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.

358 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED<br />

the tablet. As F. X. Kugler explained, the tablet belongs to a<br />

category of texts containing installment dates or delivery dates<br />

(mashshartum). 84 Such dates were given at least one month, and<br />

often several months in advance. That is why PD states (p. 14) that<br />

“this tablet is useless for dating purposes” As shown by its<br />

contents, No. 1055 is an administrative text giving the dates for<br />

deliveries of certain amounts of barley in year 17 of Nabonidus. 85<br />

(A-3) Nabonidus “XII -19 —17” (BM 55694):<br />

This tablet was copied by T. G. Pinches in the 1890’s and was<br />

finally published in 1982 as CT 57:168. 86 It is also listed in CBT 6,<br />

p. 184, where the date is given as “Nb(-) 19/12/13+” (= day 19,<br />

month 12, year 13+). 87 Evidently the royal name and the year<br />

number are both damaged and only partially legible. “Nb(-)” shows<br />

that the royal name begins with “Nabu-”. This could refer to either<br />

Nabopolassar, Nebuchadnezzar, or Nabonidus. If it is Nabonidus,<br />

the damaged year number, “13+”, may refer to any year between<br />

his 13th and 17th year. An examination of the original tablet might<br />

perhaps give some clues.<br />

None of the three tablets listed by Furuli, then, can be used to<br />

prove that Nabonidus’ 17th year overlapped the accession-year of<br />

Cyrus, suggesting that “Nabonid reigned longer than 17 years”<br />

(B) Attempts at undermining the reliability of the<br />

astronomical tablets<br />

(B-1) Only three principal sources for the chronology of<br />

the ancient world?<br />

Furuli is well aware that the most damaging evidence against his<br />

so-called “Oslo <strong>Chronology</strong>” is provided by the astronomical<br />

cuneiform tablets. He therefore strives to belittle the importance of<br />

most of these tablets, stating that there are only two principal<br />

astronomical sources on which the chronology of the Neo-<br />

Babylonian and Persian periods can be based. (Pages 15, 24, 45) At<br />

least one of these, he claims, contradicts the third principal<br />

chronological source—the Bible:<br />

84 F. X. Kugler, SSB II:2 (1912), pp. 388, 389.<br />

85 P.-A. Beaulieu in the Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 52:4 (1993), pp. 256,<br />

258.<br />

86 CT 57:168 = Cuneiform Texts from Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum, Part<br />

57 (1982), No. 168.<br />

87 Erle Leichty, Catalogue of the Babylonian Tablets in the British Museum (CBT), Vol.<br />

6 (1986), p. 184 (82-7-14, 51).

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!