5. The Seventy Years for Babylon

For thus says the FORD, ‘When seventy years have been completedfor Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill my good word to you, to bringyou back to this place.” – Jeremiah 29:10

THE DATE 607 B.C.E. as given by Watchtower chronologists for the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple by the Babylonians is determined by adding the seventy years predicted by Jeremiah to 537 B.C.E., the date when the Jewish remnant are thought to have returned from exile. It is held that diese seventy years were a period of complete desolation for Judah and Jerusalem:

The Bible prophecy does not allow for the application of the 70‒year period to any time other than that between the desolation of Judah, accompanying Jerusalem’s destruction, and the return of the Jewish exiles to their homeland as a result of Cyrus’ decree. It clearly specifies that the 70 years would be years of devastation of the land of Judah.³³⁰

If no other understanding of the seventy‒year period is allowed for by Bible prophecy, then a choice has to be made between the date determined by this application and the one established by at least seventeen lines of historical evidence.

When a certain interpretation of a Biblical prophecy contradicts historical fact, this indicates that either the prophecy failed or the interpretation is wrong. It is true that a certain application sometimes looks very convincing, so much so that no other appears feasible. It seems to the reader to be given by the Bible itself. In such a case it may also seem to be a sound Christian position to discard the historical evidence and “just stick to what the Bible says.”

When this position is taken, however, those taking it often overlook the fact that the fulfillment of a prophecy cannot be demonstrated aside from history, because only history can show whether, when, and how it was fulfilled. Actually, prophecy is not generally understood until after it has been fulfilled historically through events in time. Serious mistakes have sometimes been made by sincere Bible students because historical evidence contrary to a certain application or interpretation has been rejected. One example will be given below to illustrate this fact.

Most commentators agree that Daniel’s prophecy of the “seventy weeks” (Daniel 9:24 period of 490 years. But various opinions have been held regarding the starting point of this period. Although it is stated at Daniel 9:25 forth of [the] word to restore and to rebuild Jerusalem until Messiah [the] Leader, there will be seven weeks, also sixty‒two weeks” (NW), different views are held regarding when and by whom this “word” was sent forth. Young in The Prophecy of Daniel (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdman’s Publishing Co., 1949), pp. 192‒195.

If we “just stick to the Bible,” it seems to point to the Persian king Cyrus. At Isaiah 44:28 pleasure, even saying of Jerusalem, She shall be built; and of the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid” (ASV). And further, in chapter 45, verse 13 have roused up someone in righteousness [Cyrus], and all his ways I shall straighten out. He is the one that will build my city, and those of mine in exile he will let go, not for a price nor for bribery” (NW).

Thus it would seem clear that according to the Bible itself the “word to restore and rebuild Jerusalem” was issued by Cyrus. This application, however, limits the period from Cyrus’ edict (Ezra 1:1 483 years (”seven weeks, also sixty‒two weeks”). If this period ended at the baptism of Christ, usually dated somewhere in the period 26‒29 C.E., Cyrus’ first year as king of Babylon would have to be dated in the period 458‒455 B.C.E. instead of 538, the historically acknowledged date.

Contrary to all historical evidence, several Christian commentators in the past have chosen this application, and it is still adhered to by some expositors. The idea was popularized in the last century by Martin Anstey in his work The Romance of Bible Chronology, London 1913.³³¹ (1837‒1913) accepted the same position, as may be seen in Appendix 91 (pp. 131‒32) of his The Companion Bible.

The reasoning underlying this unhistorical position is clearly demonstrated by one of its adherents, George Storrs, a Bible student from the 19th century and editor of the periodical Bible Rxaminer. In an article dealing with the seventy weeks, he states:

In examining this point, we have nothing to do with profane chronology, or the chronology of the historians. The Bible must settle the question, and if profane chronology does not tally with it, we have a right to conclude such chronology is false, and not to be trusted.³³²

Storrs, like some other expositors before and after him, tried to cut off nearly 100 years from the Persian period, holding that a number of the Persian kings mentioned in “Ptolemy’s canon” (the Royal Canon) and other historical sources never existed! George Storrs surely was an honest and sincere Christian Bible student, but his (and others’) rejection of historical sources proved to be a grave mistake.³³³

That the Persian kings mentioned in the Royal Canon really did exist has been proved beyond all doubt by archeological discoveries in modern times.³³⁴ illustration of the necessity of considering the historical evidence in relation to biblical time prophecies. Although this special application of the seventy weeks seemed very biblical and very convincing, it has been refuted by historical facts and therefore cannot be correct.

The same is also true of the application of the seventy‒year prophecy made by the Watch Tower Society. Although on the surface it may seem to be supported by some passages in the Bible, it should be abandoned because it is incompatible with historical facts established by a multitude of modern discoveries.

Is it possible, then, to find an application of the seventy years that accords with the historical evidence? It is, and a close examination of biblical texts dealing with the seventy years will demonstrate that there is no real conflict between the Bible and secular history in this matter. As will be shown below, it is the application made by the Watch Tower Society that conflicts, not only with secular history, but also with the Bible itself.

There are seven scriptural texts referring to a period of seventy years which the Watch Tower Society applies to one and the same period: Jeremiah 25:10 be examined one by one in chronological order.³³⁵

The original prediction is that of Jeremiah 25:10 to “the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, the king of Judah, that is, the first year of Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon” (verse 1). Jehoiakim ruled for eleven years and was followed by his son Jehoiachin, who ruled for three months. Jehoiachin in turn was succeeded by his uncle Zedekiah, in whose eleventh year Jerusalem was desolated. Jeremiah’s prophecy, then, was given eighteen years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem.

Jeremiah 25:10‒12:

”And I will destroy out of them the sound of exultation and the sound of rejoicing, the voice of the bridegroom and the voice of the bride, the sound of the hand mill and the light of the lamp. And all this land Judah) must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Habylon 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 Chaldeans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite.” (NW) ³³⁶

Three things are predicted in this prophecy:

(1) The land of Judah would become a “devastated place”.

