Is thirdwitness really Furuli?
H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"
by AnnOMaly 248 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Mad Sweeney
Great work there, Doug Mason!
-
bohm
Bad topic, back to the top with you!
-
wobble
Thanks AnnOmally !
Furuli was always out on a limb trying to support the crazy chronology of 607, but this just highlights that it has no evidential support .
And as Furuli is now discredited, the Wt Apologists do not have a loopy scholar to point to as authority.
-
notverylikely
And as Furuli is now discredited, the Wt Apologists do not have a loopy scholar to point to as authority.
As if that will stop them.
-
scholar
AnnOMaly
Post 1500
Hunger's review is most interesting and merits close examination and should be compared with the 5 part review by Carl Jonsson with both reviews featured on the same website. It is my expectation that Hunger's review whatever format is presented should be published in a respected academic journal in order to give his Review a measure of respectability and integrity.
It is my intention to advise Furuli of both these Reviews so that he can respond to these when and how he sees fit for really it is Furuli who is best able to either benefit from such critiques one way or the other. For scholars indeed benefit greatly when their work is examined by such scholars as Hunger one of his peers.
My overall criticism of Hunher's approach to Furuli is that of Methodology for Hunger fails to appreciate the simple fact that the whole purpose of Furuli's thesis was to compare Ancient Chronologies with that of the Bible which indded is the very title of Furuli's book. I have already written to Hunger pointing out to him this obvious flaw in his approach.
Hunger fails to appreciate the issue of the integrity of the VAT 4956 raised by Furuli in a somewhat technical manner at the end of his critique. Hunger it seems fails to pay close attention to the evidence presented by Furuli. Readers of these articles need to appreciate that we have a dispute between two experts, Furuli, an expert on ancient languages and Hunger, an expert on archeo-astronomy. Therefore, it is not surprising that different sets of eyes will differ as to interpretation of the same evidence under examination.
scholar JW
-
bohm
Okay ill bite.
It is my expectation that Hunger's review whatever format is presented should be published in a respected academic journal in order to give his Review a measure of respectability and integrity.
Question: Who of the two, Furuli or Hunger, has the most expertice on the subject of archeological evidence?
Question: Was Furulis work published in a "respected academic journal" and if no does that mean that it has no "respectability and integrity"?
My overall criticism of Hunher's approach to Furuli is that of Methodology for Hunger fails to appreciate the simple fact that the whole purpose of Furuli's thesis was to compare Ancient Chronologies with that of the Bible which indded is the very title of Furuli's book.
Hunger review the part of the book which fall under his expertice, and where I AM SURE YOU WILL AGREE he is the expert. He find multiple problems in what Furuli write. If you dont think it is problematic there are apparent problems in what Furuli write on chronological evidence, when the book is about comparing chronology with the bible, then thats up to you.
Question: Would you also critisize and expert in the bible for not addressing the tablets and only addressing the part of the book that dealt with the bible?
Hunger fails to appreciate the issue of the integrity of the VAT 4956 raised by Furuli in a somewhat technical manner at the end of his critique.
What problem?
I have seen this argument before where was it... oh now i remember:
-
Leolaia
My overall criticism of Hunher's approach to Furuli is that of Methodology for Hunger fails to appreciate the simple fact that the whole purpose of Furuli's thesis was to compare Ancient Chronologies with that of the Bible which indded is the very title of Furuli's book.
Hunger does not fail to appreciate what Furuli's approach was. He is in fact quite critical of Furuli's methodology:
On p. 26 F. declares as the “approach of this book” that “the Bible, cuneiform tablets, and different kinds of historical data are put on the same level”. This overlooks the differences between these data: literature cannot be treated in the same way as daily records; royal inscriptions may stress the king’s achievements and forget his failures; texts far removed from the events they describe may be less reliable than those composed close to the time of the events, etc. A critical evaluation of the sources is unavoidable for history writing.
-
AnnOMaly
Neil, glad you could make it :-)
My overall criticism of Hunher's approach to Furuli is that of Methodology for Hunger fails to appreciate the simple fact that the whole purpose of Furuli's thesis was to compare Ancient Chronologies with that of the Bible which indded is the very title of Furuli's book. I have already written to Hunger pointing out to him this obvious flaw in his approach.
