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 359<br />

<strong>The</strong>re are three principal sources with information regarding the<br />

chronology of the New Babylonian and Persian kings, namely, Stem<br />

Kambys 400, VAT 4956 and the Bible. <strong>The</strong> information in these three<br />

sources cannot be harmonized. (p. 21)<br />

Furuli knows, of course, that for the fixing of the absolute date<br />

for the fall of Babylon to 539 B.C.E., at least one astronomical text<br />

is needed. As the diary VAT 4956 is disastrous for his Oslo<br />

<strong>Chronology</strong>, he is forced to choose Strm Kambys 400 for this<br />

purpose, claiming that this is “the tablet that is most important for<br />

Persian chronology” (p. 128) and “the only source on the basis of<br />

which an absolute chronology can be made regarding the year<br />

Cyrus conquered Babylon.” (p. 134)<br />

<strong>The</strong> poor quality of this tablet has already been pointed out in<br />

the present work. As was noticed already by F. X. Kugler in 1903,<br />

it is probably the least reliable of all astronomical tablets. (See<br />

above, pp. 84–88.) Modern scholars even question whether it<br />

contains any observations at all. Dr. John M. Steele, for example,<br />

explains:<br />

It is also unwise to base any conclusions concerning the Babylonian<br />

records on this tablet alone, since it does not fall into any of the common<br />

categories of text. In particular, it is not certain whether this text contains<br />

observations or calculations of the phenomena it records. At least some<br />

of the data must be calculated. For instance, the full run of lunar six<br />

timings for the 7th year of Cambyses cannot all have been measured;<br />

clouds would surely have prevented their observation on at least some<br />

occasions. <strong>The</strong> lunar six data must therefore have been either all<br />

calculated, as suggested by Kugler (1907: 61–72), or be a mixture of<br />

observation and calculation. <strong>The</strong>re is also debate concerning whether the<br />

two lunar eclipses were observed or calculated. 88<br />

<strong>The</strong> fact is that the chronology of the Neo-Babylonian and<br />

Persian eras is fixed by nearly 50 astronomical observational tablets<br />

(diaries, eclipse texts, and planetary texts). Many of them are quite<br />

extensive and detailed and serve as principal sources for the<br />

absolute chronology of this period. Most of these tablets are<br />

88 John M. Steele, Observations and Predictions of Eclipse <strong>Times</strong> by Early Astronomers<br />

(Dordrecht-Boston-London: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000), p. 98. C. B. F.<br />

Walker refers, for example, to the inaccurate magnitude reported for one the two<br />

eclipses in the text, “but,” he adds, “the Cambyses text is now understood to<br />

contain a series of predictions rather than observations.” — Walker in John Curtis<br />

(ed.), Mesopotamia in the Persian Period (London: <strong>The</strong> Trustees of the British<br />

Museum, l997), p. 18.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!