The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

“Dear . . ..,
Furuli’s Second Book 541
While one might expect the royal title to refer here to the father -- note also
that Neriglissar refers to himself as king only a few lines earlier -- it is not
impossible that the title refers to Neriglissar. It is not unknown for rulers to
conclude a paragraph with an affirmation of their kingship. …
Jon
(Jon Taylor)”
The same correspondent also wrote to Michael Jursa, another well-known Assyriologist and
specialist on cuneiform and the Akkadian language. In an email dated October 23, 2006 he
explained:
“Dear Mr. ---,
the Akkadian is indeed ambiguous. If one wanted one could take ‘king of
B[abylon]’ as referring to the preceding name, i.e. to Neriglissar’s father,
rather than to Neriglissar himself. But the other explanation (i.e. the king is
Neriglissar) is just as good, and we know of course that it is correct:
the passage means ‘I am N[eriglissar], son of BSHI [Belšumiškun], the king
of Babylon’ - or in German where this is clearer because of the case endings
– ‘Ich bin N, der Sohn des BSHI, der König von Babylon’. It is more a
problem of English language that a literal translation which preserves the
word order of the original Akkadian makes BSHI a king, rather than his son.
In Akkadian, this is not so. I am surprised that Langdon should have got it
wrong – possibly the work of an uninformed translator who misunderstood
the English original.
Yours sincerely,
Michael Jursa”
Belšumiškun, then, was never a Neo-Babylonian king. No documents of any kind have been
found that are dated to his reign. In the politically neutral economic tablets he is never called
a king, and Neriglissar himself calls him “prince”, which was evidently the correct title of
Belšumiškun. The claim that Neriglissar once, in one of his boastful building inscriptions,
calls him “king of Babylon,” seems clearly to be based on a mistranslation.
(6) “Nabû-šalim”
Another “unknown king” that Furuli believes may have ruled during the Neo-Babylonian
period somewhere after Nebuchadnezzar is named “Nabû-šalim,” or “Nabû-ušallim” as his
name is usually spelled. In note 113 on page 78 Furuli refers to a tablet held at The
Birmingham Museum and Art Gallery designated “1982.A.1749”. This reference is wrong.
The correct designation is “1982.A.1772”. A copy, transliteration and translation of the
tablet is published in an article by Dr. Michael Jursa, “Neu- und spätbabylonische Texte aus
den Sammlungen der Birmingham Museums and Art Gallery,” Iraq, Vol. LIX (1997), pp. 97-
174. The tablet on which the name Nabû-ušallim appears is No. 47 of the 63 tablets
presented by Michael Jursa in the article.
As Furuli explains, the tablet “is dated to ud.8.kam mu.4.kam id AG-GI, which is translated ‘8
Elulu, year 4, Nabūnaid.’ However, regarding the signs id AG-GI, Jursa comments: ‘An error
for id AG-I.” The signs for id AG-I mean “Nabonidus,” while the signs for “ id AG-GI” mean
“Nabû-ušallim.” Thus it would seem that the tablet is dated to the 4 th year of an unknown
king named Nabû-ušallim.
What Furuli does not tell his readers, however, is that the name Nabû-ušallim appears at
three places on the tablet, in lines 2, 4, and 16, and that it is only in line 16 it is used of the
king. Lines 1-4, with the other two occurrences of the name, read (in translation from
German):