The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

322 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED
realized that the text actually referred to Assyrian king Shamashshum-ukin.
22 (There is a wide difference in our alphabetical spelling of
the two names, but one must remember these were written in
cuneiform signs which, in this case, were much more easily
mistakable.) A similar error in reading another tablet resulted in
reference to the 21st year of Sin-shar-ishkun, the next to the last
Assyrian king. 23 Later reexamination of this damaged section led to
the conclusion the reference was more probably to Babylonian king
Nabu-apla-usur (Nabopolassar). 24
Scribal errors
Not all the odd dates are modem errors, however. It is well
established that the Persian king Cambyses, the son of Cyrus, ruled
for eight years (529/28–522/21 B.C.E.). Yet one text from his
reign (BM 30650) seemed to be dated to Cambyses’ “11th year”. At
first the text caused much discussion among scholars, but it was
finally concluded that it refers to Cambyses’ first year. The number
“1” had been written over an original “10,” which the scribe had
not been able to completely erase, resulting in a number that easily
could be misread as “11”. 25
Another document was dated to the “10th year” of Cyrus,
although it is known from all ancient sources that Cyrus ruled for
nine years only. The problem was soon resolved. In the period
22 Letter Dr. D. J. Wiseman-Jonsson, June 19, 1987.
23 G. Contenau in Textes Cuneiformes, Tome XII, Contrats Néo-Babyloniens, I (Paris:
Librarie Orientaliste, 1927), p. 2 + P1. X, tablet no. 16; Archiv für Orientforschung,
Vol. 16, 1952–53, p. 308; Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 35:1–2, 1983, p.59.
24 Letter from Dr. Béatrice André of the Louvre Museum to C. O. Jonsson, March 20,
1990. As Nabopolassar, the father of Nebuchadnezzar, ruled for 21 years, this
reading of the royal name creates no problem. ― In the early days of Assyriology
the reading of royal names was an even more arduous task. In 1877, for example,
Wt. St. Chad Boscawen found two tablets in the archive of the Babylonian Egibi
banking house, which seemed to mention two previously unknown Neo-Babylonian
kings: Marduk-shar-uzur and La-khab-ba-si-kudur. Later, however, it turned out
that the two names were misreadings for Nergal-shar-uzur [Neriglissar] and
Labashi-Marduk. According to the banker Bosanquet, who financially supported
Boscawen’s work on the tablets, there was also a tablet in the Egibi archive dated
to the 11th year of Nergal-shar-uzur. However, no such tablet has since been
found in the collection at the British Museum. It was most probably another
misreading, and Bosanquet himself did not refer to it again when he later
presented his own speculative and wholly untenable chronology of the Neo-
Babylonian era.― Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology, Vol.6 (London
1878), pp. 11, 78, 92, 93, 108–111, 262, 263; S. M. Evers, “George Smith and the
Egibi Tablets,” Iraq, Vol. LV, 1993, p. 110.
25 F. H. Weissbach in Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, Vol.
LV, 1901, pp. 209, 210, with references.