The Gentile Times Reconsidered Chronology Christ

Furuli’s Second Book 485
“A consideration of the data above together with the unusual publication
history of the tablet leads to the following hypothesis: VAT 4956 is an
authentic cuneiform tablet that was copied from older tablets in one of the
last centuries B.C.E. It came to the Vorderasiatische Museum in Berlin about
1905 as one single entity. Someone discovered that the tablet was extremely
important because it was an astronomical tablet with the hitherto oldest
astronomical observations. These observations seemed to fit year 37 of
Nebuchadnezzar II according to the chronology of Ptolemy, but a clear
connection with Nebuchadnezzar II was lacking. In order to make this
connection perfectly clear, the one working with the tablet used a modern
grinding machine on the edge of the tablet, thus incising the signs for ‘year
37’ and ‘year 38.’ The first line with the name of the king was also
manipulated. Because of the vibration, the tablet broke into three pieces,
which were then glued together. It was discovered that the fit of the signs on
both sides of the break on the reverse side was not perfect, and a grinding
machine was used to try to remedy this. If this hypothesis is correct, a direct
link to years 37 and 38 of Nebuchadnezzar II was not originally found on
the tablet, but the lunar observations are genuine, while the planetary
positions are probably backward calculations.”
On pages 295-324 Furuli discusses the astronomical contents reported on the tablet. He finds
that the planetary positions on the whole fit the year 568/567 BCE, but claims that the 13
lunar positions better fit the year 588/587 BCE. At the end of the Appendix on pages 324,
325, therefore, he draws the following conclusions:
“The following principal conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the
discussion of VAT 4956: The Diary is most likely a genuine tablet made in
Seleucid times, but in modern times someone has tampered with some of
the cuneiform signs. Because of the excellent fit of all 13 lunar positions in
588/87, there are good reasons to believe that the lunar positions represent
observations from that year, and that the original tablet that was copied in
Seleucid times was made in 588/87. Because so many of the planetary
positions are approximately correct, but not completely correct, there are
good reasons to believe that they represent backward calculations by an
astrologer who believed that 568/67 was year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II.
Thus, the lunar positions seem to be original observations from 588/87, and
the planetary positions are backward calculations for the positions of the
planets in 568/67.”
What about the claim that someone in modern times has “tampered” with the signs on the
tablet and, by using “a modern grinding machine on the edge of the tablet,” has incised the
signs for ‘year 37’ and ‘year 38’ on the tablet? Furuli proposes this idea as a “hypothesis,” as
he knows very well that he has not been able to present any evidence in support of the idea.
According to Furuli’s hypothesis, the supposed modern forger did not only incise the signs
for “year 37” and “year 38” at the edge of the tablet. He also incised the signs for “year 37”
and “manipulated” the signs for the name of the king, Nebuchadnezzar, in the beginning of
line 1 on the obverse. The first question is how he could have done this, as there would
have been no space at all at the beginning of the line for adding anything?
If there was another date and a different royal name on the original tablet, the modern
forger had first to remove these signs (with the supposed grinding machine?) before the
signs of the new date and the signs of the changes of the royal name could be incised on the
tablet. But such a replacement of the first signs of line 1 could never have been done
without leaving clear traces (e.g., depressions in the tablet) at the beginning of the line. No
such traces exist. The signs look quite genuine. As one specialist on cuneiform points out: