The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

Furuli’s First Book 419
of Artaxerxes I, the only exception being one dated to year 6 of his successor,
Darius II. Piece C, on the other hand, is a very small fragment, and Hunger’s
translation of it covers only half a page. No regnal year numbers are preserved
on it. Hunger writes (ADT , p. 172) that the observations recorded on it
probably refer to years 5 and 12 of Artaxerxes II (400 and 393 BCE).
Furuli focuses exclusively on piece C in his description of tablet 56 on page
211, implying that Hunger’s description of this little fragment applies to the
whole text:
“The planetary text consisting of the three pieces LBAT 1387, 1486
and *1388 is supposed to list Venus data between -462/61 and -392/91.
This text is quite fragmentary. One scholar made this comment: ‘of C,
the obverse probably refers to Artaxerxes II year 5, the reverse to year
12. The astronomical information preserved fits this date, especially a
close encounter of Venus and a Leonis in month III of Art II year 5.’
These words are rather cautious, indicated by the adverb ‘probably.’ As a
matter of fact, neither Venus nor any other planet is mentioned on C, Obv. and
Rev. An interpreter may feel there are clues for identifying Venus, but none are
mentioned. So there are problems with this text in connection with the making
of an absolute chronology.”
Furuli does not talk about the extensive information in pieces A and B,
leaving the reader with the impression that the entire Venus tablet is as
fragmentary and problematic as piece C. In a discussion on page 118, he makes
some comments about piece A (1387) but these, too, are aimed at undermining
the strength of the text. He erroneously claims that on this tablet “years 15, 27,
35 are clearly visible, but no other years,” whereas in fact eight regnal years are
visible on the text, namely, years 7, 15, 23, 27, 31, 35, 39 (of Artaxerxes I), and
year 6 (of his successor Darius II). For example, Furuli points out that in T. G.
Pinches’ copy of the tablet published by Sachs in 1955, “the number ‘7’ is
shaded and not clearly seen.” But as Sachs explains (LBAT, p. vii), Pinches
copied from tablets that usually had not been oven-fired, and that “it is to be
expected that improved readings will result from oven firing.” Hunger’s
translation indicates that number 7 is now clearly seen on the tablet, which may
be a result of this. The observations recorded for year 7 in months I, II, III, IV,
V, and VI all fit the 7th year of Artaxerxes I, 458 BCE. Further, Furuli fails to
mention that number 7 is required by the arrangement of the data in 8-yeargroups.
It is followed horizontally in the next columns by year numbers 15, 23,
31, 39, and year 6. The 8-year intervals, of course, refer to the periodicity of
Venus positions.
About the same number of years (in the reign of Artaxerxes I) paired at 8-
year intervals are visible in piece B (1388)—years 4, 5, 12, 13, 20, 21, 28 and
2[9]. On page 227, Furuli says that piece B is in conflict with the Oslo
Chronology, but his only explanation is that “the regnal years written by the
scribe need not be correct.” This desperate theory is discussed in section II-C
below.
Tablets 54 and 56 are disastrous for Furuli’s revised Persian chronology, and
he knows it. That is why he wants to get rid of them by every possible