Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>]

Dear Dirk,

I think the subject about chronology is beside what we normally 
discuss on this list, so I would not continue this discussion. But 
allow me a few comments.

I start with your last comment:

DF:
With much respect, from what I have read, I think yours is in danger 
if you can't move the date for Jerusalem's fall to 607. If you 
really, really, really mean this statement: "why should we 
dogmatically rely on the present consensus?", then we have to imagine 
that you will not be able to produce the evidence needed to prove 
your chronology 100% either (after all, this can't be done 100% 
right?) - so would you be willing to go on the record as stating that 
should not dogmatically rely on 607 as the fall of Jerusalem either?

RF:

Your last question I answer in the affirmative. No one today can know 
with certainty when Jerusalem was destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar II, 
because ancient history and chronology cannot be proven. In my 
discussion of VAT 4956 I point out two possibilities, 1) the lunar 
positions refer to 568/67, which would give 587 as the date of the 
destruction of Jerusalem, and 2) the lunar positions refer to 588/87, 
which would give 607 as the destruction date. Both dates are possible 
as well as other dates, such as 586/85 for the lunar dates. I argue 
against dogmatism because the data are not decisive.

I have already as a linguist stated my position on the translation of 
2 Chronicles 36:21 and Daniel 9:2, so I see no reason to say more 
about that.



> Rolf, thanks for responding! Please see my comments below. I block 
> them in with **DF** and **END DF**
>
> Thanks!
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
> To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
> Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 5:25:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] repost of full question
>
> 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.
>
> ** DF **
>
>
> Your are saying that 2 Chronicles 36:21 and Daniel 9:2 clearly, 
> unambigiously (explicitly) state that Jerusalem would lie in ruins 
> for 70 years. I disagree that they state this "explicitly" or 
> "clearly". Take for example 2 Chronicles 36:21 quoted here from the 
> NIV:
>
> "The land enjoyed its sabbath rests; all the time of its desolation 
> it rested, until the seventy years were completed in fulfillment of 
> the word of the LORD spoken by Jeremiah."
>
> The "desolation" in the scripture above is connected with the 
> sabbath rests of the land. Notice, though, that this scripture too 
> references Jeremiah and claims agreement with Jeremiah. However, 
> Jeremiah didn't mention the sabbath rests of the land. The word 
> "sabbath" occurs seven times in Jeremiah and none of them apply to 
> the sabbath rests of the land. The "sabbath rests" prophecy came 
> from Leviticus. All that is clearly stated above is that the land 
> rested while it was desolate. But the 70 years is not connected to 
> that sabbath resting, nor to the desolation. The desolation and 
> sabbath resting ARE connected together by the scripture above - but 
> not to the 70 years. The scripture just says that the land would 
> "rest" and be desolate UNTIL the 70 years were 
> fulfilled/comleted/accomplished/ended.
>
> Jerusalem would lie desolate, and all the years lying desolate it 
> paid its sabbath rests - until 70 years were "fulfulled" - This is 
> the **SAME** word used in Daniel 9:2 that draws your attention to 
> END of the period, not the period as a whole.
>
> Here is the word defined again, strong number: 4390
>
> A primitive root, to fill or (intransitively) be full of, in a wide 
> application (literally and figuratively): - accomplish, confirm, + 
> consecrate, be at an end, be expired, be fenced, fill, fulfil, (be, 
> become, X draw, give in, go) fully (-ly, -ly set, tale), [over-] 
> flow, fulness, furnish, gather (selves, together), presume, 
> replenish, satisfy, set, space, take a [hand-] full, + have wholly.
>
>
>
> Jerusalem finished paying off its sabbaths when the 70 years period 
> completed, but that doesn't mean that Jerusalem started paying off 
> its sabbaths when the 70 years began. That cannot be shown anywhere 
> from scripture - especially not from Jeremiah, since he didn't 
> mention sabbath rests. In fact, the prophecy in Jeremiah applies to 
> different nations. He states that "these nations" would "serve" the 
> king of Babylon 70 years (Jeremiah 25:11) - so it applies to the 
> servitude of many nations. However, the prophecy in Leviticus 
> applies only to Judah and the paying of the sabbath rests of the 
> land.
>
>
>
> However, the two prophecies are **related** in the sense that they 
> would both END at the same time. When the 70 years ended, it was 
> then possible for the desolation and sabbath rests of the land to 
> end. This is the same issue I am having with Daniel 9:2. In order to 
> create an equation of 70 years = desolation, you have to ignore the 
> word rendered "fulfill" (strong number H4390) which IS there in the 
> Hebrew. The meaning, defined above, pulls the readers attention to 
> the end of the 70 years relating to the end of the desolation and 
> sabbath rests - but not equating the two periods.
>
>
> snip
>
> You referenced the business/administrative documents and mentioned 
> that 25% (approx) are damaged so that they can't be dated. This is 
> fine with me... then exclude them from the evidence pool. It is my 
> understand that there are TENS OF THOUSANDS - some figures I 
> have read state HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of documents from the time 
> period in question. Let's take an average - 50,000. If 25% of them 
> are damaged so as they can't be dated, then that leaves 37,500 left 
> that are dateable. That is about 50 documents per month for the 
> entire Neo-Babylonian era. And I know there are, in reality, more 
> than 37,500. The point is that we have enough documents to establish 
> the lengths of reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings to such a small 
> detail that we can identify kings that reigned for only a few months.
>
> We don't even have to "fit" them in our current chronology. These 
> business documents simply establish who reigned, and for how long. 
> That's it. It is fairly independent of any sort of chronology. The 
> **application** of those lengths of reigns in interesting, though. 
> Here is the accepted lengths of reigns:
>
> Nebuchadnezzar 43 years
> Evil-Merodach 2 years
> Neriglissar 4 years
> Labashi-Marduk 9 months
> Nabonidus 17 years (ending when Babylon fell to Persians)
>
> The Bible says that Jerusalem was destroyed in the 18th year of 
> Nebuchadnezzar. If you accept 539 BC as the date for Babylon's fall, 
> then the 18th year of Neb. = 587.
>
> The only way that you can get around this is that you postulate a 
> missing king in there. We have all these documents (not counting the 
> damaged ones) that give us the lengths of reigns of these kings. 
> Yet, there isn't even one that mentions a new king? Have you been 
> able to find a document that mentions a new king?
>
>
> ** END DF **
>
>
> 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.
>
>
> ** DF **
>
> I disagree. Anomalous tablets SHOULD exist - depending on what you 
> mean by "anomalous". This isn't like a mathematical theorum, in 
> which you can find one example that contradicts the theroum, thereby 
> proving it is not true. We are talking about business documents 
> here, TENS OF THOUSANDS of them, written by people. You don't think 
> there would be a mistake here and there?
>
> Let me put it another way. I create computer programs that run the 
> day-to-day operations of law firms, insurance companies, telephone 
> companies, schools, and various other business types. These 
> companies process thousands of transactions daily. I have seen major 
> insurance companies issue claims checks dated in month 13! I have 
> seen payments posted the 31st of Feb. If I were a historian looking 
> back on this culture some 2000-3000 years in the future, and came 
> across various examples of checks dated in month 13 and some dating 
> the 31st of February, should I conclude that there really wasn't 12 
> months for this culture, rather there were 13? Or that there really 
> was a 31st of February?
>
> The point: mistakes happen when we are talking about documents 
> written by people. You say you found 90 "anomalous" tablets. My 
> question to you, what is the nature of those anomolies? Because 90 
> out of 37,500 (to use our example figure) is less than 1/2 of 1% 
> error. I see more errors in modern day business transactions.
>
> Now, if you have some tablets that show a new king, well ... then I 
> would suggest that you publish those quickly before somebody beats 
> you to it.

