Let's take a closer look at the total nonsense disgorged in several posts in this thread by our most valuable JW apologist shill, scholar pretendus goatus buggerus:
: Furuli has had his work peer reviewed which the apostate Jonsson with his amateurish hypothesis has not.
Of course, we are not informed by just who has "peer reviewed" Furuli's 'work'. Perhaps scholar pretendus thinks that the scholar Lester Grabbe, who wrote the mini-book review that is the subject introduced by Augustin in this thread, has peer-reviewed Furuli's work. If so, then he has missed the fact that Grabbe's full comments are clearly poking fun at Furuli's amateurish attempt to rewrite Persian chronology. If not, then as usual, scholar pretendus has failed to provide his source references -- something that even in this thread he has (stupidly and incorrectly, as usual) taken others to task for not doing.
: Furuli has already submitted his research for peer review
Where? And with what results?
: but why has not Jonsson done this after a lengthy period of twenty-three years?
He has. For example, on the back cover of The Gentile Times Reconsidered, 4th edition of 2004, Jonsson submits:
A "most valuable [work] . . . . I have already drawn the attention of a number of correspondents to it." -- Donald J. Wiseman, Emeritus Professor of Assyriology in the University of London, England
"An original and thoroughly serious study. . . . Time and again during my reading I was overcome by feelings of admiration for, and deep satisfaction at, the way in which the author deals with arguments related to the field of Assyriology. . . Jonsson demonstrates, with the aid of irrefutable arguments, the invalidity of Jehovah's Witnesses' theory that 607 B.C. was the year when Nebuchadnezzar II, in the eighteenth regnal year, desolated Jerusalem." -- Luigi Cagni, Professor of Assyriology at the University of Naples, Italy (in his Foreword to the Italian edition).
Furthermore, since Jonsson's work mainly consists of summarizing the cream of modern scholarship concerning Neo-Babylonian and related chronologies -- which cream has already been thoroughly peer-reviewed -- there is simply no need for further review. Demanding further review would be like my writing a book that summarizes the best writings of real scholars on, say, modern ideas about gravity, and then demanding peer review. The only possible outcome would be whether my book was a fair summary of modern scholarship or not -- not whether modern ideas on gravity are valid or not. In the same way, scholar pretendus' demand for peer review of Jonsson's work is a mere smokescreen, a transparent device designed to fool himself into believing that there might be some serious questions remaining about modern Neo-Babylonian chronology. No one else is fooled.
Note the further tones of self-deception:
: Where is there a Book Review for the Gentile Times Reconsidered published? If such is indeed lacking does that not raise questions about the validity of Jonsson's juvenile scholarship in the mind of truly qualified academics and scholars because his work is simply seen as 'cult bashing'?
No serious scholar sees Jonsson's work as mere "cult bashing". The Jehovah's Witnesses are indeed a destructive and dangerous cult, but that has no bearing on the simple fact that virtually everything the Watchtower Society has written since the 1880s supporting the dates 606/607 B.C. for the destruction of Jerusalem is complete nonsense. Scholar pretendus actually seems to think that the fact that most people view the JWs as a destructive cult is somehow supportive of his claim that Jonsson's summary of modern scholarship is invalid merely because most people rightly view the JWs as a destructive cult! A better example of the complete braindeadness produced by a cult can hardly be found.
Furthermore, Augustin produced a reference by the Norwegian scholar Reidar Hvalvik in his book on Jehovah's Witnesses, which uses Jonsson's work as a scholarly reference.
: Furuli on the other hand has had his work examined by his peers
Again, which ones?
:The mere quotation by scholars of Jonsson's hypothesis in order to refute Jehovh'a Witnesses is meaningless.
Hardly. When good scholars quote other good scholars, they implicitly give their imprimateur to the other's work. If they did not support it, they would be scholastically dishonest -- a thing that Watchtower writers demonstrably have no problem with, but true academics most certainly do. Or at a minimum, they acknowledge that the other is more knowledgeable than they.
: What is required is that there is a Book Review or scholarly critique of Jonsson's work by means of a peer review and this has not been done.
