The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

550 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED
Cambyses. Thus no. 126 is to be dated to Nebuchadnezzar III, and D.
Weisberg’s argument that the defeat of this king would forbid a
contemporary attestation (here the 27, 28, 29-IX) is invalid. …
“In a corresponding way no. 302 is dated to Nebuchadnezzar IV. It is
important to emphasize that in such cases the title ‘king of Babylon’ or ‘king
of Babylon and of the countries’ does not constitute a decisive criterion. It is
the prosopography that remains the most useful one, when this is possible.
“He does not enter into our intention to go back in detail to this problem,
but we would like to emphasize one point: Right up to now the view
expressed by A. Poebel permits a reconstruction that is completely coherent,
and the elements brought up by YOS 17 certainly do not question them.” –
F. Joannès, op. cit., pp. 84, 85; (translated from the French). Arno Poebel’s
reconstruction is found in his article, ’The Duration of the Reign of Smerdis,
the Magian, and the Reigns of Nebuchadnezzar III and Nebuchadnezzar
IV,’ published in AJSL, Vol. 56:2 (Apr. 1939), pp. 121-145.
A detailed discussion of the chronology of the three usurpers Bardiya, Nebuchadnezzar III,
and Nebuchadnezzar IV was presented in a lengthy article by Stefan Zawadzki published in
1994. (Zawadzki, ’Bardiya, Darius and Babylonian Usurpers in the Light of the Bisitun
Inscription and Babylonian Sources,’ Archaeologische Mitteilungen aus Iran [AMI], Band 27,
1994, pp. 127-145, with important details added in NABU 1995-54, 55, and 56) Zawadzki’s
discussion is based on a detailed prosopographic research that conclusively establishes the
existence and precise chronology of the three usurpers. For the two Nebuchadnezzars (III
and IV) the prosopographic information presented on pages 135 and 136 of the article is
particularly enlightening. Strangely, Furuli, who questions even the very existence of these
two kings, seems to be totally unaware of Zawadzki’s important study. At least he never
refers to it.
Furuli’s theory that there may also have been a second Nebuchadnezzar who ruled during
the Neo-Babylonian period, on the other hand, is completely groundless. He is not able to
present any criteria whatsoever by which such a theory could be tested.
Summary
In the discussion above it has been demonstrated that none of Furuli’s twelve “unknown
kings” can be inserted anywhere in the Neo-Babylonian period. Three of them were
Assyrian kings, not Babylonian, and one belonged to the First Sealand dynasty. One royal
name turned out to be an old misreading, three “kings” were not kings at all, and four
others did not even exist!
And, of course, there is no room for the insertion of any “unknown kings” or any “extra
regnal years” into the Neo-Babylonian period. Tens of thousands of dated tablets that fix
the length of each reign throughout the whole period, as well as several dozens of records of
astronomical observations dated to these reigns that turn them into an absolute chronology
make any attempt to lengthen or shorten this period impossible. All attempts to revise the
chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period have failed and have forced the proponents of
such revisions to either give them up or to claim that all the ancient documents that
contradict their theories must have been falsified by later writers and copyists. When reality
is in conflict with the theory, reality has to be rejected!