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.

368 THE GENTILE TIMES RECONSIDERED<br />

his library tablet, to the effect that the tablet he was making would<br />

contain wrong data of regnal years:’ (Furuli,p.41)<br />

Furuli indicates that not only the dates on the lunar and<br />

planetary tablets but also the dates on the diaries might have been<br />

tampered with by the Seleucid scholars in the same way. Referring<br />

again to the fact that the earliest extant diaries are copies, he says:<br />

But what about the regnal year(s) of a king that are written on such<br />

tablets? Have they been calibrated to fit an incorrect theoretical<br />

chronological scheme, or have they been copied correctly? (Furuli, p. 42)<br />

Furuli realizes, of course, that his Oslo <strong>Chronology</strong> is<br />

thoroughly contradicted by the Babylonian astronomical tablets.<br />

That is the reason he proposes, as a last frantic resort, the theory<br />

that these tablets might have been redated by Seleucid scholars to<br />

bring them into agreement with their own supposed theoretical<br />

chronology for earlier times. Is this scenario likely? What does it<br />

imply?<br />

(C-4) <strong>The</strong> scale of the supposed Seleucid chronological<br />

revisions<br />

To what extent does Furuli’s Oslo <strong>Chronology</strong> differ from the<br />

traditional chronology? In a chronological table on pages 219–225<br />

covering the 208 years of the Persian era (539–331 BCE), Furuli<br />

shows, reign by reign, the difference between his chronology and<br />

the traditional one. It turns out that the only agreement between<br />

the two is the dating of the reigns of Cyrus and Cambyses — the<br />

period from the fall of Babylon (539 BCE) to 522 BCE, a period of<br />

17 years. By giving the usurper Bardiya one full year of reign after<br />

Cambyses, Furuli moves the whole 36-year reign of Darius I one<br />

year forward. <strong>The</strong>n he moves the reigns of Darius’ successors<br />

Xerxes and Artaxerxes I 10 years backward by adding 10 years to<br />

the reign of the latter, creating a coregency of 11 years between<br />

Darius I and Xerxes.<br />

But Furuli also assigns a one-year reign to the usurper Sogdianus<br />

between Artaxerxes I and his successor Darius II. <strong>The</strong> effect of this<br />

is that the remaining reigns up to 331 BCE are all moved one year<br />

forward. <strong>The</strong> end result is that Furuli’s Oslo <strong>Chronology</strong> is at<br />

variance with the traditional chronology for the Persian era for 191<br />

of its 208 years, or for 92 percent of the period.<br />

But this is not all. As mentioned in the introduction, Furuli<br />

wants to add 20 extra years to the Neo-Babylonian period<br />

somewhere after the reign of Nebuchadnezzar — between 562<br />

and 539 BCE. <strong>The</strong> effect of this — what Furuli calls the “domino

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!