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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Appendix 355<br />

ATTEMPTS TO REVISE THE NEO-BABYLONIAN CRONOLOGY<br />

Although Volume I of Furuli’s work principally is an attempt at<br />

revising the Persian chronology, some parts of it also contain<br />

arguments for a lengthening of the Neo-Babylonian chronology:<br />

(A) In chapter 6 Furuli claims there are dated business tablets<br />

from the 17th regnal year of Nabonidus that overlap Cyrus’ reign,<br />

which, if they are correct, “suggest that Nabonid reigned longer”<br />

(p. 132).<br />

(B) As the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period is fixed<br />

by a number of astronomical tablets, Furuli devotes much space on<br />

trying to undermine the reliability of these tablets, including the<br />

astronomical diary VAT 4956 from the 37th year of<br />

Nebuchadnezzar. In Chapter 1 he claims there are only two<br />

principal astronomical sources for the chronology of the Neo-<br />

Babylonian and Persian periods. In the same chapter he describes<br />

nine “potential sources of error” in the Babylonian astronomical<br />

tablets.<br />

(C) In Chapter 2 Furuli argues that the astronomical texts<br />

probably mainly contain, not actual observations, but backward<br />

calculations performed during the Seleucid era (after 312 B.C.E.).<br />

(D) In Chapter 4, finally, Furuli discusses Jeremiah’s prophecy<br />

of the 70 years, arguing that the writers of Daniel 9:2 and 2<br />

Chronicles 36:21 “unambiguously” applied the 70 years to the<br />

period of the desolate state of Jerusalem.<br />

In this review I will critically examine these claims one by one.<br />

As the Persian chronology is not the subject of the present work,<br />

Furuli’s chronological revision of that period will not be examined<br />

here. A more detailed review of Furuli’s book that includes<br />

comments on his revised Persian chronology is found on this site:<br />

http://user.tninet.se/~oof408u/fkf/english/furulirev.htm<br />

This material has also been included at the end of this book.<br />

For some works often referred to in the discussion below the<br />

following abbreviations are used:<br />

ADT Abraham J. Sachs and Hermann Hunger, Astronomical<br />

Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia (Wien: Verlag der<br />

Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. Vol. I — 1988, II<br />

— 1989, II1 — 1996, V — 2001).<br />

CBT Erle Leichty et al, Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the<br />

British Museum, Vols. 6, 7, and 8 (1986, 1987, and 1988). <strong>The</strong>se<br />

volumes list the tablets from Sippar held at BM.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!