The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

4. will go up from [… …]
5. will overthrow [… …]
6. For three years [he will exercise sovereignty]
7. Borders and … [… …]
8. For his people he will [… …]
9. After his (death) his son will [ascend] the throne ([ … ])
10. (But) he will not [be master of the land].
________________________________________________
Furuli’s Second Book 543
Grayson argues (pp. 24, 25) that, “Since the following section (ii 11-16) is clearly about
Nabonidus, this paragraph must concern some period after the reign of Nabopolassar and
before Nabonidus.” As he goes on to note, the preserved information in lines 6-10 seems to
refer to Neriglissar and his son and successor Labashi-Marduk. That Nebuchadnezzar and
his son Amel-Marduk (Evil-Merodach) are left out is understandable, as the “prophecies”
focus on the rise and fall of dynasties and empires and therefore do not deal with all reigns.
With respect to the “three years” in line 6, Grayson adds in footnote 3 on page 25: “Perhaps
one should restore ‘(and) eight months’ in the break.” In that case line 6 would originally
have read: “For three years [and 8 months he will exercise sovereignty].”
Furuli’s comment on this is that, “We see that Grayson adds words and translates in
accordance with the traditional chronology.” (Furuli, p. 76) He is wrong. In the traditional
chronology (as for example in the “Royal Canon”) Neriglissar is given a reign of 4 years.
What Furuli does not tell his readers is that Grayson uses the chronology presented on
another cuneiform tablet, the Uruk King List, which gives Neriglissar a reign of “’3’ years 8
months” and Labashi-Marduk “(…) 3 months”. (Grayson, p. 25, including n. 2; cf. GTR4,
pp. 105-108) The preserved portions of the Uruk King List start with Kandalanu (647-626
BCE) and end with Seleucus II (246-225 BCE). The preserved portions of the Dynastic
Prophecy start with the gradual overthrow of Assyria by Nabopolassar after the death of
Kandalanu and end somewhere in third century BCE. Grayson’s use of the chronology of
the Uruk King List, then, is quite natural, as both tablets cover roughly the same period and
seem to have been composed during the same century.
The statement in the Uruk King List that Neriglissar ruled for 3 years and 8 months does
not conflict with the traditional chronology. The Royal Canon (often misnamed “Ptolemy’s
Canon”), gives whole years only, while the Uruk King List at this place gives more detailed
information. As J. van Dijk observes, “the list is more precise than the Canon and confirms
throughout the results of the research.” – J. van Dijk in Archiv für Orientforschung, Vol. 20
(1963), p. 217.
Furuli disagrees with this, stating that “we have tablets dated in the reign of Neriglissar from
month I of his accession year until month I, and possibly month II, of his year 4. Thus
Neriglissar reigned at least for 48 months and not just for 3 years and 8 months (44
months).” (Furuli, p. 77)
This claim has already been discussed and refuted in Part III of the present review of
Furuli’s book. Fresh collations of the “anomalous” dates on the tablets used by Furuli for
dating the reign of Neriglissar show that they are either too damaged to be legible, have
been misread by modern scholars, or seem to be just scribal errors. The actual reign of
Neriglissar seems clearly to have started in month V of his accession year and ended in
month I of his 4 th regnal year – a period of 3 years and 8 months, exactly as is stated on the
Uruk King List.
Furuli uses the only preserved words – “for three years” – on the otherwise illegible line 6 to
argue that they refer to another, “unnamed king” than Neriglissar who ruled for no more
than 3 years. He says in his last paragraph on page 77: