[b-hebrew] repost of full question

Rolf Furuli furuli at online.no
Sat Apr 19 05:25:02 EDT 2008


Dear Dirk,

I see your desire to find agreement between the 
chronology of the Bible and ancient chronology. 
And your problem is that Dan 9:2 says something 
that you find is at odds with the accepted 
Neo-Babylonian chronology.  The Hebrew words of 
Dan 9:2 and 2 Chronicles 36:21 say explicitly 
that Jerusalem was a desolate waste for 70 years, 
and I cannot see how they could be translated in 
a different way if we use the normal Hebrew 
lexicon, grammar, and syntax.

But perhaps you should approach the problem from 
a different angle, by looking at the *basis* of 
ancient history and ancient chronology. If you 
make an in-depth study, you will find that the 
situation is not as firm and certain as it 
appears on the surface. As a matter of fact, 
ancient history and ancient chronology cannot be 
proven, so we should always be somewhat skeptical 
at the results that are presented. Any study of 
ancient artifacts are based on the current 
paradigm of model (and such paradigms cannot be 
proven) and different axioms or assumptions. To a 
great extent the interpretations of such 
artifacts are based on circular reasoning. For 
example, when "dated" cuneiform tablets are 
found, they are interpreted in the light of the 
traditional chronology, and therefore they are 
viewed as confirming this chronology. I put 
"dated" in quotation marks, because, on the basis 
of my own collation of cuneiform business 
tablets, I assess that as much as 25% of the 
tablets are broken (often at the beginning or end 
where the dates are), and the date of the broken 
tablets are of course interpreted in a way as to 
conform with the traditional chronology. 
Anomalous tablets should not exist,  but  such 
tablets do exist! I have a list of about 90 
business tablets dated in the reigns of the 
Neo-Babylonian kings which, taken at face value, 
show that the Neo-Babylonian Empire lasted longer 
than the traditional chronology says.

We should keep in mind that the lengths of the 
reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings were fixed a 
long time before a single cuneiform tablet was 
found. So the newly found tablets were 
interpreted in the light of a chronology that 
already existed. The tablet used to fix the reign 
of Nebuchadnezzar II and the year 587 as the 
destruction of Jerusalem is the astronomical 
Diary VAT 4956. A  detailed critical  study of 
this tablet was published in German in 1915, and 
the conclusions of this study has just been 
repeated over and over again during the 93 years 
since then - but no new critical detailed studies 
have been published. This is a typical phenomenon 
in the humanistic sciences. Some authority 
presents a hypothesis, a theory, or a conclusion, 
and this is just repeated by later scientists - 
and often presented as a fact - without any new 
critical study of the case.  In 1988 a 
transliteration and translation of VAT 4956 into 
English was published (but not a  detailed 
critical study). The reasons for fixing year 37 
of Nebuchadnezzar II to 568/67 are positions of 
the moon and planets in relation to stars and 
star constellations found on the tablet. Several 
of the moon positions are described in specific 
numbers with a required fit of 1 to 4 degrees. 
However, there is a one day discrepancy between 
the beginning of each month in the studies of 
1915 and 1988. Because the  the moon moves about 
13 degrees eastward against the background of the 
stars each day, if  the moon positions fitted 
exactly in the 1915 study, they cannot fit 
exactly in the 1988 study vice verca.

I have published a book dealing with ancient 
chronology, and it includes 87 pages with a 
philological, linguistic, and astronomical study 
of VAT 4956 including many pictures of the tablet 
and parts of it. My conclusion is that we cannot 
rely on this tablet for an absolute chronology 
because there are too many questions, 
uncertainties, and problems in connection with 
this tablet. I also list the 90 "anomalous" 
tablets, and please remember that if we can show 
just one extra year in the Neo-Babylonian Empire, 
the supposed witness of VAT 4956 of 568/67 as 
being Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year is valueless.

One interesting aside: The Neo-Assyrian 
chronology hinges on *a single assumption*, 
namely, that solar eclipse reported in the 
eponymate of Bur-Sagale was the one occurring on 
15 June 763 B.C.E. Yet there are at least eight 
other solar eclipses that may fit the description.

Again, ancient history and chronology cannot be 
proven, so why should we dogmatically rely on the 
present consensus?


