The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

432 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED
Clearly, Furuli has been trying to make too much of Boscawen’s misreading
of this tablet, partly because he had not collated, or asked anyone to collate, the
original tablet before he published his book and evidently also, as shown by his
comments, because his knowledge of Akkadian is insufficient.
A second witness to a Neo-Babylonian king Marduk-shar-usur?
In further support of the possible existence of a king named Marduk-sharusur,
Furuli refers to “another tablet from New Babylonian times (BM 56709)
dated on the 12th day, month x, in the 1st year of a king whose name starts
with Marduk, but where the rest is broken. This king is unknown.” (p. 61) This
text is listed in the Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum (CBT),
Vol. 6 (London: The Trustees of the British Museum, 1986, p. 215). In an
unpublished list of “Corrections and additions to CBT 6-8” (Mon, Mar 18,
1996), which Walker keeps at the British Museum, Walker gives the following
comments on the text:
“56709 Marduk-[…] 12/–/1 Dated at Borsippa. CT 55, 92 (not CT 56,
356).
The tablet is probably early Neo-Babylonian.”
Note the word “probably” and the words “early Neo-Babylonian.” This is a
suggestion. Furthermore, scholars often use the term “Neo-Babylonian” to
describe a more extended period than 625-539 BCE. The Assyrian Dictionary, for
example, starts the period at about 1150 BCE and ends it in the 4th century
BCE. (see GTR 4 , Ch. 3, ftn. 1) Maybe this is how Walker uses the term here.
The names of about a dozen Babylonian kings between ca. 1150 and 625 BCE
begin with Marduk-, including Marduk-apla-iddina II (the Biblical Merodach-
Baladan, Isa. 39:1, who ruled in Babylon twice, 721-710 and 703 BCE), and
Marduk-zakir-shumi II (703). Thus, as the royal name is only partially legible
and we don’t know exactly to which period the tablet belongs, it is useless for
chronological purposes.
The examples above show how important it is to have the original tablets
collated before using seemingly odd dates or royal names found in published
translations to support chronological revisions. They also show that such
readings should be done by experienced scholars who are linguistically
competent.
Chapter IV - “Old chronological accounts of the New Babylonian kings”
Chapter 4 consists of two parts. In the first part, pp. 66-75, which I will call
part A, Furuli reviews some of the ancient secondary and tertiary sources that
contain information about Neo-Babylonian kings and their reigns. In the
second part, pp. 75-92, which I will call part B, he discusses six of the Biblical
passages that mention a period of 70 years, claiming that they all refer to the
same period—namely, a period of complete desolation of Judah and Jerusalem
during the Jewish exile in Babylonia. This accords with the view of the
Watchtower Society.