4. The Absolute Chronology of the Neo

As explained earlier in chapter 2, an absolute chronology is usually best established by the aid of ancient astronomical observations.

Although no observations usable for dating purposes are recorded in the Bible, it was pointed out that at 2 Kings 25:2 of Jerusalem to “the eleventh year of King Zedekiah,” the last king of Judah, is synchronized with “the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnegyar,” the Babylonian desolator of the city. If the reign of Nebuchadnezzar could be fixed astronomically to our era, it would be possible to establish the B.C.E. date for the desolation of Jerusalem.

In this chapter it will be demonstrated that the whole Neo‒Babylonian period, including the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, may be established as an absolute chronology by the aid of astronomical cuneiform documents found in Alesopotamia.

The study of the astronomical cuneiform texts started more than one hundred years ago. One of the leading Assyriologists at that time was J. N. Strassmaier (1846‒1920). He was a diligent copyist of the cuneiform texts that from the 1870’s onwards were being brought from Mesopotamia to the British Museum in enormous quantities.

Strassmaier found that a great number of the texts contained astronomical data. He sent copies of these texts to his colleague J. Epping, who taught mathematics and astronomy in Falkenburg, Holland. Thus Epping (1835‒1894) was to become the pioneer in the study of the Babylonian astronomical texts. After his death another of Strassmaier’s colleagues, Franz Xaver Kugler (1862‒1929), took over the work of Epping.

Few, if any, have contributed as much to the study of the astronomical texts as Kugler. He published his results in a series of monumental works, such as The Babylonische Mondrechnung (1901), Sternkunde and Sterndienst in Babel, Vol. I and II (1907‒1924), and Von Moses bis Paulus (1922). The last two works include detailed studies of ancient chronology, in which the astronomical texts are fully developed and studied in depth.²⁶³

After Kugler’s death in 1929 some of the key names in the study of the Babylonian astronomy have been P. J. Schaumberger (deceased 1955), Otto Neugebauer (1899‒1990), and Abraham J. Sachs (1914‒1983). Many other modern scholars have contributed much to the understanding of the astronomical texts, some of whom have been consulted for the following discussion.

As can be deduced from the Babylonian astronomical tablets, a regular and systematic study of the sky began in the mid‒eighth century B.C.E., perhaps even earlier. Trained observers were specifically employed to carry out a regular watch of the positions and movements of the sun, the moon and the planets, and to record from day to day the phenomena observed.

This regular activity was performed at a number of observational sites in Mesopotamia, located in the cities of Babylon, Uruk, Nippur, Sippar, Borsippa, Cutha, and Dilbat.²⁶⁴ accompanying map.)

As a result of this activity, the Babylonian scholars at an early stage had recognized the various cycles of the sun, the moon and the five planets visible to the naked eye (Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn), enabling them even to predict certain phenomena, such as lunar eclipses.

Astronomical Observation Sites in Babylonia

\s

Finally, in the Persian and Seleucid eras, they had developed a very high level of scientific and mathematical astronomy that had never been reached by any other ancient civilization.²⁶⁵

Although astronomical cuneiform texts have been found also in the ruins of Nineveh and Uruk, the bulk of the texts – about 1,600 – comes from an astronomical archive somewhere in the city of Babylon.

The archive was found and emptied by local inhabitants from nearby villages, and the exact finding spot within the city is not known today. Most of the texts were obtained for the British Museum from dealers in the latter part of the nineteenth century.

About 300 of the texts are concerned with scientific mathematical astronomy and belong to the last four centuries B.C.E. Most of them are ephemerides, that is, tables with calculations of the positions of the moon and the five naked‒eye planets.

The greater part of the remaining texts, however, about 1,300 in number, are non‒mathematical and principally observational in nature. The observations date from about 750 B.C.E. to the first century of the Christian era.²⁶⁶ observational texts are of the utmost importance for establishing the absolute chronology of this whole period.

With respect to content, the non‒mathematical texts may be subdivided into various categories. By far the largest group are the so‒called astronomical “diaries. “These record on a regular basis a large number of phenomena, including the positions of the moon and the planets. It is generally accepted that such “diaries” were kept continuously from the mid‒eighth century B.C.E. onwards. The other categories of texts, which include almanacs (each recording astronomical data for one particular Babylonian year), texts with planetary observations (each giving data for one specific planet), and texts recording lunar eclipses, were apparendy excerpts from the “diaries.”

Thus, although only a handful of diaries from the four earliest centuries are extant, quite a number of the observations recorded in other diaries compiled in this early period have been preserved in these excerpts.

A comprehensive examination of all the non‒mathematical texts was started several decades ago by Dr. A. J. Sachs, who devoted the last thirty years of his life to the study of these texts.²⁶⁷ Sachs’ work has been continued by Professor Hermann Hunger (in Vienna, Austria), who today is the leading expert on the astronomical observational texts. Both of these authorities were consulted for the following discussion.

A “diary” usually covers the six or seven months of the first or second half of a particular Babylonian year and records, often on a day‒to‒day basis, the positions of the moon and the planets in relation to certain stars and constellations, and also gives details of lunar and solar eclipses. Much additional information is added, such as meteorological events, earthquakes, market prices, and similar data. Sometimes also historical events are recorded.²⁶⁸ Over 2,000 years old, it is only to be expected that these clay tablets are often fragmentary.

More than 1,200 fragments of astronomical diaries of various sizes have been discovered, but because of their fragmentary condition only about a third of the number are datable.

Most of these cover the period from 385 to 61 B.C.E. and contain astronomical information from about 180 of these years, thus firmly establishing the chronology of this period.²⁶⁹

Half a dozen of the diaries are earlier. The two oldest are VAT 4956 from the sixth and BM. 52512 from the seventh centuries B.C.E. Both provide absolute dates that firmly establish the length of the Neo‒Babylonian period.

A‒1: The astronomical diary VAT 4956

The most important astronomical diary for our discussion is designated VAT 4956 and is kept in the Near Eastern department (”Vorderasiatischen Abteilung”) in the Berlin Museum. This diary is dated from Nisanu 1 of Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty‒seventh regnal year to Nisanu 1 of his thirty‒eighth regnal year, recording observations from five months of his thirty‒seventh year (months 1, 2, 3, 11 and 12). The most recent transcription and translation of the text is that of Sachs and Hunger, published in 1988.²⁷⁰

The extant datable astronomical diaries. The earliest diary is from 652/51 B.C.E. Then follows VAT 4956 from 568/67 B.C.E. Most cover the period from 385 to 61 B.C.E., containing astronomical information from about 180 of these years. – The chart is reproduced from A. J. Sachs, «Babylonian observational astronomy,» in F. R Hodson (ed.), The Place of Astronomy in the Ancient World (London: Oxford University Press, 1974), p. 47.

Among the many observed positions recorded on VAT 4956, there are about thirty which are so exactly described that modern astronomers can easily fix the precise dates when they were seen. By doing so they have been able to show that all these observations (of the moon and the five then known planets) must have been made during the year 568/67 B.C.E.

If Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty‒seventh regnal year was 568/67 B.C.E., then it follows that his first year must have been 604/03 B.C.E., and his eighteenth year, during which he desolated Jerusalem, 587/86 B.C.E.²⁷¹ This is the same date indicated by all the seven lines of evidence discussed in the previous chapter!

