A new thread on "channelc.org" has this link http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/ to order Furuli's new book.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible volume I Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews
The paperback edition has about 260 pages and contains 37 tables and 21 pictures/drawings. It is published by R. Furuli AS, Oslo: Norway.
Price English version: $ 29 plus postage, Norwegian version: Nkr. 240;
Mastercard accepted (please give card number, expiration date, and backside code).
Postage and handling: Norway, 1 copy Nkr. 55, 2 copies Nkr. 55.
Scandinavia: 1 copy Nkr. 75, 2 copies Nkr. 75.
Europe: 1 copy US$ 11, 2 copies
US 14.US and the world: 1 copy US$ 11, 2 copies US$ 15.
Order address: [email protected]
The book is available in English and Norwegian. (in preparation: Danish, Italian, and Polish translations; planned: Swedish, German, French and Russian translations).
Below is a sketch of the conclusions and the table of contents.
ANGLE OF APPROACH
The Oslo chronology versus the chronology of Parker and Dubberstein
The chronology of Parker and Dubberstein has been almost universally accepted for the last fifty years. According to P&D the accession yer of Nebuchadnezzar was 605 B.C.E and his destruction of Jerusalem occurred in 587 B.C.E. The conquest of Babylon by Cyrus occurred in 539, and the Persian empire ended in 331 B.C.E. after the five year reign of Darius III.
For the first time this chronology has been challenged in a scholarly study. The tablets to which P&D refer, have been studied afresh, and for the first time an attempt has been made to make a synthesis of all the tablets that contradict the traditional chronology and give a new interpretation to some of the old material.
The book is based on a study of the data from several thousand cuneiform tablets, including dated contracts and other business documents, and astronomical tablets giving the positions of the heavenly bodies in relation the each other and to the Zodiac in particular years. A careful analysis of relevant texts in Hebrew and Aramaic (the Elephantine Papyri) has been performed. As well About 400 modern sources have been used.
Parker and Dubberstein
A study of each cuneiform document used by P&D to show in which regnal years of Babylonian and Persian kings intercalary months were added, reveals that 49 % of the "evidence" used by P&D has no real value, in this author's judgement. A comparison of 1450 cuneiform tablets dated in the reigns of the Persian kings reveals tablets for most of the kings that contradict P&D's scheme, which was based on first and last tablet dated to each king. On this basis it is argued that the chronology of P&D should be radically revised.
The chronology of the Persian kings
The most trustworthy cuneiform evidence consists of dated business tablets. These indicate sales and loans and other transactions and are dated in the day, month, and year of the king who ruled at the time. These dates are clearly unbiased. A comparison of these tablets suggest a different chronology compared with the one adocated by P&D. The business tablets demand that Bardiya (Gaumata, who probably is the "Artaxerxes" of Ezra 4:23) ruled for 18 months between Cambyses and Darius I. Thus the accession year of Darius I is pushed one year forward. There are strong reasons to believe that Xerxes was co-regent with Darius I for 11 years. (Evidence: 1) Tablets are dated to the accession year of Xerxes before the last tablets of the 36th year of Darius I, 2) drawings and inscriptions make the two equal and give them the same titles, 3) different titles used by Xerxes after his 11th year, 4) the pattern of intercalary months is the same in the last 11 years of Darius and the first 11 years of Xerxes). The reign of Xerxes is pushed back 10 years (11 years of the co-regency minus the 1 year of Bardiya). Thus the accession year of Artaxerxes I is taken as 475 B.C.E., ten years before 465, which is advocated by P&D. This means that the 20th year of Artaxerxes (Neh. 2:1) is 455 B.C.E. The business tablets may indicate that Artaxerxes I ruled 51 years or even through his 51st year and a few days into his 52nd year. Thus the reign of Darius II is pushed forward one year (Xerxes II/Sogdianos may have ruled a short time between Artaxerxes I and Darius II).
The absolute chronology based on the positions of the heavenly bodies in the reigns of particular kings
The glimpse of the Oslo chronology of the Persian kings presented above collide head on both with P&D and with the three so-called "Saros tablets" which, as far as we can see from their fragmentary condition, present 18-year cycles of eclipse possibilities of the moon, which can be connected with nubered years of Persian kings.
In order to make an absolute chronology on the basis of astronomical diaries, lunar (Saros) tablets and planet tablets, three requirements must be met:
The positions of the heavenly bodies must be observed by the eye of a scribe and written down at the same time; and they must not only represent backward calculations made at a much later time.
The name of the ruling king must be written on the tablet at the time when the observations are made.
Enough observations must be found on the tablet to be able to pinpoint the dates of observation according to the Julian and Gregorian calendar.
As far as the Saros tablets are concerned, only condition 3) is met. The pattern of the eclipses, numbers of regnal years, and abbreviated names of kings (on one of them) help astronomers pinpoint the years of the kings of the Persian empire back to the last part of the reign of Darius I.
