The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

434 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED
unfavorable information (true or false) about an opponent to suggest that any
claim he makes is probably false. In other words, it is an attempt to bias the
audience.
The only difference between Berossus’ writings and contemporary Neo-
Babylonian cuneiform sources is that Berossus assigns Labashi-Marduk a reign
of nine months instead of two or three. Referring to this difference, Furuli
quotes Sack’s statement that “it is hardly likely (in view of his overall accuracy)
that Berossus could have been incorrect in his figures for the reign of this latter
monarch.” Sack does not mean that Berossus’ figure of nine months is correct
but that, in view of Berossus’ overall accuracy, his original figure for Labashi-
Marduk must have been correct. He holds that the figure nine is most likely a
scribal error arising during manuscript transmission. He concurs with the
explanation of Parker and Dubberstein that the Greek letter theta (used for
number 9) is most likely a mistake for an original letter beta (used for number
2). These two letters are rather similar and could easily be confused in ancient
handwritten manuscripts. Sack states:
“This position seems all the more sensible since the earliest text from
the reign of Nabonidus (May 25, 556 BC) is clearly dated nearly a full
month prior to the latest document bearing the name of Labashi-Marduk
(June 20, 556 BC).” (R. H. Sack, op. cit., 1994, p. 7)
Furuli fails to inform the reader of Sack’s clarifications.
In a further attempt to undermine confidence in Berossus’ information
about the Neo-Babylonian reigns, Furuli quotes Berossus’ English translator
Stanley Mayer Burstein, who points out that “the Babyloniaca contains a number
of errors of simple fact of which, certainly, the most flagrant is the statement
that Nabopolassar ruled Egypt.” (p. 67) But is this error really that flagrant?
Berossus does not say that Nabopolassar conquered Egypt after Necho’s defeat at
Harran; instead he describes the Pharaoh as a rebellious satrap “who had been
posted to Egypt, Coele-Syria, and Phoenicia.” Posted [or placed, tetagménos]
how?
Assyria controlled Egypt in the 7th century BCE, and Ashurbanipal installed
Psammetichus I (664-610 BCE) as a vassal ruler in Memphis. Under
Psammetichus’ long rule, Egypt gradually gained independence and finally
became an ally of Assyria against Babylon. After the Babylonians finally crushed
the Assyrian empire in 609 BCE (despite Egypt’s assistance), the Babylonians
regarded former Assyrian territories as their inheritance, even though some
territories immediately started to fight for independence. From the Babylonian
point of view, then, the defeated Pharaoh Necho would be regarded as a
rebellious satrap because, on retreating from Harran in 609 BCE, Necho
appropriated the Hattu area (Syria-Palestine) in the west. The Jewish historian
Dr. Menahem Stern gives the following comments about Berossus’ statement:
“From the point of view of those who regarded the neo-Babylonian
empire as a continuation of the Assyrian, the conquest of Coele-Syria
and Phoenicia by the Egyptian ruler might be interpreted as the rape of
Babylonian territory.” (M. Stern, Greek and Latin Authors on Jews and
Judaism, Vol. I, Jerusalem: Jerusalem Academic Press, 1974, p. 59)