ences to Jewish-Parthian relations and makes the actions of the pro-Parthian party among the Jews much clearer.
Though most of the cuneiform sources are both fragmentary and scattered, many are contemporary and therefore of especial value. Here a word of warning is necessary: A number of the astronomical tables found on the tablets are not derived from observation, but are calculated, while others are merely copies of earlier tablets. Tablets of these types lose part of their value as sources; moreover, they cannot be considered as strictly contemporary. It must also not be forgotten that the contemporaneousness of a document does not guarantee the truth of the statements therein. In the case of many cuneiform tablets their fragmentary nature makes much interpretation necessary, and this work is always subject to revision. In the cuneiform field lies the greatest possibility of securing further information not only by the discovery of new documents but also by the publication of those now known to be in museums. The double dating of the tablets provides us with definite chronological evidence, but unfortunately the use of the throne name Arsaces to some extent negates their value for historical purposes. When on rare occasions a king is mentioned by his personal name, he is usually otherwise unknown; thus new problems are raised rather than old ones solved by the date lines. For the calculation of such dates it is highly advisable to make