(2) ”These nations” would “serve the king of Babylon seventy years”.

(3) When the seventy years had been “fulfilled” God would “call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation . . . their error, even against” the land of the Chaldeans.

What does this passage really tell us about the “seventy years”?

A

Although it is predicted in the passage that the land of Judah would be a devastated place, it should be noted that this “devastation” is not equated with, or linked with, the period of the seventy years. All that is clearly and unambiguously stated in the text is that “these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years” The phrase “these nations” is a reference back to verse 9, in which it is predicted that Nebuchadnezzar would come against “this land [that is, Judah] and its inhabitants, and also against all these nations round about.”

The seventy years, then, should be understood to mean years of servitude for these nations. This conclusion is so obvious that the Watch Tower Society, at the head of page 826 of its large‒print edition of the New World Translation (1971 ed.), automatically describes the seventy years as “70 years’ servitude due.”³³⁷

Yet, in their discussions of this text, Watchtower writers never point out that Jeremiah spoke of seventy years of servitude, or that this servitude related to the nations surrounding Judah. They try always to give the impression that the seventy⁷ years referred to Judah, and Judah only, and they always describe the seventy years as a period in which Judah suffered complete desolation, “without an inhabitant.³³⁸ This they reckon as having happened from the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple. But their application is in direct conflict with the exact wording of Jeremiah’s prediction, and it can be upheld only by ignoring what the text actually says.

”Servitude” here should not be taken to mean the same thing as desolation and exile. For the nations surrounding Judah the servitude first of all meant vassalage.³³⁹ revolted and attempted to throw off the Babylonian yoke, which brought wave after wave of devastating military ravages and deportations until the country was at last desolated and depopulated after the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E. That such a fate was not the same thing as servitude, but would come as a punishment upon any nation that refused to serve the king of Babylon, had been clearly predicted by Jeremiah, at chapter 27, verses 7, 8, and 11:

”And all the nations must serve even him [Nebuchadnezzar] and his son and his grandson until the time even of his own land comes, and many nations and great kings must exploit him as a servant.

”And it must occur that the nation and the kingdom that will not serve him, even Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon; and the one that will not put its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon, with the sword and with the famine and with the pestilence I shall turn my attention upon that nation,” is the utterance of Jehovah, “until I have finished them off by his hand.”

”And as for the nation that will bring its neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and actually serve him, I will also let it rest upon its ground,”is the utterance of Jehovah, “and it will certainly cultivate it and dwell in it.” (NT)

From these verses it is very clear what it meant to a nation to serve the king of Babylon. It meant to accept the yoke of Babylon as a vassal and by that be spared from desolation and deportation. The servitude, therefore, was the very opposite of revolt, desolation, deportation, and exile.³⁴⁰ That is why Jeremiah warned the people against attempting to throw off the Babylonian yoke and admonished them: “Serve the king of Babylon and keep on living. Why should this city become a devastated place?” – Jeremiah 27:17

Thus, the nations that accepted the Babylonian yoke would serve the king of Babylon seventy years. But the nations that refused to serve the Babylonian king would become devastated. This fate at last befell Judah after about eighteen years of servitude, interrupted by repeated rebellions. The seventy years of servitude foretold by Jeremiah, therefore, did not apply to Judah as a nation, but only to the nations who submitted to the king of Babylon. As Judah refused to submit, it had to get the punishment for this – desolation and exile – exactly as had been predicted at Jeremiah 25:11 Of course, the exiled Jews also had to perform various kinds of “service” in Babylonia. This was not the service of a vassal state, however, but the service of captured and deported slaves!³⁴¹

A‒2: When would the seventy years end?

The prediction that “these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years” (Jeremiah 25:11 there would be a change in Babylon’s position of supremacy at the end of tire seventy‒year period. This change is described in verse 12 of Jeremiah 25

”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 Chaldeans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite.” (NW)

All historians, and also the Watch Tower Society, agree that the Neo‒Babylonian empire ended in 539 B.C.E. On October 12 (Julian calendar) that year the city of Babylon was captured by the armies of the Persian king Cyrus. Belshazzar, the son of king Nabonidus, was killed, according to the book of Daniel, chapter 5, verse 30 Carmania in the east, where he spent the rest of his life as governor of that province, according to Berossus.³⁴²

The year in which Jehovah would “call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation . . . their error, even against the land of the Chaldeans” therefore was evidendy 539 B.C.E. At that time the seventy years had “been fulfilled,” according to Jeremiah’s prophecy. The Persian conquest of Babylonia in 539 B.C.E. definitely put an end to the Babylonian supremacy over the nations who had served as its vassals up to that year. After that year it was impossible to “serve the king of Babylon” in any sense, either as vassals or as exiled captives in Babylonia. From that year onward these people had to serve, not the king of Babylon, but the king of Persia.³⁴³ The seventy years of servitude, therefore, definitely ended in 539 B.C.E., not later.

Note, then, that Jeremiah’s prophecy is clearly incompatible with the view that the seventy years referred to the period of the desolation of Judah and Jerusalem. Why? Because this desolation did not end in 539 B.C.E. but later, when a remnant of the Jewish exiles had returned to Judah as a result of Cyrus’ edict. (Ezra 1 Society this took place two years after the fall of Babylon, or in 537 B.C.E. In that year, they hold, the seventy years ended. But how did Jehovah “call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation . . . their error” in 537 B.C.E., two years after his dethronement and the fall of Babylon? A solution to this problem has never been presented in the publications of the Watch Tower Society.

A‒3: The historical setting of the seventy‒year prophecy

If the seventy years ended in 539 B.C.E., when did they begin? Clearly, they cannot be counted from the year of the desolation of Jerusalem. The period from the established date of 587 B.C.E. to 539 was only forty‒eight years. However, as the seventy years have been shown above to refer to the period of subservience to Babylon, not to Jerusalem’s desolation, the right question to be asked is: When did the period of servitude begin?

