bohm
Post 1981
A full list of Furuli's research is shown at the section Bibliography on Furuli's website.
If you want a copy of my email to Hunger then send me your email address.
scholar JW
H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"
by AnnOMaly 248 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
scholar
Leolaia
Post 15333
I did not intend by my use of 'approach' that it is a synonym for'methodology' in this instance but was merely used to avoid repetition. Whether that can be said of Hunger's use of the word 'approach' is a matter to be put to Hunger.
Yes it is. Because it is a simple fact that the Neo-Babylonian period embraced a period of much writing or scribal activity which included relevant books of the Bible such as Daniel, Jeremiah and Ezekiel etc., Babylonian records and tablets etc. Whatever the prurpose of writing was we still have to deal with the corpus of material available and compare that material where there is some relevance. For example, Jonsson goes to graet lengths to compare secular records pertaining to chronology from a wide variety of sources and styles to that of specific books of the Bible. If it is good enough for Jonsson to make such a comparison then why cannot be the case with Furuli. Furuli clearly staes that his approach to such documents was one of linguistics and philology.
I believe that the Bible is superior to that of secular records and that where unlike Hunger there is a difference of fact then the Bible is deemed to be more credible and trustworthy because the Bible alone is 'Inspired by God' -2Tim.3:16.
I have no problems with the so called 'critical' approach adopted by the likes of Hunger but it comes at a great cost. However, experience in the world of academia has taught me that the Biblical assumption of inerrancy even in predictive oracles has not overidden a priori other secular evidence . For indeed, secular evidence has been forced to play 'catch-up' with the Biblical record. This has well been shown to be the case with that period of the Neo-Babylonians and the Later Judean Period as documented by the Prophets.
scholar JW
-
VM44
Does anyone what Furuli says about the thousands of business tablets found?
-
bohm
Scholar:
On page 1 you set up a standard for when a scholary work should be acceptable:
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 want to remind you that this is your standard not mine. The natural thing to do is to apply the same standard to mr. Furulis work on cuniform tablets. You point me to his publications section on this page:
but i just dont see the publications, all i see that seem relevant is his book and as i am sure you know it is a lot, lot easier to get a book published than an article because there are completely different review procedures.
So, if Hungers work need to go through review to gain a "measure of respectability and integrity", i suppose the same hold for Furulis work unless there are two standards, do you see what i am getting at?
So which specific peer reviewed articles has Furulis work on cuniform tablets been published in?
-
AnnOMaly
Hi Neil
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 wouldn't interpret his response as 'bias'; I'd interpret it more as 'not willing to suffer fools gladly.' ;-)
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.
It's evident that you either haven't read Hunger's review closely enough or that you've merely failed to comprehend it sufficiently. Leolaia has already pointed out to you where Hunger addresses the above issues - although, I'm not sure about what Hunger-Jonsson correspondence you refer to.
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!
Somehow I think that if I was naïve enough to put that to Hunger, I'd get a swift one-liner response like you did - if I got a response at all LOL! The only shenanigans relating to VAT 4956 come from 'some' who are making fantastical claims about tampering and trying to manipulate the textual evidence to fit an untenable chronological scheme.
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.
Hunger centers on the cuneiform records and the linguistic side to Furuli's arguments (not the theological side). After all, Hunger's and his colleagues' linguistic competence and professional integrity have been questioned in the book. As he shows, many of Furuli's criticisms are based on misunderstandings or ignorance. Plenty of other Bible scholars - not just Jonsson - have given valid and better interpretations of the 70 years than the WTS'.
You waffle much on Hunger's qualifications ...
It's not my waffling, but that of the American Oriental Society.
... but Hunger himself simply says that his field is Assyriogy so is competent in giving a proper assessment of Furuli's thesis.
How generous of you to say! I'm sure Hunger will breathe a deep sigh of relief to know he gets your thumbs up ;->
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.
Well, Neil, I don't think having his review published in a 'respectable academic journal' will cut any ice with you anyway. You'll still be as dismissive and trash it - like you did with the AfO review of Jonsson's book by W. Gallagher (Ph.D) a couple of years back.
-
scholar
AnnOMaly
Post 1503
Yes, I am inclined to agree with you. Humility therefore is not one of Hunger's strong points one could rightly conclude.
Much of Hunger's review amounts to a 'nitpicking of Furuli or another interpretation of the respective secular materials. Either way it is up to Furuli to respond to Hunger's opinions. I am not competent enough to comment on the technical details of either Furuli or Hunger but there are some specific points in Hunger's review that I am competent in evaluating such points.
Furuli has already 'set the cat amongst the chickens' so I would have no problem in 'raising the bar' with Hunger but that would be a waste of my time.
Hunger does indeed deal with technical issues of Furuli's thesis and ignores the theological issue as you say but that is where Hunger errs. Furuli's thesis is grounded in the Bible for indeed his methodology was to compare the ancient chronologies with the Bible. Hunger's sole use of Jonsson rather than other scholars undermines Hunger's integrity and shows bias on his part in my opinion.
You speak in haste for as yet I have not seen Gallagher's review of Jonsson.
scholar JW
-
Ultimate Reality
Scholar wrote: "Furuli's thesis is grounded in the Bible for indeed his methodology was to compare the ancient chronologies with the Bible."
The problem is the interpretation of the Biblical 70 years. Was it a period of servitude for the nations (609 BCE to 539 BCE on the 'secular' calendar) or was it to be a 70 year period from the destruction of the Temple to the release of the Jews?
Jeremiah 25: 11 And all this land must become a devastated place, an object of astonishment, and these nations will have to serve the king of Babylon seventy years.”’
12 “‘And it must occur that when seventy years have been fulfilled I shall call to account against the king of Babylon and against that nation,’ is the utterance of Jehovah, ‘their error, even against the land of the Chal·de´ans, and I will make it desolate wastes to time indefinite.
If we interpret the above to mean a 70 year period of servitude for all the nations, then the Biblical chronology and the secular chronology have no conflict in fixing 587/6 BCE as the date of Jerusalem's destruction. Further, according to the above, we should determine the end of the 70 year period with the fall of Babylon in 539 BCE, not a 537 BCE Jewish release.
-
scholar
Ultimate Reality
Post 182
That is merely your opinion as to how the seventy years should be interpreted. The fact of the mattter is that scholars do not have a common view as to the interpretation of the seventy years so your opinion simply mirrors that of Carl Jonsson. The Bible sttes quite clearly that the seventy years wasa period of desolation-servitude and exile running from the Fall of Jerusalem in 607 BCE until the Return in 537 BCE.
scholar JW
-
Ultimate Reality
Ok....
Scholar
Post 1901
That is merely your opinion as to how the seventy years should be interpreted. The fact of the mattter is that scholars do not have a common view as to the interpretation of the seventy years so your opinion simply mirrors that of Furuli. The Bible states quite clearly that the seventy years was a period of desolation-servitude and exile running from the Rise of Babylon in 609 BCE until their fall in 539 BCE.
UR
-