It has been known for a long time that the Saros tablets do not contain original observations, but they represent calculations (solely based on theory, or on a combination of theory and other tablets containing observations). Thus they indicate that in the 3rd century B.C.E, in the astronomical/historical milieu, a scheme of 18-year Saros cycles connected with a chronology of kings existed (probably going back as far as to the time of Nabonassar (747 B.C.E.- this is suggested by other tablets). The important question is: These 24 Saros cycles (of which we just have fragments), which cover 432 years from 747 to 315 B.C.E, and which are connected with a chronology of kings, do they represent reality, or are they as a whole fictional?
If we take the dated business tablets and other material at face value, the answer as far as the Persian empire is concerned, is that the Saros tables are fictional. Eclipses of the moon occur regularly at 5 (or 6 month) intervals, and almost the same series of eclipes occur every 223 months (18 years), so the eclipse part of Saros scheme is real. What is fictional, (a conclusion based on more than hundred business tablets and "anomalous" intercalary months from the Persian empire), is the connection between the eclipse cycles of the moon and the succession of kings. P&D took the Saros tablets as proofs for their chronology and rejected business tablets which contradicted their chronology (and were not aware of scores of other tablets that speak against their chronology). The Oslo chronology do the very opposite of P&D by taking the business tablets at face value, something that forces us to reject the theoretical Saroschronology as a depiction of reality..
The length of the Babylonian exile of the Jews
Language is ambiguous, and many texts can be interpreted in different ways. But a careful linguistic analysis reveals that Daniel 9:2 and 2 Chronicles 36:21 unabgiguously say that Jerusalem was a desolate waste without inhabitants for full 70 years, while the people were exiled in Babylon. It has been argued that the words of Jeremiah 25:11,12 do not corroborate with the mentioned unambiguous texts. This is wrong, and an analysis of these and other words of Jeremiah show that, while his words are not unambiguous, they can be interpreted as saying the same thing as the unambiguous texts. Daniel and the Chronicler, who personally knew the length of the exile, interpreted the words of Jeremiah as indicating a desolate condition for 70 years. A correct understanding of Hebrew verbs help us understand that Zechariah 1:12; 7:5 accords with the other passages, even definitely stressing the desolate condition of 70 years.
Volume II and the Babylonian chronology
Much research is needed before volume II is ready for publication. But a few remarks can be made at this point. The chronologies of Assyria, Babylon, and Persia are interdependent, as far as the dates of the reigns of the kings are concerned. If, for instance, the accession year of the first New Babylonian king is pushed forward one or two years, the the whole New Babylonian dynasty is pushed forward by one or two years. The same is true if one of thekings is pushed one or more years backwards. This is what we may call the "domino-effect".
This "domino-effect" works in another way as well, something that can be seen in connection with the Saros cycles. The Saros scheme with each cycle consisting of 223 lunar months, includes the Persian and New Babylonian kings, and a great number of Assyrian kings. The scheme either represents reality, or it is fictional. If we, on the basis of a great number of dated business tablets, can show that the part of the Saros scheme that includes the Persian kings, is fictional - which I believe we can - this has the "domino effect" that the same must be true for the the rest of the Saros scheme covering the New Babylonian and Assyrian empires. Thus the whole frame of the New Babylonian chronology of P&D falls apart.
The year 539 B.C.E.is taken in the Oslo chronology as the time when Cyrus conquered Babylon, although there can be some uncertainty with that year, due to the witness of the tablet Strm Kambys 400, which is not as good as we would have wished. However, if we accept the year 539 and at the same time accept the unambiguous witness of the Bible, we also must accept that the Babylonian exile began about 70 years before the year 539 (and not 49 or 50), which is what B&D allows for). This means that both the Bible and the Oslo chronology of the Persian empire argues against the traditional New Babylonian chronology.
The witness of the cuneiform tablets related to the New Babylonian kings will be thoroughly discussed in volume II. The astronomical evidene of this period is meager indeed,though specific, and it will be discussed in the light of the three crieteria mentioned above. It is particularly important to come to grips with the astronomical diary VAT 4956. As of present I have reviewd data from about 7.000 business tablets from the New Babylonian Empire. There are so many tablets that are anomalous (from the point of view of thetraditional chronology), that the whole scheme of P&D breaks down ; each king seems to have ruled longer than P&D says. This material will be systemtized and interpreted. An important question that will be scrutinized, is whether one whole Saros period of 18 years somehow was lost in the New Babylonian era in the theoretical Saros schemes that were used in the 3rd century B.C.E., to the effect that the New Babylonian dynasty of kings existed 18 years longer than P&D says. There are several original inscriptions from this period as well, some containing information that is contradicted by others. The result of a study of these will also be presented.