And how did Hunger reply?
Hunger fails to appreciate the issue of the integrity of the VAT 4956 raised by Furuli in a somewhat technical manner at the end of his critique. Hunger it seems fails to pay close attention to the evidence presented by Furuli.
Hunger pays very close attention to Furuli's claims about VAT 4956 and picks apart his linguistic arguments and alternative readings. Perhaps you haven't got that far in the review yet, or perhaps it went a little over your head. Of course, much of the astronomical side to VAT 4956's analysis has already been done so there is no point in repeating the same criticisms of Furuli's examination. What I particularly liked was Hunger's comparison of the Lunar Threes - something that Furuli omits to discuss at all - which plainly demonstrates the invalidity of Furuli's claimed fit for the tablet (the lunar part) and 588/7 BCE.
Readers of these articles need to appreciate that we have a dispute between two experts, Furuli, an expert on ancient languages and Hunger, an expert on archeo-astronomy. Therefore, it is not surprising that different sets of eyes will differ as to interpretation of the same evidence under examination.
Hunger is an expert Assyriologist. Here is an indication of the level of Hunger's expertise in ancient texts and languages:
"At the 220th meeting of the American Oriental Society on March 12-15, 2010, the membership unanimously elected Hermann Hunger, emeritus professor at the University of Vienna to honorary membership in the America Oriental Society.
Among the many paragraphs of praise in the nominating letter is the following: 'Professor Hunger's career trajectory seems uneventful. He earned a doctorate in Assyriology and Semitic philology earlier than most (24), a sign of his competence. His dissertation about colophons was a meticulous assembling of an enormous number of such notices with an imaginative reconstruction about their use. But early on he began collaborative works with Otto E. Neugebauer, the great historian of science in antiquity, and with Abe Sachs who, much earlier, had followed a similar path in working with Neugebauer. The research arrangements moved Professor Hunger into the areas of scholarship for which he is best known now.'
Within the nominating letter there were also notices about Dr. Hunger's scholarship ('accurate, reliable, durable'), his wide collaborative efforts, and his crucial role in formulating and finalizing the most basic and indispensable tool of Assyriology, the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary (CAD). Hunger is a member of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. Relevant key publications: Mul.Apin (1989, in collaboration with David Pingree)."
[paragraphing and bold mine] - http://members.westnet.com.au/Gary-David-Thompson/page9i.html
-
scholar
AnnOMaly
Post 1502
My pleasure
Hunger's reply to me was a 'one liner': 'My field of expertise is in Assyriology'. Hunger simply ignored my questions and observations so he leaves me with a firm impression of 'bias'. So much for scholarly independence and fairness.
I am dismissive of your claim that Hunger pays close attention to Furuli's work for in fact that is not what I see when reading Hunger and I also believe that Hunger did not recognize Furuli's methodology at all. For example, Hunger's comments on Furuli's hypothesis that someone tampered with the Vat 4956 tablet was ludricous simply avoids Furuli's circumstantial evidence by means of detailed photographs and comparison of the letters on both sides of the tablet. Furuli had made a visual and tactile inspection of the tablet but has Hunger done this before lampooning Furuli? Jonsson wrote to Hunger about this matter and Hunger replied to Jonsson but no details of this corresspondence has been offered by either party.
One wonders if the circumstances surrounding the VAT 4968 amounts to some shenanigans on the part of some. Is such an example of one of the Devil's 'crafty' acts (Ephesians 6:11)? You should put this to Hunger!
Further, Hunger relies heavily and solely on Jonsson for a rebuttal of Furuli's exegesis of the 70 years which is pivotal to Furuli's methodology and thesis. Was not Hunger himself competent enough to make an assessment of Furuli on this most vital matter? By doing so Hunger gives the impression of collusion between himself and Jonsson in response to Furuli's research.
You waffle much on Hunger's qualifications but Hunger himself simply says that his field is Assyriogy so is competent in giving a proper assessment of Furuli's thesis. That will be for others including Furuli to judge. Perhaps it would be for everyone's benefit for Hunger to have his Review published in a respectable academic journal.
scholar JW