The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

528 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED
Table 1: A summary of the calculations in the ledger NBC 4897
Regnal
year:
BF from
previous
year:
-
Animals
paid for
shearing:
- Hides
(of dead
animals)
:
-
Wages
(=
animals
) to
shepher
d(s):
+ Lambs
(male and
female):
+ Kids
(male
and
female):
Gran
d
total
(CF)
on
tablet
:
Actual
Grand
total:
37th
Nbk
137 - 12 - 4 16 + 36 0 + 1 176 174 !
38th 176 - 2 - 15 - 5 18 + 40 1 + 1 214 214
39th 214 - 4 - 19 - 7 23 + 45 1 + 2 255 255
40th 255 - 2 - 22 - 8 27 + 53 1 + 2 303 306 !
41st 303 - 7 (6+1) - 27 - 10 31 + 60 2 + 2 354 354
42nd 354 - 2 (1+1) - 32 - 11 40 + 65 2 + 2 418 418
43rd 418 - 7 - 37 - 13 41 + 80 2 + 3 487 487
1st
AmM
0
AmM
487 - 7 - 43 - 15 48 + 90 3 + 3 566 566
104 104
1st
AmM
566 +
104
- 5 665 665
2nd 665 - 0 - 61 - 22 66 + 133 4 + 4 789 789
1st Ngl 789 - 5 - 71 - 26 80 + 146 4 + 5 922 922
Seen 208 208
Not seen 922 -
208
- 11
(8+3)
703 703
Note: The last three lines in the table summarize lines 34–36 of the tablet. In the 1 st year
of Neriglissar the herd had increased to 922 animals according to line 34. Of these, 208
animals “were seen” according to line 35. As Zawadzki explains, this means that this was
“the part of the herd, which was actually brought to the inspection in Uruk”. As line 34
goes on to state that “8 lambs were received in Uruk, 3 lambs (were given) for shearing”, the
number of animals that “were not seen” was 703 (922 – 208 – 8 – 3) as line 36 of the tablet
shows.
Does the tablet indicate another king between Nebuchadnezzar and
Amēl-Marduk?
Lines 26, 27, and 28 of the tablet are dated to year 1, accession year, and year 1, respectively,
of Amēl-Marduk. At first glance this order seems strange. Furuli utilizes it for arguing that,
“If the name [in line 27] is Evil-Merodach, the king in line 26 is probably another king,
because the accession year of a king is mentioned in line 27, and the first year of a king is
mentioned in line 26. And naturally, the accession year of a king will be mentioned before
his first year.” (Furuli, p. 253)
Furuli has a tendency to “muddy the waters” by giving examples of how one and the same
cuneiform sign can be interpreted in many different ways. This is the method he resorts to
here. He claims that the signs translated Amēl-Marduk (Evil-Merodach) in line 26 can also
be read in many other ways. On pages 252-253 he gives a list of “24 different names, each