Could all these observations also have been made twenty years earlier, in the year 588/87 B.C.E., which according to the chronology of the Watch Tower Society’s Bible dictionary Insight on the Scriptures corresponded to Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty‒seven th regnal year?²⁷² The same dictionary (page 456 of Vol. 1, where VAT 4956 is obviously alluded to) acknowledges that “Modern chronologers point out that such a combination of astronomical positions would not be duplicated again in thousands of years.”

Let us consider one example. According to this diary, on Nisanu 1 of Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty‒seventh year the planet Saturn could be observed “in front of the Swallow,” the “Swallow” (SIM) referring to the south‒west part of the constellation of the Fishes (Pisces) of the Zodiac.²⁷³ As Saturn has a revolution of c. 29.5 years, it moves through the whole Zodiac in 29.5 years. This means that it can be observed in each of the twelve constellations of the Zodiac for about 2.5 years on the average. It means also that Saturn could be seen “in front of the Swallow” 29.5 years previous to 568/67 B.C.E., that is, in 597/96 B.C.E, but certainly not 20 years earlier in 588/87 B.C.E., the date the Watch Tower would like to assign for Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty‒seven th regnal year. That is simply an astronomical impossibility, even in the case of this one planet. But there are five planets that figure in the diary’s astronomical observations.

Add, therefore, the drfferent revolutions of the other four planets, the positions of which are specified several times in the text, along with the positions given for the moon at various times of the year, and it becomes easily understood why such a combination of observations could not be made again in thousands of years. The observations recorded in VAT 4956 must have been made in the year 568/67 B.C.E., because they fit no other situation which occurred either thousands of years before or after that date!

VAT 4956, now in the”Vorderasiatisches Abteilung” in the Berlin Museum, gives detail on about 30 positions of the moon and the five then known planets for the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar (568/67 B.C.E.), establishing that year as the most reliable absolute date in the sixth century B.C.E. – Reproduced from A. J. Sacks & H. Hunger, Astronomical Diaries and Belated Texts from Babylonia, Vol. I (Wien: Verlag dcr osterreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1988), Plate 3. Photo used courtesy of the Vorderasiatisches Museum in Berlin.

Thus VAT 4956 gives very strong support to the chronology of the Neo‒Babylonian era as established by the historians. Attempting to overcome this evidence, the Watch Tower Society, in the above‒mentioned Bible dictionary, goes on to state that, “While to some this might seem like incontrovertible evidence, there are factors greatly reducing its strength.”

What are these factors? And do they genuinely reduce the strength of the evidence in this ancient tablet?

(a) The first is that the observations made in Babylon may have contained errors. The Babylonian astronomers showed greatest concern for celestial events or phenomena occurring close to the horizon, at the rising or setting of the moon or the sun. However, the horizon as viewed from Babylon is frequently obscured by sandstorms.

Then Professor Otto Neugebauer is quoted as saying that Ptolemy complained about “the lack of reliable planetary observations [from, ancient Babylon],”²⁷⁴

However, many of the observations recorded in the diaries were not made close to the horizon, but higher up in the sky. Further, Babylonian astronomers had several means of overcoming unfavorable weather conditions.

As noted earlier, the observations were performed at a number of sites in Mesopotamia. What could not be observed at one place due to clouds or sandstorms, could probably be observed somewhere else.²⁷⁵

One method used to get over the difficulty of observing stars close to the horizon due to dust was to observe, instead, “the simultaneously occurring of other stars, the so‒called ziqpu‒stars,” that is, stars crossing the meridian higher up on the sky at their culmination.²⁷⁶

Finally, the horizon as viewed from Babylon was not obscured by sandstorms every day, and some planetary events could be observed many days or weeks in succession, also higher up in the sky, for example, the position of Saturn which, according to our text, could be observed “in front of the Swallow [the south‒west part of the Fishes].” As was pointed out above, Saturn can be observed in each of the twelve constellations of the Zodiac for about 2.5 years on the average.

Saturn’s position in the vicinity of the southern Fish, then, could have been observed for several months in succession, which would have made it impossible for Babylonian astronomers in their regular observations of the planets to make any mistake as to where this planet could be seen during the thirty‒seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar, in spite of frequent sandstorms. Our text, in fact, directly states that Saturn was observed “in front of the Swallow” not only on the first day of Nisanu (the first month), but also on the first day of Ayyaru (the second month)!

That the observations recorded in VAT 4956 are substantially correct may be seen from the fact that all of them (except for one or two containing scribal errors) fit the same year. This would not have been the case if the observations were erroneous.²⁷⁷

The next factor brought up in the Watch Tower Society’s Bible dictionary that is held to reduce the strength of VAT 4956 is the fact that some diaries are not original documents but later copies:

(b) Second, the fact is that the great majority of the astronomical diaries found were written, not in the time of the Neo‒Babylonian or Persian empires, but in the Seleucid period (312‒65 B.C.E.), although they contain data relating to those earlier periods. Historians assume that they are copies of earlier documents.

There is nothing to show that most diaries are later copies, but some are, as indicated by writing conventions used in the text. The earliest dated diaries frequently reflect the struggle of the copyists to understand the ancient documents they were copying, some of which were broken or otherwise damaged, and often the documents used an archaic terminology which the copyists tried to “modernize.” This is clearly true of VAT 4956, too. Twice in the text the copyist added the comment “broken off,” indicating he was unable to decipher a word in the copy. Also, the text reflects his attempt to change the archaic terminology. But did he also change the content of the text?

On this the first translators of the text, P. V. Neugebauer and E. F. Weidner, concluded: “As far as the contents are concerned the copy is of course a faithful reproduction of the original.”²⁷⁸ Other scholars, who since have examined the document, agree. Professor Peter Huber states:

It is preserved only in a copy of much later date, but that appears to be a faithful transcript (orthographically somewhat modernized) of an original of NEBUCHADNEZZAR’S time.²⁷⁹

Suppose that some of the material in the about thirty completely received observations recorded in VAT 4956 had been distorted by later copyists. How great is the possibility that all these “distorted” observations would fit into one and the same year – the very one corroborated by Berossus, the Royal Canon, the chronicles, the royal inscriptions, the contract tablets, the Uruk kinglist, and many other documents – that is, Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty‒seventh regnal year? Accidental errors of this kind do not “cooperate” to such a great extent. So there is no sound reason to doubt that the original observations have been correctly preserved in our copy.

(c) Finally, as in the case of Ptolemy, even though the astronomical information (as now interpreted and understood) on the texts discovered is basically accurate, this does not prove that the historical information accompanying it is accurate. Even as Ptolemy used the reigns of ancient kings (as he understood them) simply as a framework in which to place his astronomical data, so too, the writers (or copyists) of the astronomical texts of the Seleucid period may have simply inserted in their astronomical texts what was then the accepted, or “popular,” chronology of that time!²⁸⁰

What is suggested by the Watch Tower organization is that the later copyists changed the dates found in the “diaries” in order to adapt them to their own concepts of the ancient Babylonian and Persian chronology. Thus a writer in the Awakel magazine imagines that “the copyist of ^‘VAT 4956’ may, in line with the chronology accepted in his time, have inserted the ‘thirty‒seventh year of Nebuchadnezzar’ ,”²⁸¹ a plausible theory?

As was pointed out above, VAT 4956 is dated from Nisanu 1 of Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty‒seventh year to Nisanu 1 of his thirty­eighth year. Further, almost all events mentioned in the text are dated, with the month, the day and – when necessary – the time of the day given. About forty dates of this kind are given in the text, though the year, of course, is not repeated at all these places. All known diaries are dated in a similar way.