First of all, it is important to establish the historical background against which this prophecy was given. As pointed out earlier, it was given eighteen years before the destruction of Jerusalem and its temple, “in the fourth year of Jehoiakim” (Jeremiah 25:1 that is, in 605 B.C.E.

That year saw a very important event take place, with momentous consequences to Judah and its neighbours. It was the year of the well known battle of Carchemish (on the Euphrates river in northern Syria), when Nebuchadnezzar decisively defeated the Egyptian Pharaoh Necho and his military force. This important victory opened the way for the Babylonian king to the areas in the west, Syria and Palestine, which for a few years previous (609‒605 B.C.E.) had been controlled by Egypt. This famous batde is also referred to, and dated, at Jeremiah 46:2

For Egypt, concerning the military force of Pharaoh Necho the king of Egypt, who happened to be by the river Euphrates at Carchemish, whom Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon defeated in the fourth year of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah, the king of Judah. (NW)

The prophecy of the seventy years was thus given at a crucial point of time. Could it be that Judah and her neighbours were made vassals to and began to serve the king of Babylon in that year? Research does find evidence to show that Judah and a number of the surrounding nations began to be made subservient to the king of Babylon very soon after the battle of Carchemish, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim and thereafter.

Nebuchadnezzar II (604‒562 B.C.E.). The only portrait of Nebuchadnezzar II extant is found on this cameo, now in the Berlin Museum. It was probably engraved by a Greek in the service of the great king. The surrounding cuneiform inscription reads: «To Marduk his lord, Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon, for his life this made.» The picture of the cameo, which has the inventory number VA 1628, is used courtesy of the Vorderasiatisches Museum in Berlin.

In 1956 Professor D. J. Wiseman published a translation of the Babylonian Chronicle B.M. 21946, covering the period from the last (21st) year of Nabopolassar up to and including the tenth year of his son and successor, Nebuchadnezzar.³⁴⁴ with a concise description of the battle at Carchemish and the subsequent events. The openmg portion is quoted here in full because of its importance for our examination:³⁴⁵

[The twenty‒first year]: The king of Akkad stayed home (while) Nebuchadnezzar (II), his eldest son (and) the crown prince, mustered [the army of Akkad]. He took his army’s lead and marched to Carchemish which is on the bank of the Euphrates. He crossed the river [to encounter the army of Egypt] which was encamped at Carchemish. [...] They did battle together. The army of Egypt retreated before him. He inflicted a [defeat] upon them (and) finished them off completely. In the district of Hamath the army of Akkad overtook the remainder of the army of [Egypt which] managed to escape [from] the defeat and which was not overcome. They (the army of Akkad) inflicted a defeat upon them (so that) a single (Egyptian) man [did not return] home. At that time Nebuchadnezzar (II) conquered all of Ha[ma]th.³⁴⁶

For twenty‒one years Nabopolassar ruled Babylon. On the eighth day of the month Ab he died. In the month Elul Nebuchadnezzar (II) returned to Babylon and on the first day of the month Elul he ascended the royal throne in Babylon. 16, 605 B.C.E. (Julian calendar). Nebuchadnezzar ascended the throne on Ululu 1 (September 7, 605). The battle of Carchemish in May or June, 605, therefore, took place in the same year as his accession‒year. His first regnal year began next spring, on Nisanu 1, 604 B.C.E. The reason why the Bible dates the battle to the first year of Nebuchadnezzar (cf. Jer. 46:2 to be that the Jewish kings applied the nonaccession‒year system, in which the accession‒year was counted as the first year. See the Appendix for chapter two, “Methods of reckoning regnal years.”

In (his) accession‒year Nebuchadnezzar (II) returned to Hattu. Until the month Shebat he marched about victoriously in Hattu. In the month Shebat he took the vast booty of Hattu to Babylon.

The first year of Nebuchadnezzar (II): In the month Sivan he mustered his army and marched to Hattu. Until the month Kislev he marched about victoriously in Hattu. All the kings of Hattu came into his presence and he received their vast tribute.

The chronicle makes evident the far‒reaching consequences of Egypt’s defeat at Carchemish. Immediately after the batde in the summer of 605 B.C.E., Nebuchadnezzar began to take over the western areas in vassalage to Egypt, using Riblah in Hamath in Syria as his military base.

The terrifying annihilation of the whole Egyptian army at Carchemish and in Hamath paved the way for a rapid occupation of the whole region by the Babylonians, and they do not seem to have met much resistance. During this victorious campaign Nebuchadnezzar learned that his father Nabopolassar had died, so he had to return to Babylon to secure the throne, evidendy leaving his army in Hattu to continue the operations there.

As Wiseman points out, Hattu was a geographical term that at that time denoted approximately Syria‒Lebanon. As argued by Dr. J. D. Hawkins in Reallexikon der Assyriologie, it also, ‘in an extended sense,’ included Palestine and Phoenicia. Wiseman, Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985, p. 18; Reallexikon der Assyriologie, Vol. 4 [ed. D. O. Edzard], 1972‒1975, pp. 154‒56. Reasonably, Jehoiakim must have been one of “all the kings of Hattu” paying tribute to Nebuchadnezzar at this time. Of this, J. P. Hyatt says: “It was probably in 605, or in the following year, that Jehoiakim submitted to the Babylonian king, as recorded in II Kings 24:1 “the king of Babylon took all that belonged to the king of Egypt from the Brook of Egypt to the River Euphrates.’ “– J. P. Hyatt, “New Light on Nebuchadnezzar and Judean History,” in Journal of Biblical Literature, 75 (1956), p. 280.

After his enthronement in Babylon (on September 7, 605), Nebuchadnezzar quickly went back to the Hattu territory, where he “marched about victoriously” for some months until “the month Shebat” (the eleventh month, corresponding to February, 604 B.C.E.). Evidently most of the countries in the west had now been brought under Babylonian control, and he could, therefore, take a heavy tribute to Babylon, which also, as will be shown immediately, included prisoners from Judah and adjacent countries.

