25.03.2016 Views

The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

An historical and biblical refutation of 1914, a favorite year of Jehovah's Witnesses and other Bible Students. By Carl Olof Jonsson.

An historical and biblical refutation of 1914, a favorite year of Jehovah's Witnesses and other Bible Students. By Carl Olof Jonsson.

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

For Chapter Seven:<br />

A REVIEW OF:<br />

Appendix 353<br />

ROLF FURULI, PERSIAN CHRONOLOGY AND THE<br />

LENGTH OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE OF THE JEWS<br />

(OSLO: ROLF FURULI A/S, 2003)<br />

Persian <strong>Chronology</strong> and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews is the<br />

first of two volumes in which Rolf Furuli attempts to revise the<br />

traditional chronology for the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods.<br />

Furuli states that the reason for this venture is that this chronology<br />

is in conflict with the Bible. He insists that the Bible<br />

“unambiguously,” “explicitly,” and “definitely” shows that<br />

Jerusalem and the land of Judah were desolate for 70 years, until<br />

the Jewish exiles in Babylon returned to Judah as a result of the<br />

decree Cyrus issued in his first regnal year, 538/37 B.C.E. (pp. 17,<br />

89, 91). This implies that the desolation of Jerusalem in<br />

Nebuchadnezzar’s 18th regnal year took place 70 years earlier, in<br />

607 B.C.E. As has been amply documented in the present work,<br />

this is contrary to modern historical research, which has fixed the<br />

18th year of Nebuchadnezzar in 587/86 B.C.E. Furuli does not<br />

explicitly mention the 607 B.C.E. date in this volume, perhaps<br />

because a more detailed discussion of the Neo-Babylonian<br />

chronology is reserved for his not-yet-published second volume.<br />

Most of the ten chapters in this first volume, therefore, contain a<br />

critical examination of the reigns of the Persian kings from Cyrus<br />

to Darius II. <strong>The</strong> principal claim of this discussion is that the first<br />

year of Artaxerxes I should be moved 10 years backward, from 464<br />

to 474 B.C.E. Furuli does not mention that this is an old idea that<br />

can be traced back to the noted Jesuit theologian Denis Petau,<br />

better known as Dionysius Petavius, who first presented it in a<br />

work published in 1627. Petavius’ revision had a theological basis,<br />

because, if the “seventy weeks [of years],” or 490 years, of Daniel<br />

9:24–27 are to be counted from the 20th regnal year of Artaxerxes<br />

(Neh. 2:1ff.) to 36 C.E. (his date for the end of the period),<br />

Artaxerxes’ 20th year must be moved from 445 back to 455 B.C.E.<br />

Furuli says nothing about this underlying motive for his proposed<br />

revision.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!