In order to change the years in the text, the copyists would also have been forced to change the name of the reigning king. Why? Nebuchadnezzar died in his forty‒third year of rule. If his thirty‒ seventh year fell in 588/87 B.C.E., as the Watch Tower Society holds, he must have been dead for many years by 568/67 B.C.E. when the observations of VAT 4956 were made.

Is it really likely that the Seleucid copyists devoted themselves to such large‒scale forgeries? What do we know about the “popular” chronology of their time, which is proposed in the Watch Tower’s publication as the motive for this deliberate fraud?

The chronology for the Neo‒Babylonian era composed by Berossus early in the Seleucid period evidendy represents the contemporary, “popular” concept of Neo‒Babylonian chronology.²⁸² If counted backwards from the fall of Babylon in 539 B.C.E., Berossus’ figures for the reigns of Neo‒Babylonian kings place Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty‒seventh year in 568/67 B.C.E. as does VAT 4956.

More importantly, Berossus’ Neo‒Babylonian chronology, as shown earlier in chapter three, is of the same length as that given by the many documents contemporary with the Neo‒Babylonian era itself such as chronicles, royal inscriptions, business documents, as well as with contemporary Egyptian documents!

The “popular” Neo‒Babylonian chronology as presented in the Seleucid era, then, was not something based on mere supposition, but meets the qualifications of a true and correct chronology, and there was no need for copyists to alter the ancient documents in order to adapt them to it. The theory that they falsified these documents, therefore, is groundless. Besides, it is refuted completely by other astronomical texts, including the next diary to be discussed.

Obverse Reverse

The astronomical diary B.M. 32312. This diary gives details on the positions of Mercury, Saturn, and Mars, which date it to the year 652/51 B.C.E. An historical notice, also repeated in the Akitn Chronicle and there dated to the 16th year of Shamashshumukin, fixes that year to 652/51 B.C.E., which prevents any extension of the Neo‒Babylonian era backwards in time. Photo used courtesy of the Trustees of the British Museum.

A‒2: The astronomical diary BM. 32312

In an article published in 1974, Professor Abraham J. Sachs gives a brief presentation of the astronomical diaries. Mentioning that the oldest datable diary contains observations from the year 652 B.C.E., he explains how he was able to fix its date:

When I first tried to date this text, I found the astronomical contents to be just barely adequate to make this date virtually certain.

It was a great relief when I was able to confirm the date by matching up a historical remark in the diary with the corresponding statement for ‒651 in a well‒dated historical chronicle.²⁸³

As this diary seemed to be of great importance for the question of Babylonian chronology, I wrote to Professor Sachs back in 1980 and asked two questions:

1. What information in the diary makes the date –651 ^{=652 B.C.E.}, “virtually certain”?

2. What kind of historical remark in the diary corresponds with what statement in which well‒dated chronicle?

In his answer Professor Sachs enclosed a copy of a photograph of the diary in question, B.M. 32312, and added information which fully answered my two questions. The astronomical contents of the diary clearly establish the year as 652/51 B.C.E. when the observations were made. Sachs writes that “the preserved astronomical events (Mercury’s last visibility in the east behind Pisces, Saturn’s last visibility behind Pisces, both around the 14th of month I; Mars’ stationary point in Scorpio on the 17th of month I; Mercury’s first visibility in Pisces on the 6th of mondi XII) uniquely determine the date.”²⁸⁴

Interestingly, it cannot be claimed that this diary was redated by later copyists, because the name of the king, his regnal year, and month names are broken away. Yet these data may justifiably be supplied because of a historical remark at the end of the diary. For “the 27th” of the month (the month name is broken away) the diary states that at the site of “Hiritu in the province of Sippar the troops of Babylonia and of Assyria foufght with each] other, and the troops of Babylonia withdrew and were heavily defeated.”²⁸⁵ Fortunately, it is possible to place the time of this battle since it is also mentioned in a well‒known Babylonian chronicle.

The chronicle is the so‒called Akitu Chronicle, B.M. 86379, which covers a part of Shamashshumukin’s reign, especially his last five years (the sixteenth to the twentieth). The battle at Hiritu is dated in his sixteenth year as follows:

The sixteenth year of Shamash‒shuma‒ukin: . . . On the twenty­seventh day of Adar [the 12th month] the armies of Assyria and Akkad [Babylonia] did battle in Hirit. The army of Akkad retreated from the battlefield and a major defeat was inflicted upon them.²⁸⁶

The astronomical events described in the diary fix the battle at Hiritu on Adam 27 to 651 B.C.E.²⁸⁷ The Akitu Chronicle shows that this battle at this place on this day was fought in the sixteenth year of Shamashshumukin. Thus Shamashshumukin’s sixteenth year was 652/51 B.C.E. His entire reign of twenty years, then, may be dated to 667/66 ‒ 648/47 B.C.E.

Now this is the way historians have dated Shamashshumukin’s reign for a long time, and that is why Professor Sachs concluded his letter by saying: “I should perhaps add that the absolute chronology of the regnal years of Shamash‒shuma‒ukin was never in doubt, and it is only confirmed again by the astronomical diary.”

Shamashshumukin’s reign has been known, for example, through the Royal Canon which gives him twenty years and his successor Kandalanu twenty‒two years. Thereafter Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar’s father, succeeded to the throne.²⁸⁸ These figures are in good agreement with the ancient cuneiform sources. Business documents, as well as the Akitu Chronicle, show that Shamashshumukin ruled for twenty years. Business documents, supported by the Uruk King Eist, also show that from the first year of Kandalanu to the first year of Nabopolassar was a period of twenty‒two years. Thus the chronology of that era, supplied by these sources, is as follows:

Shamashshumukin 20 years 667‒648 B.C.E.

Kandalanu 22 years 647‒626 B.C.E.

Nabopolassar 21 years 625‒605 B.C.E

Nebuchadnezzar 43 years 604‒562 B.C.E.

The diary B.M. 32312, although establishing a date prior to the Neo‒Babylonian period (which began with Nabopolassar), again coincides with and helps corroborate the chronology of that era.

This diary, then, adds yet another witness to the increasing amount of evidence against the 607 B.C.E. date. A change of Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth year from 587 to 607 B.C.E. would also change Shamashshumukin’s sixteenth year from 652 to 672 B.C.E. But the diary B.M. 32312 rules out such a change.

And, as already pointed out, no one can claim that later copyists inserted “the 16th year of Shamashshumukin” in this diary, because the text is damaged at this point and that datum is broken away! It is the unique historical information in the text, information repeated in the Akitu Chronicle, that fixes the diary to Shamashshumukin’s sixteenth year.

This diary, therefore, may be regarded as an independent witness which upholds the authenticity of the dates given in VAT 4956 and other diaries.²⁸⁹

One of the most important astronomical texts from the seventh century B.C.E. is the Saturn tablet from the reign of the Babylonian king Kandalanu (647‒626 B.C.E.), predecessor of Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar’s father.

This text consists of two broken pieces, B.M. 76738 and B.M. 76813.²⁹⁰ The text was first described by C. B. F. Walker in 1983 in the Bulletin of the Society for Mesopotamian Studies?²⁹¹ A transcription and a translation with a full discussion of the text by Mr. C.B.F. Walker has recently been published.²⁹²

As explained earlier (section A‒1 above), the planet Saturn has a revolution of c. 29.5 years. Due to the revolution of the earth round the sun, Saturn disappears behind the sun for a few weeks and reappears again at regular intervals of 378 days.