RF:
Here you misunderstand the situation completely. Have you ever heard 
about the problem of induction?
Suppose that I form the hypothesis that all the swans in the world 
are white. In order to show that the hypothesis is true I travel 
around the world and look at the color of the swans. After some 
months of travelling I have seen 500,000 white swans. What have I 
proved? Nothing, because I have not seen all the swans!  However, one 
or two black swans who are not dyed or have gone through the fire 
would falsify the hypothesis. The 20,000 business tablets from the 
Neo-Babylonian Empire do not prove anything regarding the length of 
the reigns of the Neo-Babylonian kings - they are not more than white 
swans  (and BTW, how do you know that the 3000+ tablets with the name 
"Nebuchadnezzar" refer to Nebuchadnezzar II and not  to 
Nebuchadnezzar III, Nebuchadnezzar IV, Nebuchadnezzar V, or 
Nebuchadnezzar VI? I can hardly think of a better example of the 
problem of induction at work than the traditional interpretation of 
these cuneiform tablets with the names of kings. While the 20,000 
tablets are white swans, the 90 may serve as black ones. I say "may," 
because there is little certainty in the study of ancient artifacts. 
However, It was very important to date business tablets exactly, 
because they listed loans and the leasing of artifacts and other 
transactions which were time-dependent. To say that the 90 tablets 
probably are errors  because they contradict the traditional 
chronology is special pleading. Perhaps the traditional chronology is 
correct - I do not know. What I do know is that there are quite a lot 
of data suggesting it is wrong. So why should we be dogmatic either 
way?

> ** DF **
>
> Are you aware of this paper, refuting your book: 
> <http://cfmin.wordpress.com/category/607-bce/>http://cfmin.wordpress.com/category/607-bce/

RF:
Your comment here is too sweeping.  My book has 367 pages (15 
chapters and a big appendix). What the author of this web page 
*tries* to refute are 13 pages with lunar positions in my 87-page 
discussion of VAT 4956. Most of this discussion relates to the 
reading of Akkadian cuneiform signs and the meaning of these signs. 
But the author does not know Akkadian, so naturally, he does not 
discuss this important part of my analysis. Even if he successfully 
did refute these 13 pages, something that I dispute, this is just 
3.5% of the book. And again, I am not trying to prove anything 
regarding ancient chronology, but I want to show that there are 
several possible interpretations.

One last point regarding Jeremiah. Please note that while the 
Masoretic text of this prophet speaks about "70" years in connection 
with Babel, Jeremiah never explicitly says to what these 70 years 
refer.
This may be because of the choice of the prophet himself, or it may 
be because of textual problems (the LXX text of Jeremiah is quite 
different from the Masoretic text). However, the Chronicler who lived 
after the exile, and Daniel, who lived at the end of the 70 years 
explicitly say that the 70 years referred to the period when 
Jesusalem was desolate. This may be because they had another text of 
Jeremiah or because they empirically knew the length of the period. 
In any case, a fine way of understanding ancient texts is to 
interpret the unclear passages in light of the clear ones, and not to 
reject the clear ones because of a certain theology or chronology.

> Thanks!
> Dirk Frulla


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo