Scholar, if your going to accuse Hunger like that, perhaps you could post your letter to Hunger?
H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"
by AnnOMaly 248 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
scholar
Leolaia
Post 15327
No, Hunger ignores utterly Furuli's methodology. There is not trace of even the word 'methodology' in his review which is alarming for Furuli in the Introductions to both volumes goes to graet pains to explain his approach. So much for Hunger's scholarship!
Your comment about Hunger's comment on Furuli (p,26) are both mistaken. Furuli states in that concluding paragraph:"They are simply compared on a philological and linguistic base, which also includes an attempt to find the meaning of the text. The question is whether the data can be harmonized, And when that is not the case, the question is which source probably tells the truth". What Hunger overlooks is the simple fact the Bible at that time, cunieform tablets and relevant historical data although consisting of different genres are none the less contemporaneous documents suitable for purposes of comparison in relation to issues of chronology.
scholar JW
-
Leolaia
Hunger's reply to me was a 'one liner': 'My field of expertise is in Assyriology'. Hunger simply ignored my questions and observations
What were your questions?
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!
Is Hunger wrong or ill-informed when he writes:
As for someone adding the numbers 37 and 38, there is no way of successfully adding cuneiform writing to a dried tablet. The tablet would be too hard to produce a neat writing as is preserved on VAT 4956. There are examples of tablets which were inscribed after they had started to dry; this can be recognized easily
?
-
bohm
Scholar:
- Furuli write a book which amongst other things make some claims about certain cuniform tablets, a subject on which Hunger is an expert.
- Hunger review what Furuli say just like he would review an article published to a journal he was in the review panel off.
It is simply not a question about methology. Furuli say some things, Hunger fact-check some of the things he say. simple as that. You just dont like the conclusion.
-
scholar
bohm
Post 1971
Both Furuli and Hunger are respected scholars but both have different fields of expertise.
Furuli like Hunger have published their research. It is a matter for Hunger as to why and whether he will publish his review of Furuli in a respected academic journal. I have inquired of him about the matter and he was not forthcoming but chose to have his review posted on a apostate website.
Reviews by the very nature will find problems so if there are genuine criticisms then no doubt Furuli can 'fine tune' his research in another edition as he has already in the process of doing for his Volume 1 to published soon. My concern with Hunger is that it amounts to 'nit picking' overlooking Furuli's overall objective and his 'laying down' with Jonsson.
The problem that Furuli had with the VAT 4956 amongst many others is that there is sufficient evidence that the tablet has been tampered with, a possible circumstance that Hunger chooses to ignore.
scholar JW
-
bohm
Scholar: I went to Furulis page: http://folk.uio.no/rolffu/ . Tell me which respected journals he has published his ideas about the cuniform tablets in?
Remember the standard you set up on page 1:
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.
I hope that does not only apply to those who disagree with you?
Its hard for us to respond or judge Hunger for how he reply to a letter we do not know the content off. Do you mind copy-pasting it?
-
wobble
Dear Scholar,
as a member of the great unlearned class, could you explain to me exactly what Bible Chronology is ?
-
scholar
Leolaia
Post 15332
I only put one question to Hunger and that was whether he would publish his Review on Furuli's Vol.2 in a respected academic journal. He gave no answer. I further made some observations on his review but his only comment to my email was simply that his field of expertise was Assyriology.
That is a question that you should put to Furuli but Furuli must have had good reasons for his alleged tampering of the tablet. Furuli told me by phone that he had inspected the tablet first hand and had made detailed photos of the tablet. H emust have been very suspicious in order for him to make according to some including Hunger such a outrageous accusation.
scholar JW
-
Leolaia
No, Hunger ignores utterly Furuli's methodology. There is not trace of even the word 'methodology' in his review which is alarming for Furuli in the Introductions to both volumes goes to graet pains to explain his approach.
Right here you use the word "approach" as a synonym for "methodology". Hunger doesn't use the word "methodology" but he has a paragraph (the one I quoted) criticizing Furuli's "approach".
What Hunger overlooks is the simple fact the Bible at that time, cunieform tablets and relevant historical data although consisting of different genres are none the less contemporaneous documents suitable for purposes of comparison in relation to issues of chronology.
Is that really a "simple" fact? The Chronicler, responsible for one of the statements on the "seventy years", was certainly not contemporaneous with the Neo-Babylonian era. The text of Jeremiah, meanwhile, was subject to redaction and modification, as one can see in comparing the Qumran, LXX, and MT versions. The purpose of writing was also different; Hunger's first point concerned the difference between writing literature and writing daily records. So thirdwitness' insistance that Egypt lay desolate for 40 years in what should have been Amasis' reign is due to his putting predictive oracular literature on a higher level as chronological data than actual contemporary daily records. You yourself on many occasions have declared "secular" evidence to be flat-out wrong when it conflicts with what the Bible says. That is altogether different from the "critical" approach that Hunger describes and is generally followed by historians (as there is an underlying presumption that the Bible is inerrant even in predictive oracles and may override a priori whatever other evidence has to say).
-
scholar
bohm
Post 1980
Furuli also is an expert with cunieform writing
Hunger's review of Furuli is not what one would expect of a scholar for the manner, tone and format has that apostate 'fuzz' all over it. For example, if you compare those reviews of Furuli by Jossson with that of Hunger you see many similarities in kind. I would like to see Hunger's original review before it was posted on that website. Further, the Editorial comment which introduces Hunger's article does not reveal the name of the Editor. So, I ask you, Who is the Editor?
It is all about methodology, if the Reviewer does not consider that then his review is flawed from the outset.
scholar JW