The Saturn tablet gives the dates (regnal year, month, and day in the Babylonian calendar) and the positions of the planet Saturn at its first and last appearances for a period of fourteen successive years, specifically, the first fourteen years of Kandalanu (647‒634 B.C.E.). The name of the king, given only in the first line, is partially damaged, but may be restored as Kandalanu. The name of the planet is nowhere mentioned in the text, but the observations fit Saturn and no other planet.

As Mr. Walker explains:

The name of the planet Saturn is not given on the tablet, and the name of Kandalanu is to be restored from only a few traces in the first line. It is, however, certain that we are dealing with Saturn and Kandalanu. Saturn is the slowest moving of the visible planets, and only Saturn would move the distances indicated between successive first visibilities.²⁹³

The text is damaged in several places, and many of the year numbers are illegible. Years 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 13 are undamaged, however.

Besides this, each year is covered by two lines in the text, one for the last appearance of the planet and the other for its first, the total number of lines covering the fourteen years, therefore, being twenty‒eight. With this framework there is no problem in restoring the year numbers that are damaged.

Most of the positions given for Saturn at its first or last appearance are legible.²⁹⁴ entry for year eight, which is almost wholly preserved, is quoted here as an example:

Year 8, month 6, day 5, behind the Furrow (α+ Virginis), last appearance.

[Year 8], month 7, day 5, ‘between’ the Furrow (α+ Virginis) and the Balance (Libra), first appearance.²⁹⁵

What is the implication of this astronomical tablet for the chronology of the Neo‒Babylonian era?

As noted, Saturn has a revolution of 29.5 years, which also means that the planet moves through the whole ecliptic in this period.

But for the planet to be seen again at a specific point (close to a certain fixed star, for example) of the ecliptic at the same time of the pear, we have to wait for 59 solar years (2 x 29.5). This interval, actually, is much longer in tire Babylonian lunar calendar. As C. B. F. Walker explains:

A complete cycle of Saturn phenomena in relation to the stars takes 59 years. But when that cycle has to be fitted to the lunar calendar of 29 or 30 days then identical cycles recur at intervals of rather more than 17 centuries. Thus there is no difficulty in determining the date of the present text.²⁹⁶

In other words, the absolute chronology of Kandalanu’s reign is definitely fixed by the Saturn tablet, because the pattern of positions described in the text and fixed to specific dates in the Babylonian lunar calendar is not repeated again in more than seventeen centuries¹. The first fourteen years of his reign mentioned in the document are thus fixed to 647‒634 B.C.E. As Kandalanu’s total reign may chronologically be counted as twenty‒two years (twenty‒one years plus one year “after Kandalanu”; see section A‒2 above), our tablet establishes the absolute chronology of his reign as 647‒626 B.C.E.²⁹⁷

Like the previous text discussed earlier (B.M. 32312), the Saturn tablet puts a definite block to the attempts at lengthening the chronology of the Neo‒Babylonian period. If twenty years were to be added to this period, the reign of Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, would have to be moved from 625‒605 back to 645‒625 B.C.E., and this in turn would mean moving the reign of his predecessor, Kandalanu, from 647‒626 back to 667‒646 B.C.E. The astronomical data on the Saturn tablet makes such changes completely impossible.

Many of the Babylonian astronomical tablets contain reports of consecutive lunar eclipses, dated to the year, month, and often also the day of the reigning kmg. About forty texts of this type, recording several hundreds of lunar eclipses from 747 to about 50 B.C.E., were catalogued by Abraham J. Sachs in 1955.²⁹⁸

In about a third of the texts the eclipses are arranged in 18‒year groups, evidendy because the Babylonians knew that the pattern of lunar eclipses is repeated at intervals of approximately 18 years and 11 days, or exactly 223 lunar months (= 6585 1/3 days). This cycle was used by the Babylonian astronomers “to predict the dates of possible eclipses by at least the middle of the 6th century B.C. and most probably long before that.”²⁹⁹

As modern scholars call this cycle the Saros cycle, the 18‒year texts are often referred to as the Saros cycle texts.³⁰⁰ Some of these texts record series of 18‒year intervals extending over several centuries.

Lunar Eclipse. Lunar eclipses are possible only at full moon, when the earth is between the moon and the sun and the moon may enter the shadow of the earth. This would occur at every full moon if the moon’s orbital plane were the same as the earth’s orbital plane (the ecliptic). But as the moon’s orbital plane is inclined about 5° to the ecliptic, lunar eclipses can occur only when the moon, on approaching its full phase, is close to one of two points (the nodes) where its orbit intersects with the ecliptic. This occurs at about every eighth full moon on the average, which means there are about 1.5 lunar eclipses per year, although they are not evenly dispersed in time.

Most of the lunar eclipse texts were compiled during the Seleucid era (312‒64 B.C.E.). The evidence is that the eclipse records were extracted from astronomical diaries by the Babylonian astronomers, who evidently had access to a large number of diaries from earlier centuries.³⁰¹ even if most of the diaries from the earliest centuries are missing, many of their entries on eclipses have been preserved in these excerpts.

Many of the eclipse texts were copied by T. G. Pinches and J. N. Strassmaier in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and these copies were published by A. Sachs in 1955.³⁰² Translations of a few of the texts appeared in print in 1991.³⁰³ The rest of the texts, translated by H. Hunger, were published in ADT V, 2001. (See footnote 36 above.)

A preliminary typescript with transliterations and translations of most of the lunar eclipse texts was prepared in 1973 by Professor Peter Huber, but he never brought it into a form ready for publication, although it has been unofficially circulated among scholars for a long time. Huber’s memoir has been consulted in the following discussion, but every passage used has been checked, and in several cases improved upon or corrected, by Professor Hermann Hunger, whose transliterations and translations of these eclipse texts have since been published.

The texts recording the earliest lunar eclipses are LBAT 1413‒1421 in Sachs’ catalogue. Only the last four of these, nos. 1418‒1421, contain eclipses from the Neo‒Babylonian period. But as LBAT 1417 contains eclipses from the reigns of Shamashshumukin and Kandalanu, the last two Babylonian kings prior to the Neo‒Babylonian period (cf. sections A‒2 and B above), this text, too, is an important witness to the length of the Neo‒Babylonian period.

A discussion of four of these texts and their implications for the Neo‒Babylonian chronology of the Watch Tower Society is presented in the following section.³⁰⁴

The lunar eclipse table LB AT 1417. The tablet records four lunar eclipses at 18‒year intervals dated to the 3rd year of Sennacherib, the accession year and 18th year of Shamashshumukin, and the 16th year of Kandalanu. The four eclipses may be shown to have occurred on April 22, 686; May 2, 668; May 13, 650, and on May 23, 632 B.C.E. – Published by A. J. Sachs, Tate Babylonian Astronomical and Belated Texts (Providence, Rhode Island: Brown University Press, 1955), p. 223.

C‒1: The lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1417

LBAT 1417 records four lunar eclipses at 18‒year intervals from 686 to 632 B.C.E. It seems to be a part of the same tablet as the previous Evo texts in the series, LBAT 1415 and 1416. The first entry records an eclipse from Sennacherib third year of reign in Babylonia,³⁰⁵ with the eclipse that took place on April 22, 686 B.C.E. Unfortunately, the year number is damaged and only partially legible.

