The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

The dwindling extent of Assyrian control of Babylonia after the accession of Nabopolassar
Furuli’s Second Book 537
Furuli’s description of the extension of the Assyrian control of Babylonia after the accession
of Nabopolassar is false. He claims that “Sin-šarra-iškun reigned over a great part of, or the
whole of Babylonia during his 7 or more years of reign”, and that “the contract tablets show
that he was ruler over all Babylonia during his 7 or more years.” (Furuli, p. 69)
On pages 65 and 66 Furuli states:
“Of the 57 tablets dated to Sin-šarra-iškun, 22 are from Nippur (central
Babylonia), 2 from Babylon (in the northeast), 9 from Uruk (in the south), 5
from Sippar (central Babylonia), 1 from Kār Aššur, and 18 are without the
name of the city.”
This makes five cities, two of which were not even Babylonian cities. Strangely, Furuli
reckons the lack of city names on some tablets as a sixth city, stating on page 67 that “tablets
from six Babylonian cities are dated in the reign of Sin-šarra-iškun.”
Of the five cities controlled by Assyria after Nabopolassar’s accession in Babylon in 626,
only three were unquestionably Babylonian cities. Kār Aššur, which was situated north-east of
Babylonia, had been constructed by Assyria in the eighth century BCE. In his first campaign
in 745 BCE the Assyrian king Tiglath-pileser III is stated to have brought captives from
cities in eastern Babylonia and resettled them in Kār Aššur. – A. K. Grayson in The
Cambridge Ancient History, 2 nd ed., Vol. III:2 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991),
p. 81.
Nippur came under Assurbanipal’s control at the end of 651 BCE during the revolt of his
brother Šamaš-šum-ukin. It remained an Assyrian city during the rest of Assurbanipal’s
reign as shown by documents from Nippur dated by his name, while tablets from other
Babylonian cities were dated by the name of Kandalanu during the same period. Dr. Stefan
Zawadzki explains:
“Consequently, regardless of whether we accept the identity of Ashurbanipal
and Kandalanu or not, the dates clearly indicate that Nippur was not
under Babylonian control but directly under Assyrian
administration. This situation prevailed later also: Aššur-etel-ilāni dates
on business documents come exclusively from Nippur. Lastly, Nippur
remained for the longest (along with Uruk and Kar-Aššur) in the hands of
the [next to] last Assyrian king, Sin-šar-iškun. This has led scholars to
conjecture that Nippur could have been the site of a powerful Assyrian
garnison established there with the aim of wielding control over central
Babylonia. Thus, during the period from Ashurbanipal assumption (with an
intermission of 660-651) until the end of Assyrian presence in Babylonia,
Nippur was considered to be [an] almost integral part of Assyria.
Therefore, the fact that documents there were dated under Ashurbanipal’s
name cannot stand in the way of identifying him as Kandalanu.” – Stefan
Zawadzki, The Fall of Assyria and Median-Babylonian Relations in the Light of the
Nabopolassar Chronicle (Poznan: Adam Mickiewicz University Press, 1988), p.
59. (Emphasis by S. Zawadzki; cf. also the discussion by Steven W. Cole,
Nippur in Late Assyrian Times, c. 755-612 BC. Vol. IV in the State Archives of
Assyria Studies, University of Helsinki, 1996, pp. 78-83.)
Furuli’s claim (p. 69) that Sin-šarra-iškun was ruler over most or all of Babylonia, then, is
false. Only a few of the many cities in Babylonia remained under Assyrian control for a brief
period after the accession of Nabopolassar. According to the economic tablets, Sin-šarraiškun’s
control over the city of Babylon is limited only to a part of his accession year. His
control over Sippar is dated only until the beginning of his 3 rd year. His control over Nippur
(which, although situated in southern Babylonia, in this period was an Assyrian city as
shown above) lasted until his 6 th year, while his control over Uruk is dated in his accession
year and in his years 6 and 7. After that Nabopolassar had full control over all Babylonia and