 607 B.C.E.! But there are 20 missing years and no accounting for it. Even if the months were fudged (because after all, it is doubtful each king ruled for an exact number of years) it still wouldn’t account for the discrepency.

Just for experiment’s sake, let’s see what will happen when we start with the secularly-accepted date of 587 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction.

587 – 24 = 563 B.C.E., the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and the start of Evil-Merodach’s

563 – 2 = 561 B.C.E., the end of Evil-Merodach’s reign and the start of Nergilassar’s

561 – 4 = 557 B.C.E., the end of Nergilassar’s reign and the start of Labashi-Marduk’s

557 – 9 months = 557/556 B.C.E., the end of Labashi-Marduk’s reign and the start of Nabonidus’s

557/556 – 17 = 540/539 B.C.E., the end of Nabonidus’s reign and the invasion of Babylon by the Persians.

When starting from the date accepted nearly unanimously by scholars and archaeologists, the numbers add up perfectly. There is no longer a 20-year discrepancy in the line of Babylonian Kings. But what about the 70-year prophecy? If the Israelites were not captives for 70 years, doesn’t that make the Bible wrong?

If that is indeed what the Bible says, then yes, this does make it wrong. However, does the Bible really teach that the Jews were captives for 70 years? It would be helpful to read the verse in question.

“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. 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,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘their error, even against the land of the Chal·de´ans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite.’” – Jeremiah 25:11, 12

Notice it says nothing about Israel being captive in Babylon, but merely that “these nations” will “serve the king of Babylon seventy years.” Long before the destruction of Jerusalem, the Jews (among other nations) were paying tribute to Babylon, who had conquered them but allowed them to stay in the city for a while. Also, Jews were often taken captive to Babylon long before the destruction of Jerusalem. Consider the following:

“In the first year of his [Persian king Ahasureus] reigning I myself, Daniel, discerned by the books the number of the years concerning which the word of Jehovah had occurred to Jeremiah the prophet, for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem, [namely,] seventy years.” – Daniel 9:2

Notice Daniel refers to the devastations (desolations, ESV), not destruction, of Jerusalem. Jerusalem was attacked and beseiged for years before it was destroyed. Nebuchadnezzar’s seige took place in 597, and was done because King Jehoiakim ceased paying tribute to Babylon following their defeat in Egypt in 601. So at least before 601 Jerusalem was paying tribute to Babylon. The word used for “devastation” in Hebrew refers to heat, desert, a dry place. These terms can, but do not necessarily refer to the destruction of a city. It is entirely possible that the “devastation” of Jerusalem could have taken place years before its destruction, though admittedly a possibility is not fact.

Taking the number of the entire period of Babylonian kings from Nebuchadnessar to Nabonidus, and then adding the two years after the Persian conquest of Babylon it took to begin rebuilding the temple, we arrive at 69 years, which is awfully close to 70. Since months are only mentioned in the case of Labashi-Marduk’s reign, it very well could have been 70 years.

It is clear then, that the date of 587 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction is not necessarily in conflict with the prophecy of 70 years, and it also happens to fit perfectly with the both Biblically and secularly established timeline. In fact, it is one part of the Bible that is amazingly accurate historically. This is not necessarily a surprise, since the oldest copies of Daniel that exist are hundreds of years younger than the events they supposedly foretell. However, it is nevertheless an area where archaeology and the Bible do not disagree.

The reason the Watch Tower Society continues to hold on to the 607 date therefore cannot be to fall in accordance with the 70 year prophecy, but instead is being insisted upon because of 1914. This is especially evident when considering the fact that the forerunners of the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Bible Students, originally assigned 1914’s significance to 1874. It was only years after the events of the World War I that the meaning of 1914 was changed in order to fit with what had transpired.

It is a matter of fact that 1914 was a false prediction. Russell taught that “1914 is not the date for the beginning, but for the end of the time of trouble” (Zion’s Watch Tower, July 15, 1894, p.226). Though the Witnesses later lied about the nature of Russell’s prediction (Awake!, January 22, 1973, p.8), the facts remain. 1914 was not the end of anything, and certainly not the end of any “time of trouble.”

—
Our thanks to Brian Stilson who allowed us to publish his excellent article here in JWRecovery Magazine. This article was originally published on his blog, Memoirs of a Godless Heathen, which has since closed.