Early in his first regnal year (in June, 604 B.C.E.) Nebuchadnezzar led another campaign to Hattu to maintain his rule over the conquered territories. Similar campaigns are also recorded for the following years. Clearly, the nations in the Hattu area became vassals to Babylon very soon after the batde at Carchemish. The seventy years of servitude had evidendy begun to run their course.

A‒4: The Babylonian occupation of Hattu and Daniel 1:1‒6

Not only did Nebuchadnezzar bring a number of the nations surrounding Judah under his dominion in 605 B.C.E., but he also laid siege to Jerusalem and brought some Jewish captives to Babylon in that very year. This is clear from Daniel 1:1‒6

In recording the event, Daniel states that it occurred “in the third year of the kingship of Jehoiakim” Yet the siege and deportation apparendy followed the battle at Carchemish which Jeremiah places “in the fourth year of Jehoiakim.” (Jeremiah 46:2 This seeming contradiction has caused much debate, and different solutions have been proposed in order to resolve the difficulty. But if, as is pointed out in note 19, the different methods of reckoning regnal years in Judah and Babylon are taken into consideration, the whole matter is easily cleared up. Daniel, as a Jewish exile living in Babylon and as an official at the Babylonian court, quite naturally conformed to the Babylonian regnal year system and adopted the accession‒year method and even did so when referring to Jewish kings. This method of counting would make Jehoiakim’s fourth year his third, in accordance with the accession‒year system.

U

R A R T'U

HINDANU

Nineveh

Kalhi

A$5ur

Carchemish

Harran

Hamath

TTPHiriSlTA

^Tyana HubtSna

Jerusalem

■

Riblah

SYRIA

Damascus

§UBR’^a <

gr

HUBU&I

Anat

S"

Ascalon

EDOM

Judah and the surrounding nations

Daniel 1:2 states that at this time “Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon came to Jerusalem and besieged it. And the Lord gave Jehoiakim king of Judah into his hand” (NASB). This does not necessarily imply that the city was taken and Jehoiakim brought captive to Babylon. To be given into someone’s hand may simply mean to be forced into submission. (Compare Judges 3:10 indication is that Jehoiakim capitulated and became a tributary to the king of Babylon. He evidently paid a tribute to Nebuchadnezzar at this time in the form of “some of the vessels of the house of God” – Daniel 1:2

As this clearly points to a beginning of the servitude early in the reign of Jehoiakim, the Watch Tower Society has advanced several arguments against a natural and direct reading of this text. Thus it holds that the “third year” should be understood as the third year of Jehoiakim’s vassalage to Nebuchadnezzar, which, it is argued, was his eleventh and last regnalyear (which partly overlapped the seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, or his eighth year in the nonaccession‒year system).

But this explanation directly contradicts Daniel 2:1 the court of Nebuchadnezzar and interpreting his dream of the image already in the “second year” of this king. If Daniel was brought to Babylon in Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh year, how could he be there interpreting his dreams in his second year? So, to save their interpretation, this text, too, had to be changed and made to say something else besides what it clearly says. Two different explanations have been offered through the years, the last one being that in this verse Daniel reckons Nebuchadnezzar’s years from the destruction of Jerusalem in his eighteenth year. Nebuchadnezzar’s second year, then, should be understood as his nineteenth year (the twentieth year in the nonaccession‒year system)!

Thus, once again we find that the application of the seventy years held to by the Watch Tower Society contradicts the Bible, this time Daniel 1:1 theory, it is forced to reject the easiest and most direct reading of these texts?³⁴⁷

That some Jewish captives had already been brought to Babylon in the year of Nebuchadnezzar’s accession is also confirmed by Berossus in his Babylonian history written in the third century B.C.E. His account of the events of this year reads as follows:

Nabopalassaros, his hither, heard that the satrap who had been posted to Egypt, Coele Syria, and Phoenicia, had become a rebel. No longer himself equal to the task, he entrusted a portion of his army to his son Nabouchodonosoros, who was still in the prime of life, and sent him against the rebel. Nabouchodonosoros drew up his force in battle order and engaged the rebel. He defeated him and subjected the country to the rule of the Babylonians again. At this very time Nabopalassaros, his father fell ill and died in the city of the Babylonians after having been king for twenty‒one years.

Nabouchodonosoros learned of his father’s death shortly thereafter. After he arranged affairs in kgypt and the remaining territory, he ordered some of his friends to bring the Jewish, Phoenician, Syrian, and Egyptian prisoners together with the bulk of the army and the rest of the booty to Pabylonia. He himself set out with a few companions and reached Babylon by crossing the desert.³⁴⁸

Thus Berossus gives support to Daniel’s statement that Jewish captives were brought to Babylon in the year of Nebuchadnezzar’s accession. This confirmation of Daniel 1:1 is important because, as was shown in Chapter three, Berossus derived his information from the Babylonian chronicles, or sources close to those documents, originally written during the Neo‒Babylonian era itself. account of these events has been the subject of criticism, but was accepted by historians such as Hugo Winkler, Edgar Goodspeed, James H. Breasted and Friedrich Delitzsch. See “The Third Year of Jehoiakim,” by Albertus Pieters, in From the Pyramids to Paul, edited by Lewis Gaston Leary (New York: Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1935), p. 191. The discovery of the Babylonian Chronicle B.M. 21946 has given additional support to Berossus’ description of Nebuchadnezzar’s conquests after the battle at Carchemish. D. J. Wiseman, the first translator of this chronicle, says that Berossus’ account of these events “rings true” (The Cambridge Ancient History, Vol. 111:2, J. Boardman et al [eds.], Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991, pp. 230‒231.) On Berossus’ description of Pharaoh Necho as a rebellious satrap Dr. Menahem Stem says: “From the point of view of those who regarded the neo‒Babylonian empire as a continuation of the Assyrian, the conquest of Coele‒Syria and Phoenicia by the Egyptian ruler might be interpreted as the rape of Babylonian territory.” – M. Stem, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and Judaism, Vol. 1 (Jerusalem 1974), p.59.

