The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

520 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED
Tablet no. 1 is published as no. 97 in a work by Ronald H. Sack in his work, Neriglissar –
King of Babylon (Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1994). This is Band 236 in the series Alter Orient und Altes
Testament, which explains the reference to the tablet as AOAT 236, 97. The museum number
is BM 60231. Sack’s transliteration and translation of the tablet on page 235 reveals that the
month sign is damaged. Sack, therefore, adds a question mark after the month name and
puts it within half brackets: ⌐Nisanu(?)¬. Although Sack in a table on pages 59-61 gives the
year, month, and day of the tablet as Acc/I/26, he leaves out the month altogether in his
“Catalogue and Description of Datable Texts” on pages 49-54, giving the year/month/day
as “Acc. … 25”. (Sack, p. 54)
To get to know just how damaged the month name on the tablet is, I sent an email to Dr.
Jon Taylor, Curator at the Department of the Middle East at the British Museum, and asked
him to check the date. In an email received on June 24, 2008, he explained:
“I've had a look at that tablet, and also shown it to several people with more
experience in Neo-Babylonian texts than I have. The sign in question is not
just damaged but also right on the corner of the tablet, and thus probably
distorted. The more you look at it, the more signs it could be. None of us
has been able to decide with certainty what it really is. I can send you a
photo if you would like to see for yourself.”
Obviously, it cannot be claimed that the date on this tablet really is anomalous.
Tablet no. 2, BM 75489, is published as no. 91 in Sack’s work on Neriglissar. The tablet is
clearly dated to month II, day 4, of Neriglissar’s accession year. This was confirmed by C. B.
F. Walker, who collated the tablet several times, once together with two other
Assyriologists, Dr. G. van Driel and Mr Bongenaar, on November 9, 1990. (Walker,
“Corrections,” 1996, p. 7; cf. GTR4, p. 326, n. 33.) The date of this tablet, then, is clearly
anomalous. Whether it is correct or a scribal error is, of course, another question.
Tablet no. 3, BM 60150, is dated to month V, but the day number is damaged and illegible.
As the transition between Evil-Merodach and Neriglissar took place between day 17 and day
21 in the same month (month V), it cannot be shown that this tablet is dated earlier, and it
would be wrong to claim that its date is anomalous.
Tablet no. 4, BM 30419, is dated by Furuli to month V, day 6, of Neriglissar’s accession
year. This is also the date given by R. H. Sack in his book on Neriglissar (published as text
no. 12, pp. 150, 151.) However, “month V (ITI.NE)” seems to be a modern misreading.
The tablet was examined in 1990 by C. B. F. Walker together with another Assyriologist, Dr.
van Driel. Walker explains that, “Only the beginning of the month name is preserved, but
we both agree that ITI.N[E] seems to be out of the question and that ITI.Z[IZ], month XI,
may be the best guess at the moment.” (Letter Walker-Jonsson, November 13, 1990, p. 2)
Again, the tablet cannot be shown to be anomalous.
Tablet no. 5 and 9, BM 58580, is listed twice in Furuli’s table, but with two different dates:
VII/08/02 and XII/02/03. Both dates are wrong. Professor D. J. Wiseman, who collated
the tablet in 1987, wrote: “Not year 3 possibly 2/2/2” (day 2, month 2, Year 2). (Letter
Wiseman-Jonsson, October 7, 1987) C. B. F. Walker, in “Corrections,” 1996, p. 3, confirms
Wiseman’s reading “2/2/2”. The tablet, then, is not anomalous.
Tablet no. 6, BM 75106, dated VII/08/02 in Furuli’s table, is actually dated to month IV,
according to C. B. F. Walker’s “Corrections,” 1996, p. 7. The date creates no problem.
Tablet no. 7, BM 61325, was collated by C. B. F. Walker, Dr. van Driel and Mr. Bongenaar
on November 9, 1990. Walker says that, “The month is slightly damaged, but seems to be
clearly ITI.AB (month X) rather than ITI.NE (month V). Not day 17 as previously stated.”
The day number is 19. The date on this tablet, then, is X/19/02. This does not necessarily
mean that it is correct. It may be a scribal error.
Tablet no. 8, finally, is dated to XI/15/02 in Furuli’s table. Furuli points out in a note (p. 62,
n. 79) that the inventory number is missing, so he was unable to identify it. He refers,