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo




>Thanks for responding!
>
>I know there are some lines of evidence that 
>historians would cite that are kinda weak. But 
>as far as the Neo-Babylonian era goes, here are 
>the lines of evidence I am aware of (some of 
>which are pretty strong):
>
>The length of reigns of Babylonian Kings
>    -- There are various kings lists, some of 
>which can be called into question.
>            -- Berossus, the Royal Canon
>    -- There are literally thousands of documents 
>from the Neo-Babylonian era. These documents 
>ususally have the year, month, day of the king 
>when the document was composed. Since there are 
>so many of them for every year, month, day of 
>each king, they can serve as a check to other 
>kings lists. Besides that, you would think there 
>would be at least one business document out of 
>the tens of thousands that would mention a new 
>king's name -  if it existed. These provide a 
>picture so detailed, we know that the Babylonian 
>king Labashi-Marduk reigned for only 2-3 months.
>    -- Business document or other documents with 
>chronological interlocking joints. That is, some 
>documents contain events/dates that overlap two 
>kings reigns, thereby showing the succession 
>from one king to another.
>
>Chronology of other cultures
>    -- When a chronology of another culture, like 
>Egypt, is developed independently of 
>Neo-Babylonian culture - and then mentions the 
>same events recorded in Neo-Babylonian history, 
>a link can be formed between the histories of 
>the two cultures. This serves as yet another 
>accuracy check.
>
>Absolute dating
>    -- The Babylonians were astrologers. They 
>wrote down positions of planets and lunar 
>eclipses and then dated them to king and year of 
>the king. Some of the astronomical diaries 
>record simultaneous events (for example, a lunar 
>eclipse along with the positions of all the 
>planets observable to the naked eye) that aren't 
>repeated for thousands of years. Since we have a 
>more advanced knowledge of the movements of the 
>planets, we can rewind time and see when these 
>rare planetary/lunar events would occur. This 
>provides an absolute date to the events 
>described. Since the king, and the year of the 
>king is mentioned on these diaries, it puts an 
>absolute date on the time period.
>
>Here is real kicker: ALL of the lines of 
>evidence above - ALL of it backs up 587 as the 
>date of Jerusalem's fall (even fuzzy evidence 
>like Berossus and the Royal Canon)
>
>Because it is so much evidence, I would REALLY, 
>REALLY like the Bible to agree with it. If not, 
>then I would be put in a hard spot, having so 
>much physical evidence on one hand, but the 
>Bible on the other. However, if we read Jeremiah 
>25 and 29 as referencing servitude of many 
>nations, and the servitude would last 70 years 
>(which is what the sentence says grammatically) 
>- and the fact that the Hebrew in Daniel seems 
>to relate only the endings of the desolations 
>with the end of the 70 years, then everything 
>matches.
>
>
>
>
>----- Original Message ----
>From: K Randolph <kwrandolph at gmail.com>
>To: b-hebrew <b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org>
>Sent: Friday, April 18, 2008 8:08:53 PM
>Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] repost of full question
>
>Dirk:
>
>On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 8:00 AM, Dirk Frulla <fiveacorns at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>  Thanks for responding!
>>
>>  Š
>>
>>  Let's come at it another way. This is another dimension to it that is
>>  confusing to me. When Daniel wrote chapter 9, the Jews were still in
>>  Jerusalem. They had not been released yet - that's the whole reason for his
>>  prayer in chapter 9. Daniel has just witnessed the end of the Babylonian
>>  empire in chapter 5. If you go back to Jeremiah chapter 25, read verse 12,
>>  and then go back to Jeremiah 29 and read the verses after verse 10, there
>  > was an order that was to be followed - a clear sequence of events.
>>
>>  FIRST the 70 years would end
>>  THEN Babylon would be called to account
>>  THEN the Jews would return to God - with repentence, fasting, etc.
>>  THEN the Jews would return to their land
>>  At the time Daniel wrote the prayer recored in chapter 9, the Jews were on
>>  step #3 - remember Babylon was called to account in ch. 5. It is interesting
>>  that Daniel set out to do exactly what came next on the list of event -
>>  repent and pray to God. The Jews were on step #3, NOT step 4. That would
>>  come a few years later when they got back to their land. Until then, it
>>  would remain desolated. But look, step #1 was the 70 years ending. So the 70
>>  years ended at least 2-3 years before the desolations did. How can they be
>>  the same period?
>>
>>  See what I mean?
>>
>>  No, I don't see what you mean. These steps are not necessarily
>consecutive.
>
>
>>  Š
>>  When the word is included, it brings the readers attention to the end of
>>  the desolations corresponding to the end of the 70 years. Now THAT matches
>>  the order set forth in Jeremiah.
>>
>>  Just a side note. The seventy years could be a round. However, it is not
>>  necessary. If you take Jeremiah at face value - as 70 years of servitude for
>>  "these nations" to the "king of Babylon", then you can start with the full
>>  conquering of the Assyrian empire in 609 BC.... 609-539 = 70 years
>>  exactly.
>>
>>  Thanks!
>>
>>  You shouldn't put too much weight on those dates. Historians pretend
>certitude that they don't really have. Part of the problem is that ancient
>records were not as accurate as we would want them to be: for example, Cyrus
>the Great, in order to establish his legitimacy as the ruler of the
>Medo-Persian empire left out any mention of Darius the Mede, for whom he was
>a general. Ancient history is full of such examples. Furthermore, a king may
>have a given name, a royal name, and maybe another name or two to use for
>special occasions, which makes lining up all the details even harder.
>Then there are other questions, as a result, the history of that period is a
>real mess. But the historians give no indications that the records may be
>questionable, at best. The most trustworthy surviving record is that of the
>Bible, which indicates 70 years of exile and destroyed temple. I agree with
>HH that that's what the text indicates.
>
>Karl W. Randolph.
>_______________________________________________
>b-hebrew mailing list
>b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew
>
>
> 
>____________________________________________________________________________________
>Be a better friend, newshound, and
>know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now. 
>http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
>_______________________________________________
>b-hebrew mailing list
>b-hebrew at lists.ibiblio.org
>http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/b-hebrew



More information about the b-hebrew mailing list