The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

Furuli’s First Book 431
length in Supplement to The Gentile Times Reconsidered (1989), pp. 20-24. (See also
the comments on Marduk-shar-usur in GTR 4 , App. for Ch. 3, ftn. 24.) Because
Boscawen did not give the BM number of the tablet, it could not be identified
and collated at that time. But in his new book, Furuli identifies the tablet as BM
30599, a transliteration and translation of which is published as No. 83 in
Ronald H. Sack’s Neriglissar—King of Babylon (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1994, pp. 224, 225). Furuli’s identification seems convincing: The date
on BM 30599 is the same as that given by Boscawen, “month Kislev, 23rd day,
in the third year.” Boscawen further adds that “the contracting parties are
Idina-Marduk son of Basa, son of Nursin; and among the witnesses, Dayan-
Marduk son of Musezib.” (TSBA VI, p. 78) The same individuals also appear
on BM 30599 (the latter not as a witness but as an ancestor of the scribe). Sack,
however, reads the royal name on the tablet not as Marduk-shar-usur but as Nergalšarra-usur
(transliterated d U+GUR-LUGAL-SHESH).
But Furuli seems unwilling to give up the idea that an unknown Neo-
Babylonian king named Marduk-shar-usur might have existed. Not only does
he argue that the cuneiform signs for Nergal and Marduk can be confused but
also that this “can work both ways,” so that “it is possible that Boscawen’s
reading was correct after all” and also that it cannot be excluded that some of
the tablets ascribed to Nergal-shar-usur should have been read as Marduk-sharusur.
(p. 62)
To determine whether such confusion is possible, I sent an email message
to C. B. F. Walker at the British Museum and asked him to collate the original
tablet (BM 30599). In his answer, he states:
“I have just taken BM 30599 out to check it, and I do not see how
anyone could read the name as anything other than d U+GUR-LUGAL-
SHESH. A reading Marduk-shar-usur would seem to be completely
excluded. Our records show that the tablet was baked (and cleaned?) in
1961, but it had been published by T G Pinches in the 5 th volume of
Rawlinson’s Cuneiform Inscriptions of Western Asia, plate 67 no. 4 in a copy
which clearly shows d U+GUR. It was also published by Strassmaier in
1885 (Die babylonischen Inschriften im Museum zu Liverpool: Brill, Leiden,
1885) no. 123, again clearly with d U+GUR. So the reading cannot be put
down to our cleansing the tablet in 1961, if we did.” (Walker to Jonsson,
October 15, 2003)
An anonymous Jehovah’s Witness scholar from South America, who has
been investigating this subject, has since written to a number of Assyriologists
around the world about the matter. None of the 11 scholars who responded
agree with Furuli’s suppositions. One of them, Dr. Cornelia Wunsch in
London, who also personally collated the original tablet, pointed out that “the
tablet is in good condition” and that there is “no doubt about Nergal, as
published in 5R 64,4 by Pinches. More than 100 years ago he already corrected
the misreading by Boscawen.” She also explains that “Boscawen was not a great
scholar. He relied heavily on the notes that G. Smith had taken when he first
saw the tablets in Baghdad.” (Cf. GTR 4 , Ch. 3, B-3a, ftn. 67)