The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

Furuli’s Second Book 539
could start to attack Assyria proper in the north. – J. A. Brinkman and D. A. Kennedy,
“Documentary Evidence for the Economic Base of Early Neo-Babylonian Society,” in
Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 35/1-2 (1983), pp. 52-59.
(4) “Nadin-Ninurta (before Neriglissar)”
On pages 77-78 Furuli suggests that a king named “Nadin-Ninurta” may have ruled in the
period after Nebuchadnezzar and before Neriglissar. This idea is based upon Furuli’s
discussion of the Neo-Babylonian “ledger” NBC 4897 in his Appendix A (pp. 247-257 in
the 2007 edition; 251-262 in the 2008 edition). As this ledger has already been discussed in
Part IV of my review and the idea that line 26 may refer to some other king than Amēl-
Marduk was thoroughly refuted, there is no need to repeat that discussion here. The claim
that the signs for the royal name in line 26 of the ledger, transliterated LÚ- d ŠÚ, can be read
in many different ways and refer to at least 24 different royal names is unfounded and false.
See Part IV, section “Does the tablet indicate another king between Nebuchadnezzar and
Amēl-Marduk?”
(5) “Belšumiškun, king of Babylon”
On page 80 Furuli mentions another four “possible unknown Neo-Babylonian kings,” the
last of which is Belšumiškun, the father of Neriglissar. Furuli refers to one of the Neo-
Babylonian royal inscriptions translated by Stephen Langdon, which he quotes as saying:
“I am the son of Bel-šum-iškun, king of Babylon.”
The second volume of Langdon’s work on the Neo-Babylonian royal inscriptions, however,
which included the inscriptions from the reign of Neriglissar, was never published in
English. The manuscript was translated into German by Rudolf Zehnphund and published
under the title Die neubabylonischen Königinschriften (Leipzig 1912). The inscription that is
supposed to give Belšumiškun the title “king of Babylon” is listed as “Neriglissar Nr. 1”.
The original Akkadian text as transliterated by Langdon reads in Col. I, line 14 (pp. 210,
211):
“mâr I ilu bêl-šum-iškun šar bâbili ki a-na-ku”
This is verbatim translated into German as,
“der Sohn des Belšumiškun, des Königs von Babylon, bin Ich,”
A literal translation of this into English would be “the son of Belšumiškun, the king of
Babylon, am I,” rather than “I am the son of Bel-šum-iškun, king of Babylon.”
This is probably also what was written in Langdon’s English manuscript. In W. H. Lane’s
book Babylonian Problems (London, 1923), which has an introduction by Professor S.
Langdon, a number of the translations of the Neo-Babylonian inscriptions is published in
Appendix 2 (pp. 177-195). They are said to be taken from the work, “Building Inscriptions
of the Neo-Babylonian Empire, by STEPHEN LANGDON, translated by E. M.
LAMOND.” The last of these royal inscriptions is “Neriglissar I” (pp. 194, 195). Line 14 of
the text says (p. 194):
“the son of Belšumiškun, King of Babylon, am I.”
It is obvious that this statement may be understood in two ways. Either the phrase “King of
Babylon” refers back to Belšumiškun as king or it refers to Neriglissar himself. As no
contract tablets have been found that are dated to Belšumiškun as king of Babylon, the
statement is most likely a reference to Neriglissar. Do we know anything about
Belšumiškun, more than that he was the father of Neriglissar?
It is known that Neriglissar, before he became king, was a well-known businessman, and in
several business tablets he is referred to as “Neriglissar, the son of Belšumiškin.” In none of
these tablets is Belšumiškun stated to be, or to have been, king of Babylon.
It is important to notice that Neriglissar mentions his father in another building inscription,
“Neriglissar Nr. 2,” not as king but as “the wise prince.” The same title is also given him on