The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

512 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED
natural explanation of the “overlap” than Furuli’s theory that the “most natural” explanation
of such overlaps is that “extra years” are to be added, an explanation that conflicts with
other sources from the period and therefore must be rejected.
Two kingless years instead of one before Nabopolassar would not, of course, add any extra
years to the Neo-Babylonian period, as this period began with Nabopolassar. Furuli’s “Oslo
Chronology” requires that 20 extra years are added after the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, because in
this chronology the desolation of Jerusalem in his 18 th year is pushed back from 587 to 607
BCE. The result of this is that the 21-year reign of his father Nabopolassar is pushed back
from 625-605 to 645-625 BCE. And this in turn would also push the beginning of
Kandalanu’s reign 20 years backward, from 647 to 667 BCE.
Such a lengthening of the chronology, however, is blocked by astronomy. There are several
cuneiform tablets containing records of astronomical observations dated to specific regnal
years within the Neo-Babylonian period and earlier. One such tablet that consists of two
broken pieces, BM 76738 and BM 76813, records consecutive observations of the positions
of the planet Saturn at its first and last appearances dated to the first fourteen years of
Kandalanu (647-634 BCE). Assyriologist C. B. F. Walker, who has examined and translated
this tablet, points out that identical cycles of Saturn observations dated to the same dates
within the Babylonian lunar calendar “recur at intervals of rather more than 17 centuries.”
(C. B. F. Walker, “Babylonian observations of Saturn during the Reign of Kandalanu,” in N.
M. Swerdlow [ed.], Ancient Astronomy and Celestial Divination, Cambridge, Massachusetts, and
London: The MIT Press, 2000, pp. 61-76.) In other words, the reign of Kandalanu is so
firmly fixed by this tablet that it cannot be moved backwards or forwards even one year, far
less 20.
To overcome this evidence, Furuli argues that Nabopolassar was no other than Kandalanu
himself! According to this theory, the Saturn tablet moves the reign of Nabopolassar about
20 years backwards and identifies it with the reign of Kandalanu! (Furuli, pp. 128, 129, 329-
343) This theory has been discussed and thoroughly refuted in Part II of this review.
(2) Nabopolassar to Nebuchadnezzar
According to the Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946 (= Chronicle 5 in A. K. Grayson,
Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, 1975, pp. 99-102; henceforth referred to as “Grayson,
ABC”) the transition from Nabopolassar to his son and successor Nebuchadnezzar was
smooth and unproblematic. Furuli starts by referring to this chronicle:
“According to the Babylonian Chronicle 5, 9-11, Nabopolassar died on day 8
in month IV of his year 21, and Nebuchadnezzar II ascended to the royal
throne on day 1 in month VI in the same year.” (Furuli, p. 57)
But Furuli immediately goes on to mention one tablet that seemingly creates a problem:
“However, there may be some problems with this succession as well. For
example, there is one tablet dated after the death of Nabopolassar, on day 20
in month V of his year 21 (PTS 2761).” (Furuli, p. 57)
If Nabopolassar died “on day 8 in month IV”, how could a tablet still be dated to his reign
42 days (one month and 12 days) later, “on day 20 of month V”?
Unfortunately Furuli, undoubtedly accidentally, has misquoted the Babylonian Chronicle. It
does not say that Nabopolassar died “in month IV” but in month V:
“For twenty-one years Nabopolassar ruled Babylon. On the eighth day of
the month Ab [= month V] he died. In the month Elul [= month VI]
Nebuchadnezzar (II) returned to Babylon and on the first day of the month
Elul he ascended the royal throne in Babylon.” (Grayson, ABC, pp. 99, 100)
The tablet PTS 2761, then, is dated, not 42 but only 12 days after the death of
Nabopolassar. Is this really an “overlap” with the reign of Nebuchadnezzar?