Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 9:24-27

b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Biblical Hebrew Forum

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no>
  • To: b-hebrew AT lists.ibiblio.org
  • Subject: Re: [b-hebrew] Daniel 9:24-27
  • Date: Sun, 21 Dec 2008 14:14:55 +0100


Dear Tory,

You are one of the list-members who evidently do research of your own and who do not only lean on the so-called authorities. But I see several problems with your arguments below.


--- On Sat, 12/20/08, Rolf Furuli <furuli AT online.no> wrote:

Rolf: "Most of the business tablets dated in the reign of Bardiya (who was king immediately before Darius the great) are discussed in S. Graziani (1991). "Testi editi ed inediti datati al regno de Bardiya (522 a.c). Napoli. The first tablet is from Bardiya's accession year, month II and the last one from his year 1, month VIII. Taken at face value the dated tablets show that Bardiya reigned at least 18 months and not about six months, as most historians believe. All kinds of fanciful explanations have been used to explain away this evidence, because it destroys Ptolemy's chronological scheme."

The earliest Babylonian tablets dated to the "first year" of Bardiya refer to him not as king of Babylon but only as "king of lands" (i.e. king of Persia). The first is from month I, day 19. The earliest "accession year" tablet is from month II and Bardiya is called "king of Babylon, king of lands". There are almost no more accession year tablets after this time. If we must believe Bardiya reigned at least 18 months, where are all the tablets from month II of the accession year to month I of the first year? I have no problem with destroying the scheme Ptolemy inherited from antiquity if it must be destroyed. This in no way destroys it.

If we apply this argument from silence on Artaxerxes I, he had no accession year, because we have no dated tablets from that year. As a matter of fact, very few dated tablets from the Persian Empire have been found compared with tablets from the Neo-Babylonian Empire, and their distribution is uneven. As far as I know, there are no dated business tablets from year 8 and 20 of Xerxes, and only 1 from his regnal years 7, 13, and 19. In addition to his accession year, there are no tablets from year 18 of Artaxerxes I, and only 2 respectively from his years 6, 12, and 15. But there are at least 112 tablets from his year 41. As for Bardiya, there are four dated tablets from month II, III, and IV of his accession year. And there are at least 29 dated tablets from the first 8 months of his year 1, the first one being dated in month I, day 19 and the last in month VIII, day 20. 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. If we treat this evidence in the same way as other evidence and avoid ad hoc argument to save a theory, I see no way to avoid the conclusion that he reigned for at least 18 months, because this is the time from his first to his last dated tablet.

There is a way to test this conclusion. I have looked at all the dated tablets I could find from year 8 of Cambyses, the accession year and year I of Darius I, and all the tablets from Bardiya, Nebuchadnezzar III and Nebuchadnezzat IV. I have compared their dates and place of writing, and on the assumption that two of these kings did not reign in the same city at the same time, the pattern I see is that Bardiya reigned for 18 months.


Rolf: "A comparison of the Akkadian signs (not the English translation) of the cuneiform tablets BM 32234 - the tablet reporting the two lunar eclipses in year 21 of Xerxes - and the celestial positions on BM 33478 - which tentatively is applied to year 24 of Artaxerxes I, the reign of Artaxerxes I is pushed back 10 years - 475 being his accession year. (The tablets are discussed in H. Hunger et al. (2001). "Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, vol V, Lunar and Planetary Texts" pp. 20, 21) and A. Sachs, H. Hunger (1988) "Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, vol I, pp. 58-61.) This astronomical information destroys the king list of Ptolemy, and interestingly - it shows that year 20 of Artaxerxes I is 455, the very year that the 19th century expositors used as starting point."

Out of curiosity, what Akkadian signs are you referring to?

I refer to the first 7 signs in IV' 3' of BM 32234 (Hunger et al. 2001:20). There is quite a lot of circularity in archaeoastronomy, and as in the case with the "tax collector" of Daniel 11:20, translations from Akkadian are sometimes colored, or even manipulated by the translator, in order to fit his or her scheme. Therefore, it is important to read the sources, and in important situations, to collate a particular tablet to ascertain whether the transliteration of the signs is correct.


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli Ph.D
University of Oslo





Tory Thorpe





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page