A

That the servitude of “these nations” (Jer. 25:11 the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E. is also clear from Jeremiah, chapters 27

In chapter 27 as discussed earlier, Jeremiah urges Zedekiah not to revolt, but to bring his neck under the yoke of the king of Babylon and serve him. The context shows this occurred in the fourth year of Zedekiah, that is, in 595/94 B.C.E.³⁴⁹ “word . . . from Jehovah” was, according to verse 2 to Zedekiah from Edom, Moab, Ammon, Tyre, and Sidon, apparendy in order to enlist him in an extensive revolt against the Babylonian yoke. Obviously, all these nations were vassals to Babylon at this time, as was Judah.

The revolt plans aroused unfounded hopes and enthusiasm among the people, and the prophet Hananiah even foretold that the Babylonian yoke would be broken within two years:

This is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said, “I will break the yoke of the king of Babylon. Within two full years more I am bringing back to this place all the utensils of the house of Jehovah that Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon took from this place that he might bring them to Babylon. “–Jeremiah 28:2 year‒could have been the rebellion in Nebuchadnezzar’s own army in Babylonia, in the tenth year» of his reign (= 595/94 B.C.E.) according to the Babylonian Chronicle B.M. 21946. – A. K. Grayson, ABC (see note 17 (see ) above), p. 102. Nebuchadnezzar’s tenth year partly overlapped Zedekiah’s fourth year. See the remarks on this revolt in the last section of the Appendix: “Chronological tables covering the seventy years.”

This prophecy, of course, presupposed that the Babylonian yoke had already been put on the neck of the nations. That is why Hananiah could take the yoke bar from the neck of J eremiah, break it and say: “This is what Jehovah has said, ‘Just like this I shall break the yoke of Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon within two full years more from off the neck of all the nations.’ “ (Jeremiah 28:10 Zedekiah the Babylonian yoke lay on the neck of all the nations.” The servitude was a hard felt reality for all these nations at that time, and had evidently been so for a number of years.

The Babylonian invasion of Judah soon after the battle at Carchemish is also reflected in Jeremiah chapter 35 days of Jehoiakim the son of Josiah.” (verse 1 normally dwelt in tents in obedience to the command of their forefather, Jehonadab the son of Rechab, lived in Jerusalem at that time. Why? They explained to Jeremiah:

But it came about when Nebuchadrezzar the king ofUabylon came up against the land that we began to say, “Come, and let us enter into Jerusalem because of the military force of the Chaldeans and because of the military force of the Syrians, and let us dwell in Jerusalem.” – Jeremiah 35:11

Thus, some time earlier in the reign of Jehoiakim, the Babylonian army had invaded the territory of Judah, forcing the Rechabites to seek refuge mside the walls of Jerusalem. Either this invasion was the one described in Daniel 1:1 took place in the following year, when, according to the Babylonian chronicle, “all the kings of Hattu” presented their tribute to the Babylonian king as a sign of their vassalage.

That Judah became a vassal of Babylon early in the reign of Jehoiakim is clearly stated in 2 Kings 24:1 in the days of Jehoiakim “Nebuchadnezzar the king of Babylon came up, and so Jehoiakim became his servant for three years. However, he turned back and rebelled against him.” (NW) This rebellion caused the king of Babylon “to send against him marauder bands of Chaldeans and marauder bands of Syrians and marauder bands of Moabites and marauder bands of the sons of Ammon [these nations were now obviously under the control of the king of Babylon], and he kept sending them against Judah to destroy it.” (Verse 2

It has been demonstrated above that Jeremiah’s prediction of the seventy years in Jeremiah 25:10 to a period of complete desolation of Jerusalem, but a period of servitude, not for Judah, but for “these nations,” that is, the nations surrounding Judah.

It was further shown that the Bible and secular historical sources, such as the Babylonian chronicle and Berossus, all agree that the servitude for these nations began long before the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E. The Babylonian chronicle B.M. 21946 shows that Nebuchadnezzar started to conquer these areas immediately after the battle at Carchemish in 605 B.C.E. Daniel 1:1–6 relates that Nebuchadnezzar, in the same year, laid siege to Jerusalem and brought Jewish captives to Babylon. Berossus confirms Daniel 1:1‒6 with respect to this first deportation (which probably was rather small). Jeremiah, chapters 27 surrounding nations were vassals to Babylon as early as in the reign of Jehoiakim, and this is also apparent from 2 Kings 24:1 a number of the surrounding nations, the servitude evidendy began in the same year Jeremiah uttered his prophecy, that is in 605 B.C.E.

The application of the seventy years made by the Watch Tower Society, on the other hand, is in direct conflict with the prophecy of Jeremiah. It applies the seventy years to Judah only, ignoring the fact that Jeremiah’s prophecy refers to a period of servitude for a number of nations, not a state of complete desolation “without an inhabitant” of Jerusalem and Judah.

The next text which deals with the seventy years will be seen to be in direct conflict with the Society’s application as well.

Jeremiah’s second reference to the seventy years is given in a letter that Jeremiah sent from Jerusalem to the Jews who had been deported to Babylon, not only those who had been brought there in the first deportation in 605 B.C.E., but also those “whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon, after Jeconiab the king [= Jehoiachin; compare 2 Kings 24:10‒15 officials, the princes of Judah and Jerusalem, and the craftsmen and the builders of bulwarks had gone forth from Jerusalem. ” – Jeremiah 29:1

This would date the prophecy to the reign of Zedekiah (verse 3 same time as the preceding chapter, that is, to the fourth year of Zedekiah, 595/94 B.C.E. – Jeremiah 28:1

The background situation seems to have been the same in both chapters: The widespread revolt plans which stirred up hopes of liberation from the Babylonian yoke in Judah and the surrounding nations also reached the exiles at Babylon. As in Judah, false prophets arose among the Jews at Babylon and promised release in a short time. (Jeremiah 29:8 reason why at this time, several years prior to the destruction of Jerusalem, Jeremiah sent a letter to these exiles at Babylon, calling their attention to the prophecy of the seventy years:

