The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

548 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED
Neo-Babylonian period somewhere after the reign of Nebuchadnezzar is based on nothing
else but wishful thinking.
(11) “Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nebuchadnezzar”
Contemporary sources mention seven of Nebuchadnezzar’s children, but none of these
bore the same name as their father. (D. J. Wiseman, Nebuchadnezzar and Babylon, Oxford
University Press, 1985, pp. 9-12) Furuli’s reference to a son of Nebuchadnezzar of the same
name is based on a much later source, a rabbinic work known as “The Chronicles of
Jerachmeel,” written by Eleazar ben Ašer in the twelfth century CE. (English translation by
M. Gaster, The Chronicles of Jerahmeel, London: Royal Asiatic Society, 1899) The chronicle
relates that Amel-Marduk had become victim to a slander campaign which caused his father
Nebuchadnezzar to sentence him to prison and make a younger son, named
Nebuchadnezzar, king:
“… Nebuchadnezzar the Great did not keep his faith with him, for Evil-
Merodach was really his eldest son; but he made Nebuchadnezzar the
Younger king, because he had humbled the wicked. They slandered him to
his father, who placed him (Evil-Merodach) in prison together with
Jehoiachin, where they remained together until the death of
Nebuchadnezzar, his brother, after whom he reigned.” – M. Gaster, pp. 206-
207; quoted by Irving L. Finkel, “The Lament of Nabû-šuma-ukîn,” in J.
Renger (ed.), Babylon: Focus mesopotamischer Geschichte, Wiege früer Gelehrsamkeit,
Mythos in der Moderne (Berlin: SDV, 1999), p. 335.
Furuli uses this very late and seemingly legendary story to argue that this “Nebuchadnezzar
the Younger” may have ruled one year as the immediate successor of Nebuchadnezzar the
Great before Amel-Marduk came to power. (Furuli, p. 79) This is indicated, he says, by the
conclusion (argued earlier in his chapter 3, p. 58) that Jehoiachin was released from prison
44 years, not 43, after Nebuchadnezzar had begun to reign. This idea has already been
refuted in Part III, section (3) of this review, to which the reader is referred.
There may be some truth, however, to the story of Amel-Marduk’s imprisonment. This has
been argued by Irving L. Finkel, who in his article quoted above publishes a Late
Babylonian tablet (BM 40475) in which an individual named “Nabû-šuma-ukîn, son of
Nebuchadnezzar” laments his grievous situation as a prisoner because of the evil trick
played on him by his enemy. Based on another tablet, BM 34113, Finkel suggests that Nabûšuma-ukîn
was the personal name of Amel-Marduk before he was appointed Crown Prince
and adopted Amel-Marduk as his throne name.
This is an interesting suggestion, but if it could be shown to be correct there is no room for
a rule of a brother of his after the death of Nebuchadnezzar II. Finkel explains why:
“If this suggestion is indeed correct, a terminus ante quem for the date of
Amel-Marduk’s release and the adoption of the throne name is the month of
Ellul, year 39 of Nebuchadnezzar, i.e. 566 BC. This information is shown by
the contract VAS 3 25: 12-13, where reference is made to Nabû-nūrē’alūmur,
the eunuch (´ša reši`) of Amel-Marduk, the Crown Prince (mār šarri).”
– I. L. Finkel, op. cit., p. 338.
If Amel-Marduk had been released from prison and been appointed Crown Prince no later
than in the 39 th year of Nebuchadnezzar, he must have been the immediate successor at the
death of his father in his 43 rd regnal year. This is confirmed by a number of cuneiform
sources, including the ledger NBC 4897. (See GTR4, pp. 129-133; also
http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf3/review4.htm.)
(12) “Nebuchadnezzar, son of Nabunaid”
The last of the twelve “unknown kings” that Furuli feels may have ruled during the Neo-
Babylonian period is based on the fact that two of the usurpers that Darius I had to defeat
during his rise to power after the death of Cambyses in 522 BCE claimed to be a son of