The next entry, dated to the accession year of Shamashshumukin, gives this information:

Accession year Shamash‒shum‒ukin,

Ayyaru, 5 months, which passed by.

At 40° after sunrise.

At a cursory glance this report seems to give very little information. But there is more in the few brief lines than one might possibly imagine.

The Babylonian astronomers had developed such an abbreviated technical terminology in describing the various celestial phenomena that their reports assumed an almost stenographic character. The Akkadian phrase translated “which passed by” (shá DIB), for example, was used in connection with a predicted eclipse to indicate that it would not be observable.

As Hermann Hunger explains, “the eclipse was known to the Babylonians as occurring at a time when the moon could not be observed. It does not show that they looked for an eclipse and were disappointed that it did not occur.”³⁰⁶ only computed this eclipse some time in advance by means of a known cycle (perhaps the Saros cycle); their computation also showed it would not be observable from the Babylonian horizon.

This is also implied in the next line, “At 40° after sunrise.” 40° is a reference to the movement of the celestial sphere, which, due to the rotation of the earth, is seen to make a full circle in 24 hours. The Babylonians divided up this period into 360 time units (degrees) called USH, each of which corresponded to four of our minutes. The text, therefore, tells us that the eclipse had been calculated to begin 160 minutes (40 USH x 4) after sunrise, which means it would take place in the daytime and thus not be observable in Babylonia.

Modern astronomical calculations confirm this. If Shamashhumukin’s first year was 667/66 B.C.E. as is generally held (see above, section A‒2), his accession year was 668/67. The eclipse is dated to Ayyaru, the second month, which began in April or May. (The “5 months” indicates the time interval from the previous eclipse.)

Was there an eclipse of the type described in our text at that time of the year in 668 B.C.E.? Yes, there was.

Modern lunar eclipse catalogues show that such an eclipse took place on May 2, 668 B.C.E. (Julian calendar). It began at about 9:20 local time,³⁰⁷ which only roughly agrees with the Babylonian computation that it would begin 160 minutes –2 hours and 40 minutes – after sunrise. As sunrise occurred at about 5:20, the error in computation was ca. 1 hour and 20 minutes.³⁰⁸

In the chronology of the Watch Tower Society the accession year of Shamashshumukin is moved back twenty years to 688/87 B.C.E. No lunar eclipses occurred in April or May that year, but there was a total one on June 10, 688 B.C.E. Contrary to the eclipse recorded in our text, however, this one was observable in Babylonia. It is, dierefore, an impossible alternative.

The next entry in the text is dated to the eighteenth year of Shamashshumukin, that is, 650/49 B.C.E. This eclipse, too, was a computed one, predicted to “pass by” in the second month. It would begin about four hours (60 USH) “before sunset”. According to modern calculations the eclipse took place on May 13, 650 B.C.E. The canon of Liu and Fiala shows it began at 16:25 and ended at 18:19, about half an hour before sunset at that time of the year.³⁰⁹

According to the chronology of the Watch Tower Society this eclipse occurred twenty years earlier, in 670 B.C.E. No lunar eclipses took place in April or May that year, but there was a total one on June 22, 670 B.C.E. However, it did not occur “before sunset”, as did the one recorded in our text, but early in the forenoon, beginning about 7:30. So, again, it does not fit.

The next and last entry in LBAT 1417 is dated to the sixteenth year of Kandalanu. The eclipse recorded was observed in Babylonia and several important details are given:

(Year) 16 Kandalanu

(month) Simanu, 5 months, day 15.2 Fingers (?)

on the northeast side covered (?)

On the north it became bright. The north wind [blew]

20° onset, maximal phase, [and clearing.]

Behind Antares (αScorpio) [it was eclipsed.]

As indicated by the question marks and the square brackets, the text is somewhat damaged at places, but the information preserved is sufficient for identifying the eclipse. It took place on “day 15” of Simanu, the third month, which began in May or June. “2 fingers” means it was partial, with only two twelfths of the moon’s diameter being eclipsed. The total duration of the eclipse was 20°, that is, 80 minutes.

If Kandalanu’s sixteenth year began on Nisan 1, 632 B.C.E., as is generally held (compare above, sections A‒2 and B), we want to know if there was a lunar eclipse of this type in the third month of that year.

Modern calculations show there was. According to the eclipse canon of Liu and Fiala the eclipse began on May 23, 632 B.C.E. at 23:51 and lasted until 1:07 on May 24, which means its total duration was about 76 minutes, that is, very close to the period given in the text. The same canon gives the magnitude as 0.114.³¹⁰

These data are in good agreement with the ancient record. In the chronology of the Watch Tower Society, however, this eclipse should be looked for twenty years earlier, in May, June, or possibly July, 652 B.C.E. It is true that there was an eclipse on July 2 that year, but in contrast to the partial one recorded in our text it was total. But as it began about 15:00. no phase of it was observable in Babylonia.

In summary, LBAT 1417 records four lunar eclipses at successive 18‒year intervals (18 years and nearly 11 days), all of which may be easily identified with those of April 21, 686; May 2, 668; May 13, 650, and May 23, 632 B.C.E. The four eclipse records are interlaced by the successive Saros cycles into a pattern that fit no other series of years in the seventh century B.C.E.³¹¹

The last three dates are thus established as the absolute dates of the accession year and the eighteenth year of Shamashshumukin and the sixteenth year of Kandalanu, respectively. The Watch Tower Society’s attempt to add twenty years to the Neo‒Babylonian era, in that way moving the reigns of the earlier kings twenty years backwards in time, is once again effectively blocked by a Babylonian astronomical tablet, this time by the lunar eclipse text LBAT 1417.

C‒2: The lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1419

LBAT 1419 records an uninterrupted series of lunar eclipses at 18‒year intervals from 609/08 to 447/46 B.C.E. The first entries, which evidently recorded eclipses that ocurred in September 609 and March 591 B.C.E., are damaged. Royal names and year numbers are illegible. However, two of the following entries are clearly dated to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar (the words in parentheses are added to elucidate the laconic reports):

14th (year of) Nebukadnezar,

month VI, (eclipse) which was omitted [literally, “passed by”]

at sunrise,

………………..

32nd (year of) Nebukadnezar,

month VI, (eclipse) which was omitted.

At 35° (= 35 USH, i.e. 140 minutes) before sunset.

The royal name in the original text is written as “Kudurri”, which is an abbreviation of Nabu‒kudurri‒usur, the transcribed Akkadian form of Nebuchadnezzar.

Nebuchadnezzar’s fourteenth and thirty‒second years are generally dated to 591/90 and 573/72 B.C.E., respectively. The two eclipses recorded, one Saros cycle apart, both took place in the sixth month (Ululu), which began in August or September. Both eclipses had been calculated in advance, and the Babylonians knew that none of them would be observable in Babylonia. The first eclipse began “at sunrise”, the second 140 minutes (35 USH) “before sunset.” Thus both of them occurred in the daytime in Babylonia.

This is confirmed by modern calculations. The first eclipse occurred on September 15, 591 B.C.E. It began about 6:00. The second took place in the afternoon on September 25, 573 B.C.E.³¹² eclipses, then, fit in very well with the chronology established for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.

