The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

Furuli’s Second Book 529
of which the signs can represent, depending on how each sign is read.” One of these names
is Nadin-Ninurta, which according to Furuli may have been an unknown king who “reigned
before Neriglissar.” (Furuli, p. 78)
But is a combination of a few signs really that problematic? Erica Reiner, who was a leading
specialist on cuneiform and Akkadian (she died in 2005), explains:
“In spite of the polyvalence of the cuneiform syllabary, there is normally
only one correct reading for each group of signs, whether the unit be a word
or a phrase; in those cases where there is actual ambiguity, it cannot be
solved from internal evidence alone, just as ambiguous constructions in any
language, including English. To take an example, if sign A has as possible
values the syllables ur, liK, DaŠ, and sign B the syllables kur, laD, maD, naD,
ŠaD, (K stands for an element of the set whose elements are {g, k, q}, abbr.
K Є {g, k, q}, similarly Š Є {z, s, ş, š}, D Є {d, t, >}), the combination
AAB, representing one word, will be read, of all possible 16.16.22 = 2 9 .11 =
512.11 = 5632 combinations, uniquely and unequivocally as lik-taš-šad,
because of these 5632 combinations 5631 will be eliminated on graphemical,
phonological, and lexical grounds.” – Erica Reiner, “Akkadian,” in Lingustics
in South West Asian and North Africa (ed. T. A. Sebeok; Current Trends in
Linguistics 6; The Hague: Mouton, 1970), p. 293.
The signs for the royal name in line 26 are read as LÚ- d ŠÚ by Sack, van Driel/Nemet-Nejat,
and Zawadzki. Furuli (p. 252) agrees that this is “a reasonable interpretation” of the signs,
although he indicates that the signs are only partially legible and that other readings,
therefore, are also possible, giving a number of examples of this. The name “Nadin-
Ninurta”, for example, would require that the signs can be read MU- d MAŠ instead of LÚdŠÚ.
To get to know if the signs are really so difficult to read I sent a question about the
matter to Elizabeth Payne, an experienced Assyriologist at the Yale University which holds
the tablet. Payne, who is also a specialist on the Eanna archive (to which NBC 4897
belongs), answered:
“This section of the text is not at all damaged. As indicated by Nemet-
Nejat’s copy (JCS 46, 48) the signs are well preserved and alternate readings
would require altering the text… I think Nadin-Ninurta can be safely
excluded.” (Email received on November 14, 2008)
As the reading LÚ- d ŠÚ, then, is clear, the only reasonable translation is “Am ēl -Marduk”.
None of the other 23 alternative readings listed by Furuli is possible. Interestingly, Furuli’s
list does not include “the only really possible alternative reading of LÚ- d ŠÚ, which is Amilili-shú,
‘man of his (personal) god’, a name well attested, but in Old Babylonian times. Since
no Neo-Babylonian king by the name of Amil-ilishu is known, and there is a king Amil-
Marduk, it is exceedingly unlikely that Amil-ilishu should be read here.” (Email from
Professor Hermann Hunger dated November 11, 2008)
Apart from these linguistic considerations, a simple and natural explanation of the seemingly
peculiar order of regnal years is clearly indicated by the context.
What Furuli has not realized is that the addition of 104 animals in line 27 does not refer to
another year’s increase of animals due to breeding within the herd. It should be noticed that
figures of animals paid for shearing, hides of dead animals, and wages paid, which are given
for every year, are missing here. Instead, the reason for the adding of this number is stated
to be that it represents “income [irbu] from the month of Addaru [month XII], the accession
year of Amēl-Marduk.” This is the only place in the text where the word irbu (“income”) is
used.
As suggested by Stefan Zawadzki, the most likely explanation for this extra augmentation of
the flock stated to come from the end of the previous year (accession year of Amēl-Marduk)
is that “the managers of the temple decided, for reasons unknown to us, to increase the herd
by animals from other sources.” (Zawadzki, JCS 55, 2003, p. 103) These animals had to be