The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

many other texts:
Furuli’s First Book 405
“One or two contradictory finds do not necessarily destroy a
chronology that has been substantiated by hundreds of independent
finds.” (p. 22)
On the same page he gives three examples:
(1) A tablet that, in 1878, T. G. Pinches said “would overthrow the perfect
agreement of Mr. Boscawen’s list with the Canon of Ptolemy,” adding that “I
did not intend to publish it at all.” But Furuli fails to mention that this is a tablet
that at first seemed to be dated to “year 11” of Cambyses—which contradicts
not only the Canon of Ptolemy but also Furuli’s Oslo Chronology. That is why
Furuli, too, finds it necessary to reject it.
As it happened, the odd date soon found an explanation. On the tablet, the
figure for 1 had been written over the figure for 10. It was pointed out by A.
Wiedemann (Geschichte Aegyptens, Leipzig, 1880, pp. 225f.) that this seemed to be
a scribal correction of a mistaken “year 10,” which the scribe had tried to
change to “year 1,” thus creating a date sign that easily could be misread as
“year 11.” This simple and natural explanation was subsequently accepted by all
scholars. (See my Supplement to The Gentile Times Reconsidered, Danville: Odeon
Books, 1989, page 8.) The date, then, was not odd after all.
(2) A tablet that “did not fit” PD’s “chronological scheme” and was rejected
because “the month sign is shaded, and in view of known facts this date cannot
be accepted.” But Furuli does not inform the reader that this tablet is Nabon.
No. 1054 (BM 74972), which is dated in PD to Nbn VIII/10/17 (month VIII,
day 10, year 17)—nearly one month after the fall of Babylon on VII/16/17.
In 1990, I asked Christopher Walker at the British Museum to take another
look at the date on this tablet. His collation, confirmed by other scholars,
revealed that the year number had been misread. It was actually 16, not 17. The
date of the tablet, then, was not in conflict with the chronology established for
the reign of Nabonidus. Walker says:
“On the Nabonidus text no. 1054 mentioned by Parker and Dubberstein p.
13 and Kugler, SSB II 388, I have collated that tablet (BM 74972) and am
satisfied that the year is 16, not 17. It has also been checked by Dr. G. Van
Driel and Mr. Bongenaar, and they both agree with me.” (Letter Walker to
Jonsson, Nov. 13, 1990)
Thus, Furuli’s first two tablets cannot be used as examples of “contradictory
finds” that conflict with the established chronology. This cannot be said of his
third tablet, however, which clearly contains a scribal error.
(3) BM 65494 dates itself to “Artaxerxes VI.4.50” (month VI, day 4, year
50), a date that all scholars, for strong reasons, have concluded is an error for
VI.4.40. Walker, too, points this out (which Furuli acknowledges but gives no
source reference) in an unpublished list titled “Corrections and Additions to
CBT 6-8.” This list has been worked out and kept up-to-date by Walker at the
British Museum. It has been sent to correspondents in answer to questions
asked about the dates on the tablets listed in the CBT 6-8 catalogues. (My two