The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

514 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED
These statements contain two errors. Firstly, as far as the transition from Nebuchadnezzar to
Evil-Merodach is concerned, I presented not just one but four different cuneiform tablets, all
of which show that Evil-Merodach succeeded Nebuchadnezzar in his 43 rd regnal year.
(GTR4, pp. 129-133) Furuli has chosen to ignore all but one of the four tablets. Secondly,
his claim that NBC 4897 “has little value as a chronological witness” is false. His few critical
assertions on the next page (58) are followed by a reference to “Appendix A for a detailed
analysis of the contents of NBC 4897.” This Appendix with its slanted analysis and baseless
conclusions will be critically examined in another part of this review.
(B) Biblical versus Babylonian dating methods:
Furuli next tries to find support in the Bible for his idea that Nebuchadnezzar ruled longer
than 43 years. He refers to the first capture of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar, which the
Babylonian Chronicle BM 21946 dates to his “seventh year.” The Chronicle states that in
this year the king of Babylon “encamped against the city of Judah and on the second day of
the month Adar he captured the city (and) seized (its) king,” that is, king Jehoiachin, the
next to the last king of Judah. – Grayson, ABC, p. 102.
As the month Adar was the 12 th and last month of the Babylonian regnal year, Jehoiachin
was taken prisoner nearly a whole month before the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh
regnal year.
The Bible gives a similar description of the same events at 2 Kings 24:10-12:
”At that time the servants of King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came up to
Jerusalem and the city was besieged. King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon came
to the city while his servants were besieging it; King Jehoiachin of Judah
gave himself up to the king of Babylon, himself, his mother, his servants, his
officers, and his palace officials. The king of Babylon took him prisoner in
the eighth year of his reign.”
Both records emphasize that the Judean king was “seized” or “taken” prisoner, but only the
Babylonian Chronicle gives the month and day of the event, showing it happened nearly one
month before the end of Nebuchadnezzar’s seventh year. The most conspicuous difference,
however, is that according to the Biblical book of 2 Kings it happened, not in the seventh but in
the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar. The best explanation of this one-year difference is, as
many scholars have argued, that Judah did not apply the accession-year system but counted
the year of accession as the first regnal year. (GTR4, pp. 314-320; see also the detailed and
convincing discussion by Dr. Rodger Young:
http://home.swbell.net/rcyoung8/jerusalem.pdf )
Furuli gives no explanation for this one-year difference between the Biblical and Babylonian
way of counting regnal years but chooses to ignore the date of the Babylonian Chronicle.
This enables him to increase the reign of Nebuchadnezzar from 43 to 44 years. He says:
“Jeremiah 52:28-31 mentions that Jehoiachin was released from prison in
year 37 of his exile, in the year when Evil-Merodach became king. The word
galut means ‘exile,’ and the most likely starting point of the period of 37 years
must be when Jehoiachin came to Babylon and his exile started or, less likely,
when he was captured. Both events occurred in year 8 of Nebuchadnezzar, and 37
years from that time would end in year 44 of Nebuchadnezzar’s reign and
not in year 43 when he is supposed to have died.” (Furuli, p. 58. Emphasis
added. In footnote 70 on the same page Furuli approvingly quotes J.
Morgenstern’s calculation of the 37 th year, but he ignores the fact that
Morgenstern held that the Judean regnal years were counted from Tishri, not
Nisan.)
However, the one-year discrepancy between the Babylonian and Biblical way of counting
regnal years cannot be ignored. As has often been pointed out, the same discrepancy is also
found elsewhere in the Bible. Another example is the battle at Carchemish, when Pharaoh