The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

328 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED
“Because his wickedness became apparent in many ways he was
plotted against and brutally killed by his friends. After he had been
killed, the plotters met and jointly conferred the kingdom on
Nabonnedus [Nabonidus], a Babylonian and a member of the
conspiracy:” 36 This account agrees with the Hillah-stele, where
Nabonidus gives a similar description of Labashi-Marduk’s
character and of his own enthronement. 37
The evidence is that the rebellion that brought Nabonidus to
power broke out almost immediately after Labashi-Marduk’s
accession, and that both of them ruled simultaneously for a few
weeks, but at different places. It should be noted that all tablets known
from the reign of Labashi-Marduk are from three cities only,
Babylon, Uruk, and Sippar, and that there was no overlap between
the two reigns at any of these cities:
Nippur Babylon Uruk Sippar
Labashi-Marduk, latest tablet: — May 24 June 19 June 20
Nabonidus, earliest tablet: May 25 July 14? July 1 June 26
Dr. Paul-Alain Beaulieu discusses the available data at some
length, concluding that, “In consideration of all this evidence the
usual reconstruction of Nabonidus’ accession seems correct. He
was probably recognized as king as early as May 25 in central
Babylonia (Babylon and Nippur), but outlaying regions would have
recognized Labâshi-Marduk until the end of June.” 38
Thus, there is a well-founded explanation for the brief overlap
between the reigns of Labashi-Marduk and Nabonidus. The
accession of the young and—at least in some influential circles—
unpopular Labashi-Marduk caused a rebellion and Nabonidus,
strongly supported by leading strata in Babylonia, seized power and
established a rival kingship. For a brief period there was a double
kingship, although in different parts of the kingdom, until Labashi-
Marduk finally was murdered and Nabonidus could be officially
crowned as king.
In conclusion, the odd dates on a few tablets from the Neo-
Babylonian period create no major problems. None of them add
any years to the period, as the “overlaps” created by the odd dates
36 Burstein, op. cit., p. 28.
37 Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament [ANET], ed. by James B.
Pritchard (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1950), p. 309. For
additional details, see chapter 3 above, section B-4-e.
38 Paul-Alain Beaulieu, op. cit. (note 34 above), pp. 86–88. Cf. also W. Röllig in
Reallexikon der Assyriologie and vorderasiatischen Archäologie, ed. D. G. Edzard,
Vol. VI (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1980), p. 409.