The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

Furuli’s First Book 415
Furuli mentions that the Egyptians “may have used two calendars” and
states that this might be a problem in “connection with the Aramaic
Elephantine Papyri.” (p. 36) These papyri are not astronomical texts. But,
interestingly, some of them are double-dated in the sense that dates are given
both in the Babylonian calendar and the Egyptian civil calendar. Because these
texts are dated to the reigns of Persian kings in the 5th century BCE, they are
useful to determine the chronology of the period and are discussed in a later
part of this review.
The human factor—and modern researchers
Furuli mentions “the human factor” that might cause “the misreading of a
tablet due to lack of capacity.” (p. 37) This is clearly a potential source of error.
Many odd dates found in works about the tablets published during the past 120
years are due to this factor. It is important, therefore, when such odd dates are
encountered in modern works, to have the original tablet collated afresh.
Strangely, Furuli uses many such dates uncritically and without collation. Some
examples of this have already been given above under I-A-2 and others are
presented in later parts of this review.
Chapter II - ”The Litmus Test of the Absolute Chronology”
Using astronomical tablets for establishing absolute dates
In this chapter, Furuli discusses using astronomical tablets to establish an
absolute chronology. In view of the varied quality and state of preservation of
the Babylonian astronomical tablets, not all are usable for chronological
purposes. Accordingly, Furuli states that each tablet must meet “two
fundamental requirements.” What are they?
Furuli’s criteria for the chronological use of astronomical tablets
The first requirement is the following:
“A. The positions of the heavenly bodies must be observed by the
eye of a scribe and written down at the same time; and they must not
only represent backward calculations made at a much later time.”
This criterion is quite in order. The value of the next requirement,
however, is dubious:
“B. The name of the ruling king must have been written on the
tablet at the time when the observations were made.”
One problem with this criterion is that it is unrealistic. Furuli admits that:
“because clay hardly can be kept moist for 12 months, the
observations must have been written down on quite a lot of smaller
tablets, which were copied when the original was made.” (p. 30)