It most certainly has. See above. And since scholar pretendus possesses Jonsson's 4th edition of GTR, it is dishonest of him to make such a claim. So what else is new?
: and that makes the difference between Furuli, the scholar and academic and Jonsson, a non-scholar and amateur.
The only reviewers' comments we've seen on this thread have been thoroughly critical of Furuli's work, and thoroughly supportive of Jonsson's.
Scholar pretendus said to Hellrider:
: Have you read all of the peer reviews of Furuli's research?
Of course, at no time are readers informed of the whereabouts of 'all these peer reviews'. Obviously the reason is that they do not exist.
: Or are you only interested in opinions from apostates in relation to Furuli?
The usual defense of the cultist who has no workable options.
: Why not address the issue as to why Jonsson's nonsense has not been peer reviewed by serious scholars?
Hellrider knows very well that, one way or another, it has already been done.
: Furuli is a linguist and semitic scholar
Well, he managed to get some degrees. What he's done after that is quite another story.
: whereas Jonsson is a nobody, an apostate who does not like 607 but prefers 587 which is rejected by serious scholars who prefer 586.
The usual dishonest distortion. Virtually all modern scholars acknowledge the Bible-based ambiguity between the dates, and are almost never dogmatic about either date. When they write that they prefer a date, they usually give their reasons. And that is the difference between real academics and cultists like Furuli, scholar pretendus and Watchtower writers -- the latter are dogmatic for cult reasons and therefore cannot tolerate dissent.
Furthermore, scholar pretendus' comments ignore the fact that most fundamentalist oriented scholars follow the arguments of Edwin Thiele (who advocated 586), who was most certainly a Christian fundamentalist, whereas most non-fundamentalist scholars accept the 587 date. Because Thiele was so highly and rightly respected, many scholars followed his arguments without much scrutiny, and so their writings on chronology were essentially followings of Thiele rather than independent studies. The point: in rigorous academic studies, the game goes to the one with the best arguments rather than the most cheerleaders.
: Furuli is highly repected in academia
Riiiight. And there is such a thing as "celebrated WT scholars". LOL!
: whereas Jonsson is simply an unknown 'cult basher' with an 'axe to grind'.
The usual ad hominem from this fake scholar.
Now let's take a quick look on the side at how scholar pretendus misrepresents a simple statement by one poster. Augustin rightly said:
: What really matters is that several scholars hold the same view as Jonsson (just take a look at celebrated scholars like Lundbom, Fischer, Winkle, Finegan). No scholar shares the views presented by Furuli in his amateur study. I guess you just have to be a pseudo-scholar for accepting Furuli's views.
But scholar pretendus thoroughly misrepresented this:
: You are quite mistaken in claiming that Lundbom, Winkle, Finegan have adopted Jonsson's views because clearly there are considerable difference of opinions.
Augustin certainly did not say or imply that the scholars mentioned had "adopted Jonsson's views", but that these scholars "hold the same view as Jonsson". Since these scholars are entirely independent of Jonsson (indeed, Finegan's views have remained essentially the same since his 1946 publishing of Light from the Ancient Past), and reflect the best of modern scholarship, and Jonsson clearly acknowledges that his sources are these very same scholars, it is evident that Jonsson's views follow those of these scholars -- and not the other way round as implied by this thoroughly dishonest scholar pretendus.
Furthermore, the differences among these scholars' views are trivial -- 586 or 587 B.C. for Jerusalem's destruction, who cares?
What they are unanimous on is that the Watchtower Society's views are complete nonsense.
Finally, scholar pretendus said to Augustin:
: I have this day a copy of the Book Review of Furuli's brilliant research by Lester Grabbe and as usual none of the posters on this forum have bothered to pursue further your rather abbreviated introductory comment on Furuli. Apostates go only for the sensational and are not interested in exploring the issues at any length.
The usual nonsense, disproved by the material above and below.
I have here Lester Grabbe's thoroughly critical book review (courtesy of one of our posters) and here present it in full:
Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 28.5 (2004)
FURULI, ROLF, Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible, 1 (Oslo: R. Furuli A/S [[email protected]], 2003), pp. 251. n.p. ISBN 82-994633-3-5.)