Jeremiah 29:8‒10

For this is what Jehovah of armies, the God of Israel, has said: “Let not YOUR prophets who are in among YOU and YOUR practicers of divination deceive YOU, and do not YOU listen to their dreams that they are dreaming. For it is in falsehood that they are prophesying to YOU in my name. I have not sent them,” is the utterance of Jehovah. For this is what Jehovah has said, “In accord with the fulfilling of seventy years at Babylon I shall turn my attention to YOU people, and I will establish toward YOU my good word in bringing YOU back to this place.” (NW)

This utterance clearly presupposed that the seventy years were in progress at the time. If the period had not commenced, why did Jeremiah connect it with the exiles’ staying on at Babylon? If the seventy‒year period was not already in progress, what relevance is there in Jeremiah’s reference to it? Jeremiah did not urge the exiles to wait until the seventy years would begin, but to wait until the period had been completed. As Jeremiah sent his message to the exiles some six or seven years before the destruction of Jerusalem, it is obvious that he reckoned the beginning of the seventy years from a point many years prior to that event.

The context of Jeremiah 29:10 therefore, further supports the earlier conclusion that the seventy years should be reckoned from a point several years before the destruction of Jerusalem.

However, apart from the context, the text itself makes it clear that the seventy years can be applied neither to the period of the desolation of Jerusalem nor to the period of the Jewish exile.

B‒1: Seventy years –” at” Babylon or ‘for” Babylon?

The New World f reinstation's rendering of Jeremiah 29:10 seems to depict the seventy years as a period of captivity: “seventy years at Babylon.” Although it is true that the Hebrew preposition l^e, here translated “at”, in certain expressions may have a local sense (”at. in”), its general meaning is “for, to, in regard to, with reference to,” and is so rendered at Jeremiah 29:10 most modern translations. is local and directional is rejected by Professor Ernst Jenni, who is probably tire leading authority on the Hebrew prepositions today. – Ernst Jenni, Die Hebraischen Prapositionen, Band 3: Die Proposition Lamed (Stuttgart, etc.: Verlag Kohlhammer, 2000), pp. 134, 135. This work devotes 350 pages to the examination of the preposition l^e alone. (Interestingly, the Danish NWT of 1985 has “for Babylon”, and the new revised Swedish NWToS 2003, too, has now changed its earlier “in” to “for Babylon”!)

The following examples are taken from some of the better known translations in English:

Revised Version(1885): “After seventy years be accomplished for Babylon.”

Rotherham’s The Emphasised Bible (3rd ed., 1897): “That as soon as there are fulfilled to Babylon seventy years.”

American Standard Version(1901): “After seventy years are accomplished for Babylon.”

New American Standard Version(1973): “When seventy years have been completed for Babylon.”

New International Version (1978): “When seventy years are completed for Babylon.”

The New Jerusalem Bible(1985): “When the seventy years granted to Babylon are over.”

Other translations give expression to the same thought in other words:

Smith‒Goodspeed’s The Complete Bible (1931): “As soon as Babylon has finished seventy years.”

Byington’s The Bible In Tiring English (1972): “As soon as Babylon has had a full seventy years.”

The Anchor Bible(John Bright: Jeremiah. 2nd ed., 1986): “Only when Babylon’s seventy years have been completed.”

Tanakh. The Holy Scriptures(The Jewish Publication Society, 1988): “When Babylon’s seventy years are over.”

The Revised English Bible(1989): “When a full seventy years have passed over Babylon

All these translations express the same thought, namely, that the seventy years refer to the Babylonian supremacy, not to the Jewish captivity nor to the desolation following the destruction of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E.

That this is what the Hebrew text meant to say is supported by the fact that it is in agreement with Jeremiah’s prophecy at Jeremiah 25:11 years’ servitude. As long as the Babylonian king held supremacy, other nations had to serve him.

The New World Translation, however, is not the only translation that renders the preposition l^e by “at” in Jeremiah 29:10 Some other translations, too, use the preposition “at” in this text. The best known is the King James Version (KJV), originally published in 1611, which for more than three centuries remained the Authorised Version (AV) for Anglican and many other Protestant churches. In the course of time this translation has acquired an authority and sanctity of its own. This is also reflected in modern revisions of KJV. A recent example is the New King James Version (NKJV), published in 1982. Although the language has been modernized, the editors have endeavoured to retain the text of the old venerable KJV as far as possible. The progress made in the last two centuries, especially by the discoveries of numerous ancient manuscripts of the Bible, is at best reflected in the footnotes, not in the running text. That this very conservative version retains the preposition “at” in Jeremiah 29:10 not to be wondered at.

It is interesting to note, however, that other, less tradition­bound revisions of KJV, such as RV, ASV, and RSV, have replaced “at” by “for” in Jeremiah 29:10 quotations given above. And the latest revision of this kind, the New Revised Standard Version (1990), has replaced KJV’s “seventy years ... at Babylon” by “Babylon’s seventy years”.³⁵⁰

Why do these and most other modern translations reject the rendering “at Babylon” in Jeremiah 29:10 idea?

Modern Hebrew scholars generally agree that the local or spatial sense of l^e is highly improbable, if not impossible, at Jer. 29:10 Dr. Tor Magnus Amble at the University of Oslo, Norway, for example, says:

”The preposition l^emeans ‘to’, ‘for’ (‘direction towards’ or ‘reference to’). Aside from in a few fixed expressions, it hardly has a locatire sense, and in any case not here. Very often it introduces an indirect object (‘respecting to’, corresponding to a Greek dative). This is also how the translators of LXX have understood it, as you quite correctly point out. Thus the translation has to be: seventy years ‘for Babel’.” – Private letter dated November 23, 1990. (Emphasis added.)

The Swedish Hebraist Dr. Seth Erlandsson is even more emphatic:

The spatial sense is impossible at Jer. 29:10 ‘at Babylon’, but dative; consequently ‘for Babylon’.” – Private letter dated December 23, 1990. (Emphasis added.)

It would be easy to add many other similar statements by Hebrew scholars, but it may suffice here to quote Professor Ernst Jenni at Basel, Switzerland. This leading authority on l^e (footnote 26 (see NOTEREF _Ref139923895 \h 366 08D0C9EA79F9BACE118C8200AA004BA90B02000000080000000E0000005F005200650066003100330039003900320033003800390035000000 ) above) says:

The rendering in all modern commentaries and translations is “for Babel” (Babel as world power, not city or land); this is clear from the language as well as also from the context. By the “local meaning” a distinction is to be made between where? (in, at) and where to? (local directional “to, towards”). The basic meaning of I is with reference to, and with a following local specification it can be understood as local or local‒directional only in certain adverbial expressions (e.g. Num. 11 “at the entrance”, cf. Ixmiedpp. 256, 260, heading 8151).

On the translations: LXX has with babyloni unambiguously a dative (”for Babylon”). Only Vulgata has, to be sure, in Babylone, “in Babylon”, thus King James Version “at Babylon”, and so probably also the New World Translation. – Letter Jenni‒Jonsson, October 1, 2003. (Emphasis added.)

Thus, as Jeremiah 29:10 they cannot refer to the period of the desolation of Jerusalem and its temple, or even to the period of the Jewish exile at Babylon. Rather, like Jeremiah 25:10–12 is the period of Babylonian supremacy. This is also the conclusion arrived at by scholars who have carefully examined the text. Some typical comments are cited in the accompanying box.

Jeremiah 25:10–12 of the seventy years. The next two texts to be discussed, Daniel 9:2 references to Jeremiah’s prophecy. Neither of them pretends to be a thorough discussion of the prophecy nor gives a detailed application of the period. Every attempt to find an application of the seventy‒year period, therefore, must proceed from the prophecy, not from the references to it. It is only the prophecy that gives specific details on the seventy years, as follows, (1) that they refer to “these nations,” (2) that they were to be a period of servitude for these nations, (3) that they refer to the period of Babylonian supremacy, and (4) that this period would be fulfilled when the king of Babylon was punished. Such detailed information is missing in the latter references to the prophecy by Daniel and Ezra. The discussion of these references, then, should always be done in the light of what the prophecy actually is about.

The seventy years «for Babylon»

«The sense of the Hebrew original might even be rendered thus: ‘After seventy years of (the rule of) Babylon are accomplished etc.’ The seventy years counted here evidently refer to Babylon and not to the Judeans or to their captivity. They mean seventy years of Babylonian rule, the end of which will see the redemption of the exiles» – Dr. Avigdor On, «The seventy years of Babylon,» Vetus Testamentum, Vol. VI (1956), p. 305.

«It is appropriate to begin with the passages of Jeremiah and to observe, with On, that the references in Jer. 25:11‒12 and 29:10–whether original to the passages or not–are to a period of seventy years of Babylonian rule, and not to a period of seventy years of actual captivity«–Dr. Peter R. Ackroyd, «Two Old Testament historical problems of the early Persian period,» Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. XVII (1958), p. 23.

«Certainly it must be stressed that the seventy years refer primarily to the time of Babylonian world dominion and not to the time of the exile, as is often carelessly supposed. As an estimate of Babylon’s domination of the ancient Near East it was a remarkably accurate figure, for from the Battle of Carchemish (605) to the fall of Babylon to Cyrus (539) was sixty‒six years»–Professor Norman K. Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth (New York, Evanston, London: Harper Row, Publishers, 1964), pp. 265, 266.

«It has often been pointed out that the textually unobjectionable verse with its seventy years does not have in view the length of the exile , but rather the duration of the Babylonian dominion, which from its beginning until the Persian conquest of Babylon may be calculated to about seven decades. «–Dr. Otto Plbger, Aus der Spats

eit des Alien Testaments (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1971), p. 68. (Translated from the German.)

The Babylonian dominion was definitely broken when the armies of Cyrus the Persian captured Babylon in the night between the 12^th and 13^th October, 539 B.C.E. (Julian calendar). Previously in the same night Belshazzar, the son of king Nabonidus and his deputy on the throne, got to know that the days of Babylon were numbered. Daniel the prophet, in his interpretation of the miraculous writing on the wall, told him that “God has numbered [the days or years of] your kingdom and has finished it.” In that very night Belshazzar was killed, and the kingdom was given to “Darius the Mede.” (Daniel 5:26‒31 seventy years allotted to Babylon ended that night. This sudden collapse of the Babylonian empire mated Daniel to turn his attention to Jeremiah’s prophecy of the seventy years. He tells us:

Daniel 9:1‒2

In the first year of Darius the son of Ahasuerus of the seed of the Medes, who had been made king over the kingdom of the Chaldeans; in the first year of his 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 9:1‒2

It is not unreasonable to thmk that the “books” consulted by Daniel may have been a collection of scrolls containing the prophecies of Jeremiah. But the sources for his inquiry may as well have been limited to the letters that Jeremiah had sent to the exiles in Babylon fifty‒six years earlier (Jeremiah 29:1‒32 the first of which dealt with the seventy years “for Babylon.”³⁵¹ at least, were available to him. The content of Daniel 9 the prayer of Daniel recorded in verses 4‒19 is closely related to the content of Jeremiah’s letters, as has been demonstrated in detail by Dr. Gerald H. Wilson.³⁵²

When Daniel states that he “discerned” (NW) in the writings of Jeremiah the prophecy of the seventy years, does this mean that he “understood” (KJV, RV, ASV) the sense of this prophecy and realized that the period had now ended? Or is he merely saying that he “noticed” (Moffatt) or “observed” (NASB) the seventy years mentioned by Jeremiah and “tried to understand” (NAB) them? The Hebrew verb used here, bin, may contain all these various shades of meaning. However, if Daniel had any difficulties in understanding the meaning of this seventy‒year period, one would expect that the prayer he offered as a result of his reading would contain a plea for understanding the prediction. But not once in his lengthy prayer does Daniel mention the seventy years. Instead, the whole emphasis of his prayer is on the Jewish exiles and the conditions set forth in Jeremiah’s letter for their return to Jerusalem.³⁵³

It seems logical to conclude, therefore, that Daniel had no problems in understanding the seventy‒year prophecy. As a Hebrew‒speaking Jew, he would have no difficulties in understanding that the Hebrew text of Jeremiah 29:10 speaks of seventy years “for Babylon,” and that this was a reference to the period of Babylonian supremacy. From the fact that this supremacy had just ended, Daniel could draw only one conclusion: The seventy years had ended!

