The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

Furuli’s Second Book 515
Necho of Egypt was decisively defeated by Nebuchadnezzar “in the fourth year of King
Jehoiakim.” (Jeremiah 46:2) This “fourth year of king Jehoiakim” is equated with “the first
year of King Nebuchadnezzar” at Jeremiah 25:1.
The same Babylonian Chronicle quoted above (BM 21946) also records this decisive battle
at Carchemish. But there it is dated, not to the first year of Nebuchadnezzar but to the 21 st
and last year of his father Nabopolassar. At that time Nebuchadnezzar is still said to be “his
eldest son (and) the crown prince.” Later in the same year Nabopolassar died, and
Nebuchadnezzar succeeded him in what from then on is called his “accession year,” not his
first year as does Jeremiah. – Grayson, ABC, pp. 99, 100.
When, therefore, the Bible dates the battle at Carchemish to the first year of
Nebuchadnezzar, this has to be understood as his accession-year in the Babylonian dating
system. And when the Bible states that Jehoiachin was taken prisoner and brought into exile
in the eighth year of Nebuchadnezzar, this has to be understood as his seventh year in the
Babylonian accession year system. As Jehoiachin’s exile began in the 7 th year of
Nebuchadnezzar, the 37 th year of exile covered parts of the 43 rd regnal year of
Nebuchadnezzar and the accession-year of Evil-Merodach. When the difference between
the Biblical and Babylonian methods of reckoning regnal years is taken into consideration,
the Bible and the extra-Biblical documents are seen to be in full agreement. Only by
ignoring this difference is Furuli able to increase the reign of Nebuchadnezzar from 43 to 44
years. (For a more detailed discussion of this difference, see GTR4, pp. 314-320.)
(C) Nine supposedly “anomalous tablets” from the accession year of Evil-Merodach
In a table on page 59 (“Table 3.3”) Furuli lists nine tablets from the accession year of Evil-
Merodach that he claims are dated before the last tablets dated to the reign of his father
Nebuchadnezzar. He concludes:
“These nine tablets represent strong evidence in favour of an expansion of
the years of the Neo-Babylonian Empire.” (Furuli, p. 59)
The table starts with five tablets dated to month IV and four tablets dated to month V of
Evil-Merodach’s accession year, followed by three tablets dated to months VI, VIII, and X
of Nebuchadnezzar’s 43 rd regnal year. If all these 12 dates were real, they would indicate an
overlap between the reigns of Nebuchadnezzar and Evil-Merodach of six months.
Furuli’s table, however, is totally misleading. The main reason for this is that Furuli has not
cared to collate the dates on the original tablets, nor has he asked professional experts on
cuneiform to do this for him. Had he done this, he would have discovered that most of the
dates he has published are wrong.
The first five tablets in his table, dated to month IV of the accession year of Evil-Merodach,
are:
Month/day/year:
Tablet no.:
IV/?/acc. BM 66846
IV (orVI)/?/acc. BM 65270
IV/5/acc. BM 65270
IV/20/acc. BM 80920
IV/29/acc. UCBC 378
All tablets except the last one is listed in the British Museum’s CBT catalogues Vols. VI-
VIII, 1986-1988. (CBT = Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum.) The dates on
the BM tablets were collated afresh already back in 1990, with the following results: