The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

546 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED
The form of the name in King-list A as translated by A. K. Grayson is “A-a-dàra.” – See p.
91 in D. O. Edzard (ed.), Reallexikon der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Band 6
(1980).
In a more recent letter to this author Stephanie Dalley explains:
“Although it was certainly unexpected to find that king’s name and titles at
Mizpah, I have no doubts about the identification. An abbreviated form of
his name, though with a different spelling, is already known from one of the
king-lists, and the title ‘king of the world’ is substantiated from one of Ayadara-galama’s
year-names. The incorrect re-interpretation of readings given
by Horowitz and Ishida contains a basic grammatical error, among other
difficulties. All the sign values on the circlet have parallels in mid-second
millennium texts.” – Letter Dalley–Jonsson, received December 4, 2008.
Dalley states in her letter that more details “are forthcoming from my edition of texts from
the First Sealand Dynasty, which is now with the publisher, CDL Press.” Clearly, Ayadara
cannot be placed in the Neo-Babylonian period.
(10) “Marduk-šar-uşur”
One of the “unknown Neo-Babylonian kings” Furuli has referred to several times in the
past first appeared in 1878 in a lengthy article by an early Assyriologist named W. St. Chad
Boscawen. He placed the name, “Marduk-šar-uşur,” together with another mysterious
name, “La-khab-ba-si-kudur,” in a separate “Addenda” because he was uncertain about their
places in his chronological table. But another, contemporary scholar, Dr. Julius Oppert,
soon discovered that the second name was simply a misreading for Labashi-Marduk, the son
and successor of Neriglissar. – W. St. Chad Boscawen, “Babylonian Dated Tablets, and the
Canon of Ptolemy,” Transactions of the Society of Biblical Archaeology (TSBA), Vol. VI (London,
1878), pp. 262, 263 (including footnote 1).
The “Marduk- šar-uşur” tablet is dated to day 23, month 9 (Kislev), year 3. However, it was
soon discovered, this time by Boscawen himself, that the name was a misreading for Nergalšar-uşur
(Neriglissar). This information, too, was published in the very same volume.
Excusing himself, Boscawen explained:
“When we have some 2,000 tablets to go through, and to read names, which,
as everyone who has studied Assyrian knows, is the most difficult part,
because it is not easy always to recognize the same name, as it may be
written four or five different ways, you may judge it is an arduous task. I
have copied two apparently different names; but afterwards found them to
be variants of the same name.” – TSBA, Vol. VI (1878), pp. 78, and 108-
111)
That “Marduk- šar-uşur” was a misreading for Nergal-shar-usur was also somewhat later
confirmed by two other early Assyriologists, T. G. Pinches and J. N. Strassmaier.
Despite this, Furuli continued to insist that “Marduk- šar-uşur” is a possible reading of the
name, and that he may have been an unknown king who reigned during the Neo-Babylonian
period!
As Boscawen did not mention the BM (British Museum) number of the tablet, it has been
difficult to locate. Not until Ronald H. Sack published it as No. 83 (BM 30599) in his book
on Neriglissar could it be identified – by Furuli himself! The date on BM 30599 is the same
as that given by Boscawen, “month Kislev, 23rd day, in the third year.” In his “Addenda”
Boscawen noted that “the contracting parties are Idina-Marduk son of Basa, son of Nursin;
and among the witnesses, Dayan-Marduk son of Musezib.” (TSBA VI, p. 78) The same
individuals also appear on BM 30599 (the latter not as a witness, actually, but as an ancestor
of the scribe). It is clearly the same tablet. Sack, however, reads the royal name on the tablet,
not as Marduk-šar-uşur but as Nergal-šarra-usur (transliterated d U+GUR-LUGAL-SHESH). –