Of greater importance for Daniel, however, was what the end of the seventy years could mean for his own people, the Jewish exiles at Babylon, and for the devastated city of Jerusalem and its ruined temple. And this was the subject that Daniel brought up in his prayer.

According to Jeremiah’s letter, Jehovah had promised that, “When seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will risit you and fulfill my good word to you, to bring you back to this place.” – Jeremiah 29:10

As the seventy years “for Babylon” were now completed and “the first year” of “Darius the Mede” was well in progress, why had Jehovah still not fulfilled his promise to bring the exiles in Babylon back to Jerusalem (the “place” from which they had once been deported, Jeremiah 29:1 state of their city? Would not the end of the seventy years “for Babylon” be followed by the end of the exile and the desolation of Jerusalem? Why the delay? Judging from Daniel’s prayer this matter appears to have been his prime concern and the actual cause for his prayer.

In his letter to the exiles Jeremiah also had explained that Jehovah’s fulfilling of his promise to restore them to Jerusalem after the end of the seventy years rested on certain conditions:

If you invoke me and pray to me, I will listen to you: when you seek me, you shall find me; if you search with all your heart, I will let you find me, says the LORD. I will restore your fortunes and gather you again from all the places to which I have banished you, says the LORD, and bring you back to the place from which I have carried you into exile. – Jeremiah 29:12‒14a

The conditions to be fulfilled before the exiles could be returned to Jerusalem, then, were that they had to return to Jehovah, by seeking him with prayer, confessing their sins, and starting to listen to his voice. And this was precisely what Daniel did:

”And I proceeded to set my face to Jehovah the [true] God, in order to seek [him] with prayer and entreaties, with fasting and sackcloth and ashes.” – Daniel 9:3

From Daniel’s prayer, recorded in the subsequent verses (4‒19 that his main interest was in seeking forgiveness for his people in order that they might be returned to their homeland. He knew that the “devastations of Jerusalem” and the desolation of the land were the curse predicted “in the law of Moses” (Daniel 9:13 compare Leviticus 26 violating Jehovah’s law. (Daniel 9:11 they returned to him and began to listen to his voice. Awareness of this condition, laid down in the law (Deuteronomy 30:1‒6 repeated and emphasized in the letter of Jeremiah, is reflected in Daniel’s prayer. Obviously, his interest in Jeremiah’s prophecy of the seventy years was motivated by the exciting discovery that the end of the desolation of Jerusalem was close at hand, as the seventy years “for Babylon” now had been completed.

Daniel, then, in his examination of Jeremiah’s letter, evidently took a great interest in the fact that the end of the seventy years “for Babylon” was directly linked to the end of the desolation of Jerusalem. The end of the latter period presupposed and was dependent on the end of the former:

Only when Babylon’s seventy years are completed will I visit you, and I will fulfill to you my promise and bring you back to this place [Jerusalem]. –Jeremiah 29:10

This was evidently the reason why Daniel, in his reference to Jeremiah’s prophecy, connected the seventy years “for Babylon” with Jerusalem, speaking of them as “the number of years ... for fulfilling the devastations of Jerusalem.” (Daniel 9:2 clear from Jeremiah’s letter that the completion of Babylon’s seventy years would entail the “fulfilling of the desolations of Jerusalem” (by the return of the exiles), and it is this consequence that Daniel lays the stress on in his statement.³⁵⁴

Read in isolation from the wider context, however, these words could easily be misinterpreted to mean that Daniel equated the seventy‒year period with the period of Jerusalem’s desolation. Some Bible translators have understood the text that way. Thus Tanakh, a translation published by the Jewish Publication Society in 1985, speaks of “the number of years that . . . were to be the term of Jerusalem’s desolation – seventy years.” Similarly, The New International Version (NIV) presents Daniel as saying that, “I understood from the Scriptures . . . that the desolation of Jerusalem would last seventy years.”

Both of these translations, however, are freely paraphrasing the passage, which neither speaks of the “term” of Jerusalem’s desolation, nor that it would “last” seventy years. None of these words are found in the original text. They have been added in an attempt to interpret the text. There is no compelling reason to accept this interpretation, not only because it is arrived at by a paraphrasing of the text, but also because it is in direct conflict with Jeremiah’s own prophecy.³⁵⁵

It should be noted that Daniel himself does not equate the seventy years with the period of Jerusalem’s desolation. It is only the expiration of the seventy‒year period – not the period as a whole – that he relates to the “fulfilling of the desolations of Jerusalem.” This focusing on the end of the period is totally absent in the two translations quoted above (Tanakh and NIV), as they both fail to translate the Hebrew word l^emal’ot, ‘fulfilling, to fulfill”. Most translations (including The New World Translation) are more in conformity with the original text in this respect.³⁵⁶

What Daniel discovered by reading Jeremiah’s letter, then, was not that Jerusalem’s desolation would last for seventy years (for this is nowhere stated in Jeremiah), but that the desolations of Jerusalem would not cease until the seventy years “for Babylon” had ceased. The focus of the “seventy years” was on Babylon, and her period of dominance, rather than on Jerusalem.

The end of Babylon’s dominance would, of course, as a natural consequence or byproduct, open up the prospect for a Jewish return to Jerusalem. This is the simplest meaning of Daniel’s words in the light of what was actually written in Jeremiah’s letter. As the Babylonian supremacy suddenly had been replaced by the Medo‒Persian rule and the seventy years “for Babylon” and her international domination had thus been completed, Daniel understood – by the aid of Jeremiah’s letter – that the completion of the devastations of Jerusalem was now due. This was the reason for Daniel’s excitement and strong feelings, as expressed in his prayer.