Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

b-hebrew - [b-hebrew] Daniel and history

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: [b-hebrew] Daniel and history
  • Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:17:55 +0100

Dear George,

When we do scientific research we cannot start from scratch and do as Rene Descartes, saying "Cogito ergo sum". But we have to use conclusions drawn by others as helping hypotheses. However, the problem is that some of these conclusions are repeated over and over again, and they are never tested. That is the reason why I said that when we study Daniel, or any other book in the Tanakh, we both have to ask what the Hebrew text really says and to ask whether the history by which it is tested is reliable.

In the book of Daniel we find one saying that clearly is at odds with the universally accepted history, and that is chapter 9, verse 2. In this verse we learn that in the beginning of the Persian kingdom Daniel read about the 70 years when Jerusalem would be desolate. The same information is found in 2 Chronicles 36:21 where it is said that Jerusalem was a desolate waste for a full 70 years. Using the rules of lexical semantics, grammar, and syntax I am not able to see any other meaning in the two passages than that Jerusalem was a desolate waste for a full 70 years. Yet, the history leaves only 49 of 50 years for Jerusalem's desolate condition (and some say Jerusalem never was desolate). Is Daniel and the Chronicler wrong?

I have used a lot of time to scrutinize this question, and my conclusion is that the universally accepted history rather than Daniel is wrong! And I have published a book of 370 pages to show this. In this book I reproduce a page from a French book on chronology from 1818. The Neo-Babylonian chronology of this book is exactly the same that is found in modern textbooks and lexicons. How can this be at a time when no archaeological finds had been made? The answer is that the chronology of Claudius Ptolemy was accepted on the basis of faith, without any empirical evidence to bolster it. This is faith and not science!

In the second part of the 19th century cuneiform tablets were unearthed. Because I know the scientific literature of this time I can say that these tablets were interpreted in the light of the chronology of Claudius Ptolemy, and the chronology of Ptolemy was viewed as confirmed by these tablets. But of course, this is circular reasoning! Then, in 1915 information about a new cuneiform tablet, VAT 4956, with celestial positions and the years 37 and 38 of Nebuchadnezzar was published (P. V. Neugebauer and E. F. Weidner "Ein astronomischer Beobachtungstext aus dem 37. Jahre Nebukadnezars II (-567/66)". And it was claimed that this tablet without any doubt confirmed the chronology of Ptolemy. This tablet is the backbone of the present Neo-Babylonian chronology and the view that the nation of Judah was only 49 or 50 years in exile in Babylon .

This philological, linguistic, and astronomical study of VAT 4956 was published in 1915, but after that time no similar study has appeared. In 1988 a transliteration of the signs on the tablet and an English translation was published (A. J: Sachs and H. Hunger "Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia Vol I diaries from 652 B.C. to 165 B.C"), but they did not publish a scholarly study of the tablet. This means that for 90 years the conclusions of Neugebauer and Weidner have been repeated over and over again, an no one has published a critical study of this important tablet! When we review this situation today from a scientific point of view, we may ask: Can we trust the conclusions made in 1915, and the indirect confirmation of them in 1988? The problem in connection with an answer is that very few persons today master the Akkadian language, and even fewer are experts in connection with the Akkadian astronomical language. And because of Systemzwang, these few tend to uphold the traditional viewpoints. So science may in a way deadlocked.

I have taught Akkadian for more than a decade, and I have studied the language of astronomical Diaries and other astronomical tablets. Moreover, because I have modern astronomical programs and colleagues at the University who are astronomical experts I have been able to deal with the tablet in a scholarly way. I took high resolution electronic pictures of the tablet at the Vorderasiatische Museum in Berlin, and on the basis of these pictures I have carefully studied each of the more than 600 cuneiform signs on the tablet. Thus, I have been able to test the 1915 results of Neugebauer and Weidner. My conclusions are very different from their results. My basic finding is that that quite a lot of the cuneiform signs related to the planets and to the stars and star constellations are difficult to read, and when that is the case, the signs are often applied to the celestial bodies that are expected by modern computations. But this may be circular reasoning. Another finding is that the 13 lunar positions fit perfectly the year 587/86 but the fit is not so good in 567/66, which is Nebuchadnezzar II's 37th year according to the traditional chronology. On this basis I suggest an expansion of the Neo-Babylonian Empire by 20 years, and that would fit the words of Daniel and the Chronicler. Corroborating this is a list of about 90 dated contract tablets, which, taken at face value destroy the traditional Neo-Babylonian chronology, because the reign of each king was longer than believed. Have I by these findings proven that the traditional Neo-Babylonian chronology is wrong? No, because ancient chronology and history cannot be proven. But this study of mine is an alternative to the traditional scheme and deserves to be studied carefully.

I have used this example to illustrate that when we find information in the book of Daniel or in other books of the Tanakh that are believed to be at odds with our accepted knowledge of history, we both need to study the Hebrew text carefully, in order to ascertain what it really says; and we also need to ask whether the accepted view of history is reliable. Only after a careful study of both, we can draw balanced conclusions.



---

I must say I am very, very surprised to read this. There are numerous historical difficulties with Daniel. And contrary to your claim, we know quite a lot about the last days of the Neo-Babylonian Empire. We have documents aplenty. And the difficulties are not limited to Darius the Mede. And even if they were, your position above sounds quite evasive.


Regards,

GEORGE ATHAS
Moore Theological College (Sydney, Australia)
www.moore.edu.au


Best regards,

Rolf Furuli
University of Oslo





Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page