When Was Jerusalem Destroyed by Babylon?

Both historical data and the Watchtower Society agree that Babylon fell in 539 BCE. In fact, it is regarded as a pivotal date on which reliable Bible chronology can be determined. But what about Jerusalem’s destruction? Is there any evidence that Jerusalem was destroyed in 607 BCE or that the Jews returned from exile in 537 BCE? Typing the question: “When was Jerusalem destroyed by Babylon” in a google search would yield the overwhelming consensus of scholars that the date was 586/587 BCE.^[1] 

Why does the Watchtower society hold to a date that contradicts modern scholarship and archaeological data?

The October 1, 2011 Watchtower answers:

“So why do Jehovah’s Witnesses hold to a date that differs from widely accepted chronology by 20 years? In short, because of evidence within the Bible itself. (The Watchtower October 1, 2011 pg. 26)

Just what is the Biblical evidence that is used in support?

How does the society reckon the reigns of the kings of the Neo-Babylonian period?

From literature printed by the Watchtower society, the kings of Babylon and the length of their reigns is presented as follows:

Nebuchadnezzar — 43 years

 Evil-Merodach — 2 years

 Neriglissar — 4 years

 Labashi-Marduk — assassinated within 9 months

 Nabonidus — 17 years

Here are the quotations showing the lengths of each king’s reign:

Nebuchadnezzar — 43 years

“Nebuchadnezzar ruled as king for 43 years. (Insight on the Scriptures vol. 2 pg. 480)

“Learning that his father, Nabopolassar, had died, this young man named Nebuchadnezzar took the throne in 624 B.C.E. During his 43-year reign…(The Watchtower May 15, 2000 pg. 12 par. 13)

“Since Nebuchadnezzar reigned for 43 years (624-581 B.C.E.), this is a reasonable conclusion. (The Watchtower November 1, 1986 pg. 5)

“Proud King Nebuchadnezzar’s 43-year reign in Babylon ended with his death in 582 B.C.E. (Pay Attention to Daniels’s Prophecy pg. 99 par. 2)

“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. That dynasty continued for 43 more years, until the death of Nabonidus’ son Belshazzar, in 539 B.C.E (Pay Attention to Daniel’s Prophecy pgs. 50-51 par. 9)

“Finally, after a 43-year reign, which included both conquest of many nations and a grand building program in Babylonia itself, Nebuchadnezzar II died in October of 582 B.C.E. and was succeeded by Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach). This new ruler showed kindness to captive King Jehoiachin. (2Ki 25:27-30) Little is known about the reigns of Neriglissar, evidently the successor of Evil-merodach, and of Labashi-Marduk. (Insight on the Scriptures vol. 1 pgs. 238-239)

Evil-Merodach — 2 years

“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. (The Watchtower January 1, 1965 pg. 29)

“For Awil-Marduk (Evil-merodach, 2Ki 25:27, 28), tablets dated up to his second year of rule have been found. For Neriglissar, considered to be the successor of Awil-Marduk, contract tablets are known dated to his fourth year (Insight on the Scriptures vol. 1 pg. 453)

“Nabonidus Harran Stele (NABON H 1, B): This contemporary stele, or pillar with an inscription, was discovered in 1956. It mentions the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings Nebuchadnezzar, Evil-Merodach, Neriglissar. The figures given for these three agree with those from Ptolemy’s Canon. (Let Your Kingdom Come pg. 186 Appendix to Chapter 14)

Neriglissar — 4 years

“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. (The Watchtower January 1, 1965 pg. 29)

Labashi-Marduk — less than a year

“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. (The Watchtower January 1, 1965 pg. 29)

Nabonidus — 17 years

“(Nab·o·ni´dus) [from Babylonian meaning “Nebo [a Babylonian god] Is Exalted”].

Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire; father of Belshazzar. On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556-539 B.C.E.). (Insight on the Scriptures vol 2 pg. 457)

“Other investigators say this: “The Nabunaid Chronicle . . . states that Sippar fell to Persian forces VII/14/17* (Oct. 10, 539), that Babylon fell VII/16/17 (Oct. 12), and that Cyrus entered Babylon VIII/3/17 (Oct. 29). This fixes the end of Nabunaid’s reign and the beginning of the reign of Cyrus. Interestingly enough, the last tablet dated to Nabunaid from Uruk is dated the day after Babylon fell to Cyrus. News of its capture had not yet reached the southern city some 125 miles distant.”—Brown University Studies, Vol. XIX, Babylonian Chronology 626 B.C.—A.D. 75, Parker and Dubberstein, 1956, p. 13. Footnote” VII/14/17 “: The 7th Hebrew month Tishri, 14th day, 17th year of Nabonidus’ reign. (The Watchtower August 15, 1968 pg. 491 par. 17)

Note that the January 1, 1965 Watchtower shows the succession of the kings, with no room for an extra king in between, and it also agrees with secular historians as to the lengths of reigns of the kings.

If you start with the agreed upon date of 539 for the fall of Babylon and count backwards through the Kings of Babylon for each year of their reigns, you arrive at 586/587 for Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th /19th year, when he destroyed Jerusalem.

On the other hand, if you reverse the order and start with the date the society says Nebuchadnezzar began his rule and count forward in time it becomes evident that there is about a twenty year gap in the chronology.

Date	King	Event	Scripture	WT Quote
625 BCE	Nebuchadnezzar	Battle of Carchemish	Jer. 46:2	it-2 pg. 480
624 BCE	Nebuchadnezzar	Enthroned	Jer. 25:1-3,9	Wt00 5/15 pg. 12
617 BCE	Nebuchadnezzar	Jerusalem besieged, Jehoiachin taken to Babylon	2 Kings 24:12; 2 Chron. 36:9,10; Jer. 24:1; Eze. 17:12	it-2 pg. 480
609/608 BCE	Nebuchadnezzar	Jerusalem besieged	2Ki 24:20; 25:1; 2Ch 36:13	it-2 pg. 480
607 BCE	Nebuchadnezzar	Jerusalem destroyed, Zedekiah blinded	2 Kings 25:3-7; Jer. 39:2,4-7; Eze. 33:21	it-2 pg. 480-481
602/601 BCE	Nebuchadnezzar	More captives taken	Jer. 52:30	it-2 pg. 480-481
588 BCE	Nebuchadnezzar	Campaign against Egypt		It-1 pg.239
581 BCE	Evil-Merodach	Nebuchadnezzar dies	2Ki 25:27-30; Jer 52:31-34	it-1 pg. 773; it-2 pg. 480
579 BCE	Neriglissar	Enthroned		It-1 pgs. 283,425,453,773; wt 65 1/1 pg. 29
575 BCE	Labashi Marduk	Assassinated after 9 months		Wt11 10/1 pg. 29
575 BCE	Nabonidus	Enthroned		It-2 pg. 457; Wt11 10/1 pg. 29

However when we get to Nabonidus we have a problem. Insight on the Scriptures states it is believed that he reigned for 17 years starting from 556 BCE.

“(Nab·o·niʹdus) [from Babylonian meaning “Nebo [a Babylonian god] Is Exalted”].

Last supreme monarch of the Babylonian Empire; father of Belshazzar. On the basis of cuneiform texts he is believed to have ruled some 17 years (556-539 B.C.E.). (Insight on the Scriptures vol. 2 pg. 457)

This leaves us with a 19 year gap in history. How do we account for the missing years?

Under the heading Evil-Merodach, Insight on the Scriptures states:

“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. (Insight on the Scriptures vol. 1 pg. 773)

Why then do we not see an 18 year reign assigned to Evil-Merodach in Watchtower publications? Because this statement of Josephus is questionable since in the same section he says that Neriglissar reigned for 40 years.

