Thank you very much Leolaia for posting that extract from the Bible Commentary! Wow, that's fantastic.
Here's a tidied up translation. It's far from perfect but better than automated translations, so if any Dutch speakers can improve on it, please do.
"The dates of the Babylonian and Persian Empire, such as those shown opposite, are generally accepted for the last half century. According to this view, Nebuchadnezzar began to reign in 605 B.C. and the destruction of Jerusalem took place in his 18th year, in 587/6 B.C., and the conquest of Babylon by Cyrus was in 539 B.C. Recently, however, this chronology has been disputed by R.J. Furuli from Oslo. This has received the alternative name 'the Oslo-Chronology.' He questions the reliability of all kinds of astronomical tablets (which form the basis of the current chronology) and instead works from all kinds of economic tablets. Furuli thereby also thinks that the duration of Israel's Babylonian exile was seventy years, whereas the usual chronology comes out at approximately fifty years. The result of his research is that instead, Nebuchadnezzar was reigning, and the devastation of Jerusalem took place in 607 B.C., twenty years before what is commonly assumed (587/6 B.C.).
This new approach is generally ignored in the academic discussions, but C.O. Jonsson has discussed it thoroughly. In his book The Gentile Times Reconsidered he supplies material that Furuli has overlooked. On the Internet he provides further detailed criticism of the chronology which is now called the Oslo-Chronology, but it was already well-known as the chronology of the Watchtower Society of Jehovah's Witnesses. They attach great value to the early dating for the devastation of Jerusalem. Jonsson's criticism is thorough and shows that Furuli rejects all kinds of material which does not fit his scheme. Thus he suggests that an important chronological tablet in Berlin (with other information than his own reconstruction; VAT 4956) was broken and reworked by someone in the previous century, which is why it now contains incorrect data. Such speculation enjoys no support whatsoever among experts. Moreover, by checking computer simulations, numerous proposals for moving astronomical observations to another date appear to be incorrect. For such reasons Jonsson views the revised chronology as erroneous. According to him, the traditional chronology is confirmed by more and more findings."