In the chronology of the W atch Tower Society, however, the two eclipses should be sought for twenty years earlier, in 611 and 593 B.CE. But no eclipses that fit those described in the text occurred in the autumn of any of those years.³¹³

The next entry, which records the subsequent eclipse in the 18‒ year cycle, gives the following detailed information:

Month VII, the 13th, in 17° on the east side

all (of the moon) was covered. 28° maximal phase.

In 20° it cleared from east to west.

Its eclipse was red.

Behind the rump of Aries it was eclipsed.

During onset, the north wind blew, during clearing, the west

wind. At 55° before sunrise.

As stated in the text, this eclipse took place on the thirteenth day of the seventh month (Tashritu), which began in September or October. The royal name and the year number unfortunately are missing.

Yet, as Professor Hunger points out, “the eclipse can nevertheless be identified with certainty from the observations given.”³¹⁴ about the eclipse – its magnitude (total), duration (the total phase lasting 112 minutes), and position (behind the rump of Aries) – clearly identify it with the eclipse that took place in the night of Oct. 6‒7, 555 B.C.E.³¹⁵

According to the generally established chronology for the Neo‒ Babylonian period, this eclipse took place in the first year of Nabonidus, which began on Nisan 1, 555 B.C.E. Although the royal name and year number are missing, it is of the utmost importance to notice that the text places this eclipse one Saros cycle after the eclipse in the thirty‒second year of Nebuchadneygar. As the last eclipse may be securely dated in 555 B.C.E., it at once also places Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty‒second year eighteen years earlier, in 573 B.C.E.

Consequently, all three eclipses in our text concur in establishing 591 and 573 B.C.E. as the absolute dates of Nebuchadnezzar’s 14th and 32nd regnal years, respectively.

The Saros cycle text LBAT 1419 thus provides yet another mdependent evidence against 607 B.C.E. as the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar. If, as is established by the text, his thirty‒second year was 573/72 B.C.E. and his fourteenth year was 591/90 B.C.E., then his first year was 604/03, and his eighteenth year, in which he desolated Jerusalem, was 587/86 B.C.E.

C‒3: The lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1420

Instead of recording eclipses at 18‒year intervals, LBAT 1420 contains annual eclipse reports. All eclipses in the text are from the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, dating from his first year (604/03 B.C.E.) to at least his twenty‒ninth year (576/75 B.C.E.).

The first entry, which records two eclipses that “passed by” (that is, though correctly predicted would not be observable), is damaged and the year number is illegible. But the last part of Nebuchadnezzar’s name is preserved:

[(Year) 1 Nebuchadn] ezzar, (month) Simanu.

The name of the king is not repeated in the subsequent entries, indicating that the king is the same during the whole period. This is also confirmed by the continuous series of increasing year numbers right until the last year preserved in the text, “(Year) 29”.

The entries recording eclipses in the period 603‒595 B.C.E. are very damaged, too, and the year numbers for this period are missing. The first entry in which the year number is preserved records two eclipses from the eleventh year:

(Year) 11, (month) Ayyaru [.............. ] 10(?) USH after sunset and it

was total. 10 [+x . . .] (Month) Arahsamnu, which passed by. Addaru₂.

The eleventh year of Nebuchadnezzar began on Nisan 1, 594 B.C.E. “Addaru₂” is added to indicate that there was an intercalary month at the end of the year.

There is no problem in finding both of these eclipses. Ayyaru, the second month, began in April or May, and Arahsamnu, the eighth month, began in October or November. The first eclipse occurred on May 23, and the second one on November 17. The eclipse canon of Liu and Fiala confirms that the first eclipse was total and was observable in Babylonia, as stated in the text. It began at 20:11 and ended at 23:48. The second eclipse “passed by” (was unobservable) as it occurred in the daytime. According to the canon of Liu and Fiala it began at 7.08 and ended at 9:50.³¹⁶

Most of the year numbers from the twelfth to the seventeenth year (593/92‒588/87 B.C.E.) are legible.³¹⁷ are described and dated in this period, eight of which “passed by” and five were observed. Modern calculations confirm that all these eclipses occurred in the period 593‒588 B.C.E.

After the seventeenth year there is a gap in the record until the twenty‒fourth year. The entry for that year records two eclipses, but the text is damaged and most of it is illegible. From then on, however, year numbers and also most of the text are well preserved.

These entries contain annual records of a total of nine eclipses (five observable and four that “passed by”) dating from the twenty‒fifth to the twenty‒ninth year (580/79‒576/75 B.C.E.). There are no difficulties in identifying any of these eclipses. They all occurred in the period 580‒575 B.C.E. It would be tiresome and useless to expose the reader to a detailed examination of all these reports. The entry for year “25” may suffice as an example:

(Year) 25, (month) Abu, 1 1/2 beru after sunset.

(Month) Shabatu, it occurred in the evening watch.

Abu, the fifth Babylonian month, began in July or August. The Babylonians divided our 24‒hour day into twelve parts called beru. One beru, therefore, was two hours. The first eclipse is said to have occurred 1 1/2 beru, that is, three hours, after sunset. As Nebuchadnezzar’s twenty‒fifth year is dated to 580/79 B.C.E., this eclipse should be found in July or August that year, about three hours after sunset.

The eclipse is not difficult to identify. According to the canon of Liu and Fiala it was a total eclipse which began on August 14, 580 B.C.E. at 21:58 and ended at 1:31 on August 15.³¹⁸

The next eclipse occurred six months later in Shabatu, the eleventh month, which began in January or February. It is said to have occurred “in the evening watch” (the first of the three watches of the night).

This eclipse, too, is easy to find. It took place on February 8, 579 B.C.E. and lasted from 18:08 to 20:22. according to the canon of Liu and Fiala.³¹⁹

In the chronology of the Watch Tower Society the twenty‒fifth year of Nebuchadnezzar is dated twenty years earlier, in 600/599 B.C.E. But no lunar eclipses observable in Babylonia occurred in 600 BCE. And although there was an eclipse in the night of February 19‒20, 599 B.C.E., it did not occur “in the evening watch” as the one reported in our text.³²⁰

Details on some two dozens of lunar eclipses, dated to specific years and months in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, are preserved on LBAT 1420. Not one of them is found to agree with the Watch Tower Society’s chronology for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar.

Together these lunar eclipses form an irregular but very distinct pattern of events scattered over the first twenty‒nine years of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign. Only on the assumption that his reign began in 604 B.C.E. do we find a far‒reaching correspondence between this pattern and the celestial events that gave rise to it. But if Nebuchadnezzar’s reign is moved back one, two, five, ten, or twenty years, this correlation between the records and reality immediately dissolves. LBAT 1420 alone, therefore, suffices to disprove completely the idea that the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar should be dated to 607 B.C.E.

C‒4: The lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1421

The preserved part of LBAT 1421 records two eclipses observed in Babylonia in the sixth and twelfth month of year “42”, evidendy of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar:

(Year) 42, (month) Ululu, (day) 14. It rose eclipsed [. . .]

and became bright. 6 (USH) to become bright.

At 35° [before sunset].

(Month) Addaru, (day) 15, 1,30° after sunset [...].

25° duration of maximal phase. In 18° it [became bright.]

West(wind) went. 2 cubits below

γVirginis eclipsed

[… …]

Provided that these eclipses occurred in the forty‒second year of Nebuchadnezzar – and there was no other Babylonian king ruling that long in the sixth, seventh, or eighth centuries B.C.E. – they should be looked for in 563/62 B.C.E. And there is no difficulty in identifying them: The first, dated in the sixth month, occurred on September 5, 563 B.C.E., and the second one, dated in the twelfth month, occurred on March 2‒3, 562 B.C.E.