“When Evil-Merodach was dead, after a reign of eighteen years, Neglissar his son took the government, and retained it forty years, and then ended his life” (Antiquities Book X chap. XI sect. 2)

Josephus later quotes Berossus in his book Against Apion and the figures are different:

“Nabuchodonosor, after he had begun to build the forementioned wall, fell sick, and departed this life, when he had reigned forty three years; whereupon his son Evilmerodach obtained the kingdom. He governed public affairs after an illegal and impure manner, and had a plot laid against him by Neriglissoor, his sister’s husband, and was slain by him when he had reigned but two years. After he was slain, Neriglissoor, the person who plotted against him, succeeded him in the kingdom, and reigned four years”(Against Apion Book I sect. 20)

This time after quoting Berossus, Josephus makes this statement:

“These accounts agree with true history in our books; for in them it is written that Nebuchadnezzar, in the nineteenth year of his reign, laid our temple desolate, and so it lay in that state of obscurity for fifty years” (Against Apion Book I sect. 21)

William Whiston in is Dissertation V believes Josephus in this later work to be making a correction of himself:

“But then it is true that in one of Josephus’s last books of all, I mean his first book against Apion, sect. 21, he gives us, from the Tyrian Annals, a series of kings and judges down from Ithobaal and Nebuchadnezzar to Cyrus, amounting to 54 years and 3 months; wherein he says the temple lay waste, not 70 years, as he had formerly so often said, but only 50 years, which is very near the truth, by the Astronomical Canon itself, and may probably be his own correction in his old age.” (sect. 23)

So, whereas earlier he stated that Evil-Merodach reigned 18 years, Neriglissar 40 years and the temple was laid waste for 70 years, he now corrects the figures.

539 BCE – A Pivotal Date

How does the Watchtower society arrive at 539 BCE as the date of Babylon’s capture? Note what it says in Insight on the Scriptures:

“A Babylonian clay tablet is helpful for connecting Babylonian chronology with Biblical chronology. This tablet contains the following astronomical information for the seventh year of Cambyses II son of Cyrus II: “Year 7, Tammuz, night of the 14th, 1 2⁄3 double hours [three hours and twenty minutes] after night came, a lunar eclipse; visible in its full course; it reached over the northern half disc [of the moon]. Tebet, night of the 14th, two and a half double hours [five hours] at night before morning, in the latter part of the night, the disc of the moon was eclipsed; the whole course visible; over the southern and northern part the eclipse reached.” (Inschriften von Cambyses, König von Babylon, by J. N. Strassmaier, Leipzig, 1890, No. 400, lines 45-48; Sternkunde und Sterndienst in Babel, by F. X. Kugler, Münster, 1907, Vol. I, pp. 70, 71) These two lunar eclipses can evidently be identified with the lunar eclipses that were visible at Babylon on July 16, 523 B.C.E., and on January 10, 522 B.C.E. (Oppolzer’s Canon of Eclipses, translated by O. Gingerich, 1962, p. 335) Thus, this tablet points to the spring of 523 B.C.E. as the beginning of the seventh year of Cambyses II.

Since the seventh year of Cambyses II began in spring of 523 B.C.E., his first year of rule was 529 B.C.E. and his accession year, and the last year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon, was 530 B.C.E. The latest tablet dated in the reign of Cyrus II is from the 5th month, 23rd day of his 9th year. (Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, by R. Parker and W. Dubberstein, 1971, p. 14) As the ninth year of Cyrus II as king of Babylon was 530 B.C.E., his first year according to that reckoning was 538 B.C.E. and his accession year was 539 B.C.E.” (Insight on the Scriptures vol. 1 pg. 453)

The astronomical text referred to by Insight on the Scriptures is Strm. Kambys. 400 which stands for Strassmaier Kambys. So, if the accession year of Cyrus was 539 BCE that means the last year of Nabonidus was 539 BCE.

Helpful in establishing the beginning of Nabonidus reign is the Nabonidus Chronicle (B .M. 35382) It covers the reign of Nabonidus, who was the father of Belshazzar.

This Chronicle states that in Nabonidus’ sixth year, Cyrus defeated the Median king Astyages. If Nabonidus ruled for seventeen years, ending in 539 BCE, his sixth year, when Cyrus conquered Media, must have been 550/549 B.C.E. That would mean his first year would have to be, not 575 but 556 BCE.

The Greek historian Diodorus, says that Cyrus’ began his rule in 559 BCE. According to Insight on the Scriptures, Cyrus died in 530 B.C.E., in the ninth year of his rule over Babylonia. That would mean they agree with Diodorus reckoning that his first year as king of Anshan began in 559 B.C.E.

