It has been announced that two forthcoming volumes examing the secular and biblical ecidence for Bible Chronology are due for publication in the spring, 2003. Rolf Furuli a Semitic language scholar provides a new approach to the many problems associated with current chronology. It should be interesting to see how this book will be reviewed in the scholarly literature and compare this material with Jonsson's Gentile Times Reconsidered. To date I am unaware of any scholarly review of the Jonsson hypothesis. If someone kows something to the contrary then please advise.
Didn't Jonsson simply accept the opinion of the majority of secular scholars as to the date for the conquest of Jerusalem
and attempt to harmonize the Bible with the "profane" records? If this is so, it would seem that Jonsson's "hypothesis" would more properly fall under the purview of theologians.
On the other hand, R. Furuli's approach, if I understand it correctly is to offer an alternative way to view the "profane" records themselves. This would be a horse of a different color altogether as it would challenge the current state of "conventional" scholarly opinion on the subject. As such, it should (and probably will) be subject to a fair amount of review from a variety of secular disciplines.
Yes you are correct in that Jonsson accepted the traditional chronology ans sought to provide additional evidence by means of the secular records and his own exegesis of the seventy years. However, he provides a critique of the Gentile Times based on this research as well as his own exegesis of Luke 21:24. This material however lacks any theological perspective which I believe is a major weakness in his argument, a fact that I have constantly referred in my oustings on the Jonsson hypothesis.
Furuli on the other hand is presenting new research on the secular evidence used to establish the traditional chronology which must have major implivations for a re-interpretation of biblical history and chronology. I understand that his two volumes will not be presenting any theologicol perspective.
This material however lacks any theological perspective which I believe is a major weakness in his argument, a fact that I have constantly referred in my oustings on the Jonsson hypothesis.
And that is where you are wrong. Religious exegesis has no place in determining secular history. In fact, relying on theological interpretations when it comes to determining secular history makes one's argument weaker - especially when there is no other supporting evidence.
Sorry, you are wrong.. The Jonsson hypothesis is presented under the title 'The Gentile Times Reconsidered'. Is not this subject a theological one? I would have thought so. Jonsson presents his criticism of this theological viewpoint from an analysis of chronology and history based upon his interpretation of the secular evidence and his exegesis of Daniel 4 and Luke 21:24. and of course the seventy years. Interestingly, the two scholars who endorsed the treatise are Assyriologists.
Greetings, The only connection that I have to Rolf Furuli is that we share the same beliefs namely as active Witnesses. Of course. both of us have post graduate qualifications in our respective disciplines.
Sorry, you are wrong... again. Jonsson was addressing the Watchtower's incorrect exegesis in the face of secular historical evidence. Whether Jonsson's theology is right or wrong is immaterial. Only the facts matter, and the facts do not point to 607. If you disagree, then please point out the evidence (that's facts - not exegesis). It just so happens that Jonsson's interpretation of the Bible's version of events can be harmonized with the facts of secular history and the Watchtower's can't.
Sorry, you are wrong; The facts of secular history require a certain amount of interpretation. This is shown by the fact that there are very few dates in biblical chronology that are universally accepted. History is not just facts but requires interpretation.in order to create history. Jonssonn's hypothesis although is based on secular evidence also contains much theory and exegesis. Similarly, WT chronology is based on certain accepted historical evidence and scriptural exegesis. For this reason, I believe that 607 is triumphant over the strained dates of 586/587 and frankly I do not give two hoots whether you you agree with me.