The first eclipse “rose eclipsed”, meaning that it began some time before sunset, so that when the moon rose (at about 18:30 at that time of the year), it was already eclipsed. This agrees with modern calculations, which show that the eclipse began about 17:00 and lasted until about 19:00.³²¹

The lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1421. The tablet records two lunar eclipses dated to months six and twelve of year «42,» evidently of Nebuchadnezzar. The details given help to identify them with eclipses that occurred on September 5, 563 and March 2‒3, 562 B.C.E. respectively. – From A. J. Sachs, Rate Babylonian Astronomical and Related Texts (Providence, Rhode Island: Brown University Press, 1955), p. 223.

The canon of Liu and Fiala confirms that the second eclipse was total. “1,30° [six hours] after sunset” probably refers to the beginning of the total phase, which began after midnight, at 0:19, and lasted until 2:03, i.e. it lasted for 104 minutes.³²² agreement with our text, which gives the duration of the maximal phase as 25 USH, that is, 100 minutes.

In the chronology of the Watch Tower Society, Nebuchadnezzar’s forty‒second year is dated to 583/82 B.C.E. But no eclipses of the type described in our text occurred in that year.

A possible alternative to the first one might have been that of October 16, 583 B.C.E., had it not began too late – at 19:45 according to Liu and Fiala – to be observed at moonrise (which occurred at about 17:30). And as for the second eclipse, there were no eclipses at all that could be observed in Babylonia in 582 B.C.E.³²³

The lunar eclipse texts presented above provide four additional independent evidences for the length of the Neo‒Babylonian period.

The first text (LBAT 1417) records lunar eclipses from the accession year and eighteenth year of Shamash‒shum‒ukin and the sixteenth year of Kandalanu, turning these years into absolute dates that effectively block any attempt to add even one year to the Neo‒ Babylonian period, far less twenty.

The other three texts (LBAT 1419, 1420, and 1421) records dozens of lunar eclipses dated to various years within the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, thus time and again turning his reign into an absolute chronology. It is like fastening a painting to a wall with dozens of nails all over it, although but one would suffice.

Similarly, it would have sufficed to establish only one of Nebuchadnezzar’s regnal years as an absolute date to overthrow the idea that his eighteenth year began in 607 B.C.E.

Before concluding this section on the lunar eclipse texts, it seems necessary to forestall an anticipated objection to the evidence provided by these texts. As the Babylonian astronomers as early as in the seventh century B.C.E. were able to compute in advance certain astronomical events such as eclipses, could it be that they also, in the later Seleucid era, were able to retrocalculate lunar eclipses and attach them to the chronology established for the earlier centuries? Could the lunar eclipse texts simply be the results of such a procedure?³²⁴

It is certainly true that the various cycles used by the Babylonians por predicting eclipses just as well could be used for retrocalculating eclipses, and there is a particular small group of tablets showing that Seleucid astronomers did extrapolate such cycles backwards in time.³²⁵

However, the observational texts record a number of phenomena that were impossible for the Babylonians to predict or retrocalculate. Of the records in the diaries and planetary texts Professor N. M. Swerdlow points out that, although the distances of planets from normal stars could be predicted, “Conjunctions of planets with the moon and other planets, with their distances, could neither be calculated by the ephemerides nor predicted by periodicities.”³²⁶ eclipses, the Babylonians could predict and retrocalculate their occurrences, “but none of the Babylonian methods could have allowed them to calculate circumstances such as the direction of the eclipse shadow and the visibility of planets during the eclipse.”³²⁷

Thus, although the Babylonians were able to calculate certain astronomical phenomena, the observational texts record a number of details connected with the observations that they were unable to predict or retrocalculate. This disproves conclusively the idea proposed by some that the data may have been calculated backwards from a later period.

In the previous chapter the length of the Neo‒Babylonian era was firmly established by seven different lines of evidence. All of them were based upon ancient Babylonian cuneiform texts such as chronicles, kinglists, royal inscriptions, and tens of thousands of economic, administrative, and legal documents from the Neo‒Babylonian period.

In this chapter another seven independent evidences have been presented. All of these are based on ancient Babylonian astronomical texts, which provide a whole string of absolute dates from the sixth and seventh centuries B.C.E. These tablets establish – over and over again – the absolute chronology of the Neo‒Babylonian era:

(1) The Astronomical diary VAT 4956

The diary VAT 4956 contains about thirty completely verified observed astronomical positions from Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty­seventh regnal year.

Such a combination of astronomical positions is not duplicated again in thousands of years. Consequently, there is only one year which fits this situation: 568/67 B.C.E.

If this was Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty‒seventh regnal year, as is twice stated on this tablet, then 587/86 B.C.E. must have been his eighteenth year, in which he desolated Jerusalem.

(2) The astronomical diary B.M. 32312

B.M. 32312 is the oldest preserved astronomical diary. It records astronomical observations that enable scholars to date this tablet to 652/51 B.C.E.

A historical remark in the text, repeated in the Babylonian chronicle B.M. 86379 (the “Akitu Chronicle”) shows this to have been the sixteenth year of Shamashshumukin. The diary, then, fixes his twenty‒year reign to 667‒648 B.C.E., his successor Kandalanu’s twenty‒two‒year reign to 647‒626, Nabopolassar’s twenty‒one‒year reign to 625‒605, and Nebuchadnezzar’s forty‒three‒year reign to 604‒562 B.C.E.

This, again, sets Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth year and the destruction of Jerusalem at 587/86 B.C.E.

(3) The Saturn tablet B.M. 76738+76813

The Saturn tablet records a successive series of positions of the planet Saturn at its first and last appearances, dated to the first fourteen years of Kandalanu.

Such a pattern of positions, fixed to specific dates in the Babylonian lunar calendar, is not repeated again in more than seventeen centuries.

This text, then, again fixes Kandalanu’s twenty‒two‒year reign to 647‒626 B.C.E., Nabopolassar’s twenty‒one‒year reign to 625‒605, and Nebuchadnezzar’s reign to 604‒562 B.C.E.

(4) The lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1417

LBAT 1417 records four lunar eclipses, each succeeding the other at intervals of 18 years and nearly 11 days, an eclipse period known as the Saros cycle.

The eclipses are dated to the third year of Sennacherib’s reign in Babylonia, to the accession year and the eighteenth year of Shamashshumukin, and to the sixteenth year of Kandalanu, respectively.

The four interrelated eclipses may be clearly identified with a series of eclipses that occurred in 686, 668, 650 and 632 B.C.E. This tablet, therefore, once again fixes the absolute chronology for the reigns of Shamashshumukin and Kandalanu, and also – indirectly for the reigns of Nabopolassar and Nebuchadnezzar.

(5) The lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1419

LBAT 1419 contains reports of an uninterrupted series of lunar eclipses at 18‒year intervals directly from the Neo‒Babylonian era itself.

Two of the eclipses are dated to the fourteenth and thirty‒ second years of Nebuchadnezzar. They may be identified with eclipses that occurred in 591 and 573 B.C.E., respectively, confirming again at these points the chronology established for the reign of this king.

Although the royal name and year number are missing in the report on the next eclipse in the 18‒year series, the very detailed information makes it easy to identify it with the eclipse that occurred on October 6‒7, 555 B.C.E. This date, therefore, confirms and adds further strength to the two earlier dates in the 18‒year series, 573 and 591 B.C.E.

