The organisation claims that the astronomical diary VAT 4956, which is headed ‘Year 37 of Nebukadnezar, king of Babylon’, fits 588/587 BCE better than the conventional 568/567 BCE, and that it therefore supports 607 BCE for Jerusalem’s destruction.
Claim ID claim-chronology-vat4956-claimConcerns 1 November 2011Explicit statement
The organisation’s position or later explanation: The article rests the claim on 13 sets of lunar positions and on line 3 of the tablet, where the cuneiform sign is 9 but Neugebauer and Weidner transliterated 8, and states: ‘VAT 4956 points more convincingly to 607 B.C.E.’
1 November 2011 · pp.25, 27 · pars. 27-33 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“While not all of these sets of lunar positions match the year 568/567 B.C.E., all 13 sets match calculated positions for 20 years earlier, for the year 588/587 B.C.E.”
VAT 4956 opens “Year 37 of Nebukadnezar, king of Babylon”. The article accepts that a lunar eclipse occurred on 4 July 568 B.C.E. but points to another on 15 July 588 B.C.E., and reports an analysis of the tablet’s 13 sets of lunar positions made with the astronomy software TheSky6, Cartes du Ciel and a US Naval Observatory date converter. It concludes: “Clearly, much of the astronomical data in VAT 4956 fits the year 588 B.C.E. as the 37th year of Nebuchadnezzar II. This, therefore, supports the date of 607 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction—just as the Bible indicates.” The chart on page 25 concludes: “VAT 4956 points more convincingly to 607 B.C.E.”
Provenance and verification note for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two
Confidence note. Full document fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026 and read in full; the quotation, the paragraph and the page were confirmed against the article text and its embedded page markers (span class=“pageNum”).
Notes. The article states the planetary observations were deliberately excluded from this analysis (note 19: “Because the cuneiform signs for many of the planetary positions are open to speculation and to several interpretations, these positions were not used in this survey”). No author, institution or publication is named for the analysis.
Accessed. 19 September 2026 · Source ID.src-chr-o-w-2011-1101-vat4956
1 November 2011 · pp.26-27 · box · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Why an issue? The third line on this tablet reads that on the “night of the 9th” during the first month (Nisanu/Nisan), the “moon stood 1 cubit in front of ß Virginis.” However, Neugebauer and Weidner wrote in 1915 regarding the year 568 B.C.E. (which would point to 587 B.C.E. for Jerusalem’s destruction) that “the moon stood 1 cubit before this star on 8 Nisan, and not on 9 Nisan.””
The box sets out six numbered points: that the Akkadian sign for 9 is visible in the photograph; that Neugebauer and Weidner changed the 9 to an 8 in their transliteration and German translation, noting the original reading only in a footnote; that Sachs and Hunger published the text in 1988 as it reads, with a 9, but rendered it in English as “9th” with the note “error for: 8th”. The tablet photograph is credited “bpk/Vorderasiatisches Museum, SMB/Olaf M. Teßmer”.
Provenance and verification note for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two (box: “What Does VAT 4956 Really Say?”)
Confidence note. Full document fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026 and read in full; the quotation, the paragraph and the page were confirmed against the article text and its embedded page markers (span class=“pageNum”).
Notes. The single piece of positive physical evidence the series offers for 607 BCE.
Accessed. 19 September 2026 · Source ID.src-chr-o-w-2011-1101-vat4956-box
1 November 2011 · pp.24-25 · pars. 22-26 · Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania
“Scholar R. J. van der Spek explains: “The compilers were astrologers, not historians.” He describes sections of the tablets that contain historical records as “more or less casual,” and he warns that such historical information must “be used with caution.””
Before turning to VAT 4956, the article argues that astronomical tablets may contain retrocalculated rather than observed positions, quoting John Steele (“It is possible … that some of the earliest predictions could have been made by projecting the scheme backwards when the text was compiled”) and David Brown (“retrocalculations undertaken by scribes in the 4th and later centuries BC”), and that even a correctly dated eclipse does not guarantee the regnal year attached to it.
Provenance and verification note for The Watchtower, When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?—Part Two
Confidence note. Full document fetched from the Watchtower Online Library on 19 September 2026 and read in full; the quotation, the paragraph and the page were confirmed against the article text and its embedded page markers (span class=“pageNum”).
Accessed. 19 September 2026 · Source ID.src-chr-o-w-2011-1101-astronomical-caution
A direct link to this claim is https://jwtruth.org/evidence/claim-chronology-vat4956-claim/. Every source above opens the original document or the best available copy. If you believe the wording, date or context is wrong, report an error.