The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

Furuli’s Second Book 533
chronology and thus also by Rolf Furuli’s so-called “Oslo Chronology”: (1) Either the
known Neo-Babylonian kings ruled longer than indicated by Berossus, the Royal Canon
(often misnamed “Ptolemy’s Canon”), and the Neo-Babylonian cuneiform documents, or
(2) there were other, unknown kings who belonged to the Neo-Babylonian period in
addition to those established by these ancient sources. The first option was discussed and
refuted in Part III of this review. The second alternative will be examined here.
In chapter 4 of his book (pages 65-87) Furuli presents “twelve possible Neo-Babylonian
kings,” some of whom he suggests may have ruled somewhere between the reigns of
Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus. This, he feels, would open up for the possibility that their
combined lengths of reign could move the reign of Nebuchadnezzar 20 years backwards in
time, as required by his Oslo version of the Watchtower Society’s “Bible chronology”. The
names of these “possible [additional] Neo-Babylonian kings” are:
(1) Sin-šarra-iškun (7) A king before Nabunaid
and his son
(2) Sin-šumu-lišir (8) Mar-šarri-us,ur
(3) Aššur-etel-ilāni (9) Ayadara
(4) Nadin-Ninurta(before
Neriglissar)
(10) Marduk-šar-us,ur
(5) Bel-šum-iškun (father of
Neriglissar)
(11) Nebuchadnezzar, son
of Nebuchadnezzar
(6) Nabû-šalim (12) Nebuchadnezzar, son
of Nabunaid
The kings that Furuli suggests may have ruled as Babylonian kings during the Neo-
Babylonian period will be discussed one by one. In order to move the reign of
Nebuchadnezzar backwards it is important for the Watchtower Society and its Oslo
apologist to have the supposed extra kings ruling after Nebuchadnezzar. It would not be of
any help for them to place them as Babylonian kings before the reign of Nebuchadnezzar or
before the reign of his father Nabopolassar.
(1) “Sin-šarra-iškun”, (2) “Sin-šumu-lišir”, and (3) “Aššur-etel-ilāni”
The three Assyrian kings Sin-šarra-iškun, Sin-šumu-lišir, and Aššur-etel-ilāni are well-known
to authorities on Assyro-Babylonian history. Aššur-etel-ilāni and Sin-šarra-iškun were both
sons and successors of Assurbanipal, and Sin-šumu-lišir was a high official at the Assyrian
court whom Assurbanipal had appointed as tutor or mentor of Aššur-etel-ilāni,
Assurbanipal’s heir and immediate successor to the Assyrian throne. This is information
given by cuneiform texts from this period. The strange thing is that Furuli does not mention
any of these facts! He does state on page 65 that the three kings are “believed to have ruled
in Assyria after Sennacherib” (704-681 BCE). But he does not explain that they actually
ruled after the grandson of Sennacherib, i.e., after Assurbanipal (668-627 BCE).
Arguing that these three kings in reality may have ruled in Babylonia after the Neo-Babylonian
king Nebuchadnezzar (604-562 BCE), Furuli first claims that they were not Assyrian but
Babylonian kings. On page 66 he states that “the dated tablets show that they were kings in
Babylon (not Assyria) for 7 years, 4 years, and 1 year respectively.” On page 65 he says:
“The data regarding these kings show that they reigned at least 7, 1, and 4
years respectively, but the tablets dated in their reigns show that they were
Babylonian kings. This is problematic from the point of view of the traditional
chronology, because there is no room for these reigns, even if there was
some kind of coregency.” (Furuli, p. 65)
By claiming that these kings were Babylonian and not Assyrian kings Furuli creates a problem
that does not exist: If they were Babylonian kings, they cannot have ruled in Babylonia at