The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

534 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED
the same time as Nabopolassar, but must have reigned in Babylonia before this king. The
problem created by this conclusion is that there is “no room” for their reigns of 7+4+1
years between Kandalanu and Nabopolassar. (Furuli, p. 66) This paves the way for Furuli’s
idea that they may have ruled after Nebuchadnezzar:
“On the basis of the problems of finding room for these kings before
Nabopolassar, we may ask whether one or more of these kings ruled
Babylon during the years where we completely lack historical data, namely,
after Nebuchadnezzar and before Nabunaid. In other words, can any of
these kings fill a part of the possible gap of twenty years in the Neo-
Babylonian Empire?” (Furuli, p. 67)
The statement that we “completely lack historical data” from the period between the reigns
of Nebuchadnezzar and Nabonidus is false. Chronology belongs to the “historical data” as
it is the very “back-bone of history,” and the chronology of this period is completely
known. There are also other historical data from this period. A Babylonian Chronicle, BM
25124 (= Chronicle 6 in A. K. Grayson’s Assyrian and Babylonian Chronicles, Eisenbrauns 2000
reprint of the 1975 edition) gives information about a campaign by Neriglissar in his third
year. Some of Nabonidus’ inscriptions also give information about his predecessors. (Paul-
Alain Beaulieu, The Reign of Nabonidus, King of Babylon 556-539 B.C., New Haven and London:
Yale University Press, 1989, pp. 21, 84-97, 106, 110-111, 123-125) Further, Berossus, who is
known to have used sources from the Neo-Babylonian period, gives both chronological and
historical information about the four kings who succeeded Nebuchadnezzar: Amel-Marduk,
Neriglissar, Labashi-Marduk, and Nabonidus. – See Stanley Mayer Burstein, The
Babyloniaca of Berossus (Malibu: Undena Publications, 1978), p. 28.
Were Sin-šarra-iškun, Sin-šumu-lišir, and Aššur-etel-ilāni Babylonian kings, really?
The claim that Aššur-etel-ilāni, Sin-šarra-iškun, and Sin-šumu-lišir were Babylonian kings, not
Assyrian, is demonstrably false. Contemporary sources prove that all of them were Assyrian
kings, who after the death of Kandalanu in 627 BCE attempted to retain the Assyrian
control over Babylonia and crush the revolt of the Chaldean general Nabopolassar. Dr.
Grant Frame explains:
“To the best of my knowledge, of these four contenders for control of
Babylonia only Nabopolassar ever used the title ‘king of Babylon’ or ‘king of
the land of Sumer and Akkad,’ or was called ‘king of Babylon’ in the date
formulae of Babylonian economic texts. In these economic texts, Aššur-etililāni,
Sin-šumu-lišir, and Sin-šarra-iškun were called either ‘king of Assyria,’
‘king of (all) lands,’ ‘king of the world,’ or simply ‘king.’ The Babylonian
scribes obviously wished to avoid stating that any of these three was a true
king of Babylonia.” – G. Frame, Babylonia 689-627 B.C. (Leiden: Nederlands
Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, 1992), p. 213.
In a more recent work Grant Frame gives the following information about each of the three
Assyrian kings:
Aššur-etel-ilāni:
“Assurbanipal was succeeded as ruler of Assyria by his son Aššur-etel-ilāni
(or Aššur-etelli-ilāni). No inscription ever calls Aššur-etel-ilāni ‘king of
Babylon,’ ‘viceroy of Babylon,’ or ‘king of the land of Sumer and Akkad,’ nor
is he included in the various lists of rulers of Babylonia, which put Sin-šumulišir
or Nabopolassar after Kandalanu. However, a number of royal
inscriptions of Aššur-etel-ilāni do come from Babylonia and describe actions
in that land and thus these must be included here. Over ten economic texts
dated by his regnal years as ‘king of Assyria’ or ‘king of the lands’ come from
Nippur and these attest to his accession, first, second, third, and fourth
years.” – Grant Frame, Rulers of Babylonia. From the Second Dynasty of Isin to the