A word of caution
Ancient history cannot be proven, because there are no living informants. And any attempt to make a chronological scheme of the kings of ancient nations is tentative. The Oslo chronology does not claim to represent the final word of the matter, but it represents a new approach to chronology. It does not generally challenge the interpretations and datings of astronomical tablets by experts such as Sachs, Hunger, Watson, and Steel, but it asks about the origin and quality of the tablets in question, thus scrutinizing the connection between the dates and regnal year of real kings Its advantage is that the cuneiform data are not seen through the glasses of the traditional chronology, but the evidence of each tablet is presented in its own right. It is also an advantage that published cuneiform sources are much moren umerous and much more complete than was the case 50 years ago when Parker and Dubberstein did their work. The real importance of the Oslo chronology, therefore, is not that it has established "the only true chronology", but that it has demonstrated that neither the accepted chronology which is based on P&D not "the only true chronology" .
CONTENTS
Introduction
Abstract
Chapter 1: Fundamental chronological considerations
The need for a balanced approach
Proofs versus evidence
The basis for making a chronology
Proofs versus evidence
The basis for making a chronology
The relative chronology and its problems
The absolute chronology and its problems
Factors connected with the scribes and the tablets that may cause error
Chapter 2: The litmus test of the absolute chronology
Observation versus calculation
The interplay of the absolute and the relative chronology and the "domino effect"
The "domino-effect" and the astronomical diaries
The "domino-effect" and the Saros tablets
Chapter 3: The languages and script of the original documents
Sumerian signs and language
The Akkadian signs and language
A possible identification of Nimrod
The Akkadian numbers
The reading and understanding of Akkadian by modern scholars
The reading of tablets may be erroneous
Possible reading errors because of chronological pressure
The Aramaic and Hebrew languages and their signs
Hebrew and Aramaic numbers
Philological questions regarding the text of the Bible
Chapter 4: Old chronological accounts of the New Babylonian kings Chronological accounts written in the Greek language
The Bible: 70 years of Babylonian captivity
The 70-year desolation of the land
What was the objective of Jeremiah?
The words of Zechariah
A theological attempt of harmonizing the Bible and the traditional chronology
Chapter 5 -The Weakness of the traditional Persian chronology
The Saros cycle and intercalary months
Attempts to establish Saros cycles back to 747
The meaning of the Saros tablets
The Saros-tablets cannot be used to make an absolute chronology
Problems in using the Saros-tablets in connection with a relative chronology
How many of the intercalary months on the theoretical Saros tablets are confirmed by independent sources?
The data of the Saros tablets and the 19-year cycle
An acute problem of the dated business tablets
The intercalary months that are confirmed
The tablets from Persepolis and their intercalary months
The quality of the study made by Parker and Dubberstein
Quantity versus quality
A selective handling of data
How many of the intercalary months referred to by P&D have a sound foundation?
A synthesis of the evidence
The criticism of P&D
Conclusion regarding weakness of the chronologies of Ptolemy and of the Saros tablets
Chapter 6 - Cyrus, Cambyses, Darius I, and Bardiya, the chronology iconoclaster
Cyrus (II) - the first king of the Persian Empire
Cambyses, the son of Cyrus-the second king of Persia
The nature of Strm Kambys 400
Darius I - the lance bearer who came to power
The Behistun inscription
Bardiya and his tablets punctures Ptolemy's chronology
The authenticity of the tablets dated to Bardiya
The evidence regarding Bardiya is not generally accepted.
Nebuchadnezzar III and Nebuchadnezzar IV - have they existed?
An interpretation of the supposed tablets of Nebuchadnezzar III and Nebuchadnezzar IV
Have Nebuchadnezzar III and Nebuchadnezzar IV existed?
What about other Nebuchadnezzars?
Concluding remarks on the transition of kingship to Darius I
Chapter 7: The reign of Xerxes and his co-regency with his father Darius I
Inscriptions and engravings suggesting a co-regency
A change in titles used suggest a co-regency
An important test: Do the intercalary months of the supposed years of co-regency coincide?
Conclusion regarding a possible co-regency
Chapter 8: An alternative view of the reign of Artaxerxes I
Business documents and other dated tablets
Astronomical tablets connected with the reign of Artaxerxes I
Some thoughts on dating principles
The astronomical diaries
Some Greek evidence
Some Egyptian evidence
The data of the double-dated papyri
Chapter 9: Darius II and the last kings of the Persian Empire.
The astronomical witness in the reign of Darius II
Venus data
Conjunctions of Mars and Saturn and the moon
Planet observations
The continuation of intercalary months from Artaxerxes I to Darius II
Chapter 10: A comparison of the Oslo chronology and the Ptolemaic chronology
An analysis of the models
The fictional source of the Ptolemaic chronology
Volume II: Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian chronology