[b-hebrew] Daniel 9:24-27

Rolf Furuli furuli at online.no
Sun Dec 21 13:57:49 EST 2008

Dear Tory,

This discussion has something to do with Hebrew, because it may have 
a bearing on the confidence in Ptolemy and the interpretation of 
Daniel 9:24-27. But still it is quite far away from the main line of 
the list. So I think we should not proceed. I see that you treat the 
tablets dated to Bardiya different from the way you treat other 
tablets, and that is your privilege. I choose to take the dates at 
face value. I have written a book on Persian chronology compared with 
the chronology of the Bible, and I have never seen this mountain of 
evidence that you speak about. The only piece of evidence that 
contradicts an 18-month reign of Bardiya of which I am awasre (beside 
Ptolemy) is the Behistun inscription, which contain much propaganda. 
But even if the accesion year of Bardiya is the same as his year 1, 
the Behistun inscription is contradicted by the tablets from his 1st 

Best regards,

Rolf Furuli Ph.D
University of Oslo

>--- On Sun, 12/21/08, Rolf Furuli <furuli at online.no> wrote:
>Rolf: "There may have been exceptional events in the past, but as 
>far as we know, every Persian and Babylonian king had an accession 
>year. So, just the fact that so many tablets are dated in year 1 of 
>Bardiya shows that there must have been an accession year as well - 
>and we have four tablets from his accession year."
>I'm afraid I don't follow the logic. Of course the standard 
>interpretation is that Bardiya had an accession year. But scribes at 
>the city of Babylon thought it began shortly after month I. It took 
>"them" until month IV to realize, or to accept, that Bardiya claimed 
>the throne before month I. It was at that point they updated their 
>records and equated the accession year with year 1. That you wont 
>even consider the possibility that the dating formulas "accession 
>year" and "first year" could be confused either intentionally or 
>accidentally by some scribes in cases of irregular succession and 
>political turmoil, when accession occurs towards the close of a 
>calendar year, is a little troubling.
>The scenario that requires the fewest number of ad-hoc assumptions, 
>and is backed up by a good deal of evidence external to Ptolemy's 
>list and the confusing Babylonian data, is the one that has become 
>the standard view. Olmstead's theory on Bardiya can only be raised 
>from the dead by throwing out a mountain of evidence. Are you 
>willing to do that?
>Rolf: "I refer to the first 7 signs in IV' 3' of BM 32234 (Hunger et al.
>I shall have a look.
>Tory Thorpe

More information about the b-hebrew mailing list