“The historian Diodorus, as well as Africanus and Eusebius, shows that Cyrus’ first year as king of Persia corresponded to Olympiad 55, year 1 (560/559 B.C.E.), while Cyrus’ last year is placed at Olympiad 62, year 2 (531/530 B.C.E.). Cuneiform tablets give Cyrus a rule of nine years over Babylon, which would therefore substantiate the year 539 as the date of his conquest of Babylon.—Handbook of Biblical Chronology, by Jack Finegan, 1964, pp. 112, 168-170; Babylonian Chronology, 626 B.C.–A.D. 75, p. 14 (Insight on the Scriptures vol. 1 pg. 454)

Cyrus came to power about three years before Nabonidus acceded to the throne of Babylon. If we were to add nineteen years to the beginning of the reign of Nabonidus to make his enthronement take place in 575, it would correspondingly affect the dates of Cyrus rulership. That would make Nabonidus sixth year, when Astyages was defeated by Cyrus, 569 BCE. That, however, would be ten years before Cyrus became king of Anshan! Hence, the relationship between the rulership of both kings makes it impossible to add 19 years to one without affecting the historical records of the other.

Why is the date 607 BCE so important?

All of the foregoing is important for the Watchtower society in order to provide a foundation for which to build its elaborate calculation to arrive at the year 1914 as the date for Jesus invisible enthronement as king in heaven. They equate Jesus words about the trampling of Jerusalem with the seven times mentioned in Daniel’s prophecy about Nebuchadnezzar’s madness as if Jesus was giving a way to calculate the time of his coming as king. (Luke 21:24; Dan. 4:23-25)

However, is that the case? After his resurrection, Jesus disciples wanted to know when he was restoring the kingdom to Israel. Jesus’ answer was that knowledge did not belong to them.

So when they had assembled, they asked him: “Lord, are you restoring the kingdom to Israel at this time?” He said to them: “It does not belong to you to know the times or seasons that the Father has placed in his own jurisdiction. Acts 1:6, 7

This was consistent with his earlier repeated admonitions to them to keep on the watch because they would not know the day or hour of his return. Instead ever since, the 1870’s the Watchtower society has been claiming to know when he would return. They have been claiming to have had part in the proclamation of an extraordinary prophecy that his return would occur in 1914. The only extraordinary prophecy they have had part in is what Jesus said in Luke’s gospel:

He said: “Look out that you are not misled, for many will come on the basis of my name, saying, ‘I am he,’ and, ‘The due time is near.’ Do not go after them. Luke 21:8

When 1914 arrived and what they had expected to occur did not take place, instead of admitting it was a failure they stubbornly forged ahead for the next 100 years with a campaign to convince the world they really were correct and that they, like a modern-day prophet of God, had divine guidance.

Further, by the misinterpretation of Jesus words about this generation, the year 1914 has been featured many times as a way to calculate the nearness of the coming of Armageddon. (Matt. 24:34)

Even though mountains of evidence continue to pile up against this false doctrine the society refuses to acknowledge they were and still are wrong. They stubbornly claim that the Bible says Jerusalem would be laid waste without an inhabitant for 70 years which ended in 537 BCE when the Jews finally returned from Babylon. Is this true? This will be considered in a future article.

---

[1] Malamat, Abraham (1968). “The Last Kings of Judah and the Fall of Jerusalem: An Historical – Chronological Study”. Israel Exploration Journal. 18 (3): 137–56. Edwin Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings, (1st ed.; New York: Macmillan, 1951; 2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965; 3rd ed.; Grand Rapids: Zondervan/Kregel, 1983). ISBN 0-8254-3825-X, ISBN 9780825438257.

Leslie McFall, “A Translation Guide to the Chronological Data in Kings and Chronicles,” Bibliotheca Sacra 148 (1991) 45. D. J. Wiseman, Chronicles of Chaldean Kings in the British Museum (London: Trustees of the British Museum, 1956) 73. Andrew E. Steinmann, From Abraham to Paul: A Biblical Chronology (St. Louis, MO: Concordia, 2011), 166–69.