As these years correspond to Nebuchadnezzar’s thirty‒second and fourteenth years, respectively, his eighteenth year is, of course, once again fixed to 587/86 B.C.E. by this tablet.

(6) The lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1420

LBAT 1420 gives an annual record of lunar eclipses from the first to the twenty‒ninth years of Nebuchadnezzar, except for a gap between his eighteenth and twenty‒third years. The entries in which regnal year numbers are preserved – about a dozen – give details on some two dozens of eclipses, all of which are found exactly in the B.C.E. years that has been established earlier for the regnal years mentioned in the text.

As this specific compound of dated lunar eclipses does not tally with any corresponding series of eclipses that occurred in the immediate preceding decades, this tablet alone suffices to establish the absolute chronology of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign.³²⁸

(7) The lunar eclipse tablet LBAT 1421

LBAT 1421 records two eclipses dated in the sixth and twelfth months of year “42”, evidently of Nebuchadnezzar, generally dated to 563/62 B.CE. And both eclipses are also actually found in these months of that year. But no eclipses of the type recorded in the text occurred in 583/82 B.CE. – the date of Nebuchadnezzar’s forty‒second year in the chronology of the Watch Tower Society. This tablet, therefore, provides an additional proof of the falsity of that chronology.

(8‒11) Another four astronomical tablets

The seven astronomical texts discussed above provide more than enough evidence against the Watch Tower Society’s 607 B.C.E. date. And yet this is not all. Another four texts have recently been published that will be described only briefly here. Translations of three of these are published in Hunger, ADT V (2001).

The first is LBAT 1415 which, as mentioned on page 174 above, is part of the same tablet as LBAT 1417. It records lunar eclipses dated to year 1 of Bel‒ibni (702 B.C.E.), year 5, evidendy of Sennacherib (684 B.C.E.), and year 2, evidendy of Shamash‒shum‒ukin (666 B.C.E).

The second is lunar eclipse text no. 5 in Hunger, ADT V. It is badly damaged and the royal name is missing, but some historical remarks in the text shows it is from the reign of Nabopolassar. One of the eclipses described is dated to year 16 and may be identified with the eclipse of September 15, 610 B.C.E.

The third is text no. 52 in Hunger, ADT V. This is a planetary text containing over a dozen legible records of the positions of Saturn, Mars, and Mercury dated to years 14, 17, and 19 of Shamash‒shum‒ukm (654, 651, and 649 B.C.E), years 1, 12, and 16 of Kandalanu (647, 636, and 632 B.C.E.), and years 7, 12, 13, and 14 of Nabopolassar (619, 614, 613, and 612 B.C.E.). Like some of the previous texts discussed above, these three texts effectively prevent all attempts at lengthening the chronology of the Neo‒Babylonian period.

The fourth is a planetary tablet, SBTU IV 171, which records first and last appearances and stationary points of Saturn in years 28, 29, 30, and 31 of an unknown king.³²⁹ Hermann Hunger has demonstrated, the year numbers combined with the position of Saturn in the constellation of Pabilsag (roughly Sagittarius) exclude all alternatives in the first millennium B.C.E. except years 28‒31 of Nebuchadnezzar, fixing these to 577/76‒574/73 B.C.E. Again, this establishes his 18th year as 587/86 B.C.E.

As has been clearly seen, the Watch Tower Society’s interpretation of the “Gentile Times” requires that these have a starting date of 607 B.C.E., their claimed date for the fall of Jerusalem. Since that event took place in Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth year, that regnal year must also be dated as of 607 B.C.E. This creates a gap of twenty years when compared with all existing ancient historical records, since these place the start of Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth year in 587 B.C.E. How can this twenty‒year gap possibly be explained?

In this chapter it has been demonstrated that the ten astronomical texts presented establish the absolute chronology of the Neo‒Babylonian period at a number of points, especially within the 43‒year‒reign of Nebuchadnezzar. Their combined witness proves beyond all reasonable doubt that his reign cannot be moved backwards in time even one year, far less twenty.

Together with the evidence presented in Chapter 3, therefore, we now have seventeen different evidences, each of which in its own way overthrows the Watch Tower Society’s dating of Nebuchadnezzar’s eighteenth year to 607 B.C.E., showing it to have begun twenty years later, that is, in 587 B.C.E.

Indeed, few reigns in ancient history may be dated with such conclusiveness as that of the Neo‒Babylonian king Nebuchadnezzar.

Suppose for a moment that Berossus’ figures for the reigns of the Neo‒Babylonian kings contain an error of twenty years, as is required by the chronology of the Watch Tower Society. Then the compiler(s) of the Royal Canon must have made exactly the same mistake, evidently independently of Berossus!

It might be argued, though, that both simply repeated an error contained in the sources they used, namely the Neo‒Babylonian chronicles. Then the scribes of Nabonidus, too, who possibly used the same sources, would have had to have dropped twenty years from the reign of the same king (or kings) when they made the inscriptions of the Hillah stele and the Adad‒guppi’ stele.

Is it really likely, however, that those scribes, who wrote right during the Neo‒Babylonian era, did not know the lengths of the reigns of the kings under whom they lived, especially since those reigns also functioned as calendar years by which they dated different events?

If they really made such a strange mistake, how is it possible that contemporary scribes in Egypt also made the same mistake, dropping the same period of twenty years when making inscriptions on death stelae and other documents?

Curiously then, the Babylonian astronomers must also have regularly made similar “mistakes” when dating the observations recorded in VAT 4956, LBAT 1420, SBTU IV 171, and also other tablets from which later astronomers abstracted their Saros cycle eclipse records – unless of course changes were purposely made by copyists in the Seleucid era, as the Watch Tower Society posits.

Still more incredible is the idea that scribes and astronomers could remove twenty years from the Neo‒Babylonian era several years prior to that era – as is shown by the oldest diary, BM. 32312, the lunar eclipse tablets LBAT 1415+1416+1417 and ADTV, no. 5, the Saturn tablet B.M.76738+76813, and the planetary tablet ADT V, no.52 – all the five of which inexorably block all attempts at lengthening the Neo‒Babylonian period.

But the most remarkable “coincidence” is this: Tens of thousands of dated economic, administrative and legal documents have been excavated from the Neo‒Babylonian period, covering every year of this period – except, as the Watch Tower Society would have it, for a period of twenty years from which not one tablet has been found.

Again, most curiously, according to this logic, that period happens to be exactly the same as that lost through a series of other “mistakes” by scribes in Babylon and Egypt, and by later‒copyists and historians.

Either there was an international agreement during several centuries to erase this twenty‒year period from the recorded history of the world – or it never existed! If such an international “plot” ever took place it was so successful that of all the tens of thousands of documents unearthed from the Neo‒Babylonian era there is not one, not even a line in any of them, that indicates that such a twenty‒year period ever existed. We can safely conclude, then, that the Watch Tower Society’s chronology is unquestionably in error.

But if this is the conclusion of our study, how are we to harmonize this fact with the Biblical prophecy of the seventy years, during which the land of Judah and Jerusalem would lay desolate according to the Watch Tower Society? And how are we to view the year 1914, the supposed terminal date for the times of the Gentiles according to the prophetic time scale of the Watch Tower Society? Do not world events clearly show that Bible prophecies have been fulfilled since that year? These questions will be dealt with in the following chapters.