Once again we have an amateur who wants to rewrite scholarship. F.’s expertise is admittedly in Semitic languages, and his PhD (in progress) is on the Hebrew verbal system. He notes, ‘My disadvantage is that I am neither a professional archaeoastronomer nor a historian’. This has not deterred him from making some radical re-interpretations of Achaemenid-period chronology and putting it forward boldly as an ‘Oslo chronology’. Part of his redating is fairly modest: he accepts the beginning and end of Achaemenid rule according to the standard dating, and puts the beginning of Darius I’s reign only one year later than is conventional. He argues, however, that the first 11 years of Xerxes’ reign overlap with the last 11 of Darius, and that Artaxerxes I came to the throne in 475 BCE and ruled 51 years. (F. has indeed found the interesting fact that a couple of tablets have the years ‘50’ and ‘51’ for Artaxerxes, but he admits that overwhelmingly tablets make 41 his last year and none is found between 41 and 50, suggesting the obvious: a scribal error.) Gifted amateurs have sometimes revolutionized scholarship, notably M. Ventris and Linear B. But Ventris was willing to work with specialists such as J. Chadwick whereas F. shows little evidence of having put his theories to the test with specialists in Mesopotamian astronomy and Persian history. Perhaps the most telling point is his rather naive argument that the 70 years of Judaean captivity must be a literal 70 years of desolation of the land because some biblical passages make such a statement. A second volume is promised; we shall see if it is any more convincing.
L.L. GRABBE
Given the full text, let's see if scholar pretendus' claims hold water.
: What you fail to mention is that Grabble acknowledges Furuli's scholarship
Grabbe merely acknowledges what Furuli has claimed: that Furuli has a degree in Semitic languages and is working on a Ph.D. on the Hebrew verbal system. This acknowledgement in no way endorses Furuli's scholarship or his claims.
: and seemingly credits him as a 'gifted amateur'.
LOL! On the contrary, Grabbe has, tongue-in-cheek, contrasted Furuli's ridiculous claims with those of truly gifted amateurs who have actually produced accepted results. Grabbe makes this contrast explicit by stating that the gifted amateur Ventris was willing to work with certain specialists, whereas Furuli has shown little evidence (in actuality, none) of wanting to put his theories to the test with such specialists in Mesopotamian astronomy and Persian history.
In other words, Grabbe is not aware of any good modern scholars who endorse Furuli's claims. Nor is scholar pretendus able to produce any.
: Also, Grabbe confirms the fact that the some scriptures confirm that the 70 years was a period of desolation which very nicely overturns the Jonsson apostate noinsense.
Nonsense. What Grabbe actually acknowledges is that some scriptures can be understood, in isolation, as claiming that, but we've already dealt extensively with the fact that when all scriptures are considered, they form a whole that shows that the 70 years are a period of domination of the Babylonian empire over the Mesopotamian region. Even the Watchtower Society acknowledges this point in a general way.
Finally we see another example of complete insanity:
: By the way when are apostates going to urge Jonsson to have work peer reviewed
Already done, as shown above.
: as Furuli as appropriately done?
Not done at all, as shown above.
: I fear that cowardice is the nature and spirit of apostates.
Not hardly, as shown above.
What characterizes Jehovah's Witnesses, as scholar pretendus goatus buggerus so amply illustrates, is a complete aversion to the facts when the facts are opposed to Watchtower tradition. When book reviews laugh at JW apologists, the latter are so stupid that they cannot see the humor. When all the facts are against them, and all the opinions of recognized scholars are against them, they simply march on as if nothing were wrong. They've managed to muck things up, chronologically speaking, so many times that it's not even funny. For half their history they taught that Christ returned invisibly to the earth in 1874; they only jettisoned that silly claim around 1943 and moved the silly claim forward 40 years to 1914. They've claimed secure dates for Armageddon many times: by 1910, 1914, 1918, 1920, 1925, 1941, the early 1950s, 1975, 1984, 1994, 2000, and of course, the old standby: Real Soon Now!
AlanF
