25.03.2016 Views

The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

An historical and biblical refutation of 1914, a favorite year of Jehovah's Witnesses and other Bible Students. By Carl Olof Jonsson.

An historical and biblical refutation of 1914, a favorite year of Jehovah's Witnesses and other Bible Students. By Carl Olof Jonsson.

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

510 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED<br />

necessary to have supposedly “oddly dated” tablets collated afresh. Furuli quotes three<br />

examples from scholarly works of tablets that were found to have been misread by modern<br />

scholars.<br />

Unfortunately, Furuli himself has not applied his “word of caution” to his own research. In<br />

the tables on pages 56-64 he presents a number of seemingly oddly dated tablets from the<br />

Neo-Babylonian period, most of which on fresh collation turn out to have been<br />

misinterpreted or misread. <strong>The</strong> question is why he has used these tablets in support of his<br />

“Oslo chronology” without having them collated. Basing a radical revision of the<br />

chronology established for one of the chronologically best established periods in antiquity<br />

on unchecked misreadings and misinterpretations of the documents used does not speak<br />

very well about the quality of the research performed.<br />

Let us first take a look at the traditional chronology for the Neo-Babylonian dynasty:<br />

Kings: Lengths of reign: Years BCE:<br />

Nabopolassar 21 years 625-605<br />

Nebuchadnezzar 43 years 604-562<br />

Awel-Marduk 2 years 561-560<br />

Neriglissar 4 years 559-556<br />

Labashi-Marduk 2-3 months 556<br />

Nabonidus 17 years 555-539<br />

In the following discussion we will take a close look at each accession of a new monarch<br />

during the Neo-Babylonian period and the “overlaps” of reigns Furuli believes he has<br />

found.<br />

(1) Kandalanu to Nabopolassar<br />

Before Nabopolassar’s conquest of Babylon in 626 BCE the city and the country had been<br />

controlled by Assyria for most of the previous 120 years. After the death of the Assyrian<br />

king Esarhaddon in 669 BCE the Assyrian empire was ruled by two of his sons,<br />

Assurbanipal in Assyria and Šamaš-šum-ukin in Babylonia. After the death of Šamaš-šumukin<br />

in 648 BCE, Babylonia was ruled by an Assyrian puppet-king named Kandalanu, who<br />

died in his 21 st regnal year, in 627 BCE. Assurbanipal to all appearances died in the same<br />

year.<br />

<strong>The</strong> death of Kandalanu was followed by a period of general disorder and war between<br />

several pretenders to the throne in Babylon. One of them was Nabopolassar, the founder of<br />

the Neo-Babylonian dynasty, who succeeded in freeing Babylon from Assyrian control late<br />

in 626. <strong>The</strong> Babylonian chronicle BM 25127 states of the transition from Kandalanu to<br />

Nabopolassar:<br />

“For one year there was no king in the country. In the month of Arahsamnu<br />

[= month VIII], the twenty-sixth day, Nabopolassar ascended to the throne”<br />

[= Nov. 23, 626 in the Julian calendar]. (Jean-Jacques Glassner, Mesopotamian<br />

Chronicles, Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2004, p. 217)<br />

<strong>The</strong> Uruk king list, however, gives the kingless year to two Assyrian combatants, Sin-šumlišir,<br />

a high Assyrian official, and Sin-šar-iškun, a son of Assurbanipal. Some scribes spanned<br />

the same year by artificially extending Kandalanu’s reign for another year after his death, the<br />

last of these tablets (BM 40039) being dated to day 2 of month VIII, shattu 22 kam arki<br />

Kandalanu, i.e., “year 22 after Kandalanu.” This tablet, which is from Babylon, is dated 24

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!