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.

A REVIEW OF:<br />

ROLF FURULI: PERSIAN CHRONOLOGY AND<br />

THE LENGTH OF THE BABYLONIAN EXILE OF<br />

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 first of<br />

two volumes in which Rolf Furuli attempts to revise the traditional chronology<br />

for the Neo-Babylonian and Persian periods. Furuli states that the reason for<br />

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

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

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

Babylon returned to Judah as a result of the decree Cyrus issued in his first<br />

regnal year, 538/37 BCE (pp. 17, 89, 91). This implies that the desolation of<br />

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

607 BCE, contrary to modern historical research, which has fixed the 18th year<br />

of Nebuchadnezzar in 587/86 BCE, a date that also agrees with the chronology<br />

of the ancient kinglist known as “Ptolemy’s Canon.” Furuli does not explicitly<br />

mention the 607 BCE date in this volume, perhaps because a more detailed<br />

discussion of the Neo-Babylonian chronology is reserved for his not-yetpublished<br />

second volume.<br />

Most chapters in this first volume, therefore, contain a critical examination<br />

of the reigns of the Persian kings from Cyrus to Darius II. <strong>The</strong> principal claim<br />

of this discussion is that the first year of Artaxerxes I should be moved 10 years<br />

backward, from 464 to 474 BCE. Furuli does not mention that this is an old<br />

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

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

1627. Petavius’ revision had a theological basis, because, if the “seventy weeks<br />

[of years],” or 490 years, of Daniel 9:24-27 are to be counted from the 20th<br />

regnal year of Artaxerxes (Neh. 2:1ff.) to 36 CE (his date for the end of the<br />

period), Artaxerxes’ 20th year must be moved from 445 back to 455 BCE.<br />

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

Introduction:<br />

<strong>The</strong> hidden agenda<br />

Furuli published this book at his own expense. Who is he? On the back<br />

cover of the book he presents himself this way:<br />

Rolf Furuli is a lecturer in Semitic languages at the University of Oslo. He is<br />

working on a doctoral thesis which suggests a new understanding of the verbal<br />

system of Classical Hebrew. He has for many years worked with translation<br />

theory, and has published two books on Bible translation; he also has<br />

experience as a translator. <strong>The</strong> present volume is a result of his study of the<br />

401

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!