PseudoScholar, you have been refuted here ad nauseum- Jeru fell in 586/587BCE- not 607BCE, the Jews retunred to the promised land in 538BCE, not 537BCE...the WT '7 Gentile Times' teaching is BS...just as everything you and Furuli have said on Neo-Babylonian chronology.
H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"
by AnnOMaly 248 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
AnnOMaly
Neil,
1. Hunger based his review on Furuli's 2nd edition 2008 whereas my copy of Furuli is his 1st edition 2007 which causes a little difficulty in using Hunger's page numbering of Furuli.
Yes, you are at a disadvantage. You need to keep up with New Light ;-)
3. Any reviewer of these works, Hunger and Furuli would need to consult the Bibliographies for both in order to examine for error, interpretation and context.
I assume you meant the reader of the review? Naturally, Hunger would already be familiar with much of the cited literature.
4. Hunger's use of Carl Jonsson's earlier Reviews (5 Parts) is for me somewhat problematic. What influence did Jonsson have on Hunger? Is Hunger's review of Furuli truly independent and scholarly? Is there evidence of collusion on the part of Hunger, Jonsson and Gallagher?
Quick Neil, where's your tin foil hat?
As I said in an email to you, you seem to think Jonsson has a Svengali influence over professional ANE academics, LOL! If your suggestion wasn't so preposterous, it would be deeply insulting.
Why did Hunger post his review of Furuli on the same website hosted by Jonsson which contains numerous articles against Furuli and Watchtower chronology? Why did not Hunger publish his review of Furuli in a academic journal?
Again, as I said to you in an email, there are practical reasons for publishing the review this way. To expand on my comments there:
Academic journals have their limitations as far as how much space can be devoted to a review. But as Furuli questions Hunger's (and Hunger's fellow Assyriologists') competence and professional integrity on certain linguistic matters (as well as making the bold, unsupported accusation that VAT 4956 has been deliberately tampered with in modern times!), Hunger felt the need to set the record straight and thoroughly counter many of Furuli's misunderstandings and often nonsensical renderings of the astronomical texts which texts are, after all, Hunger's specialty.
Given that it would be unfair for the academic journals to provide the space for so detailed a critique, the site that Jonsson publishes his articles on offered a platform there. It was a sensible choice - analyses of Furuli's arguments are already posted there, so they're all 'under one roof.' There is no limitation on space. Interest in the review goes beyond ANE academia and a website version would be available to laypersons (JWs and ex-JWs) who were acquainted with Furuli's work.
Perhaps a shortened review will still appear in one of the printed journals - we'll have to wait and see.
How and Why are the reviews of Furuli by Hunger and Jonsson similar in format and substance? Who is the Editor who wrote the Editorial comment prefacing Hunger's review of Furuli and Why is he/she not identified?
Why are the answers to these questions so important to you?
The formatting and Editorial Comment do nothing to detract from Hunger's review; the Editorial Comment is only there to add some background to it. Regarding the identity of its writer(s) - that is up to the site administrators and/or Hunger to disclose, or not, according to their discretion. However, I will tell you that Hunger would have checked and approved the complete and final version of his review before it was put up online. Perhaps the formatting is similar because the same person(s) format the articles in a similar way so that they are easy on the eye and easy to follow. They are certainly not similar in substance, as even a cursory comparison between them shows.
5. Such questions go to the heart of the integrity of Hunger's Review on Furuli for it gives the appearance of 'nit-picking' rather than examining the Furuli's thesis-approach-methodology. None of these three areas are touched upon by Hunger.
6. Furuli's thesis was to compare the Ancient Chronologies- Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian with the Bible a comparison in which Hunger ignores entirely.
7. Hunger's overall Review albeit technical in nature, is superficial in substance, relying or drawing heavily on Jonsson's previous Reviews. He demonstrates his preference of Higher Criticism by elevating Assyrian Chronology above that of the Biblical Record.
Neil, you cannot declare the review 'superficial in substance' or 'nit-picking' when you admitted above (point 2) that you were struggling to follow its technical arguments!
And I repeat: Hunger's focus is primarily on the linguistic side of Furuli's book. He is not a Bible exegete - that is not his field - and an examination of the biblical texts (which has been more than adequately dealt with by others) is irrelevant to Furuli's arguments about the astronomical cuneiform records.
9. There can be no doubt whatsoever that Furuli can benefit from the Reviews of Hunger and Jonsson. Furuli has indeed welcomed such criticisms and suggestions which can only strenghten his overall thesis in my view. This is because Furuli's thesis is based on the biblical seventy years which proves a 20 year Gap between Bible Chronology and Neo-Babylonian Chronology.
You have that backwards. Hunger's and Jonsson's reviews demolish Furuli's hypotheses and the best way Furuli can benefit from them is to recognize he's made a grave error and abandon his (the WTS') chronological model.
Much of Furuli's research involves interpretation of the secular evidence and other scholars do and would have differing opinions but Furuli has the advantage in that he has nothing to lose but everything to gain for afterall his thesis is grounded on the Biblical record. Hunger and Jonsson have everything to loose even if Furuli has only mounted a plausible argument in support of his thesis and at least in this respect Furuli has succeeded.
Well, that isn't going to happen. Furuli's arguments have been found to be grossly implausible and error-prone on numerous levels.
10. ... I have forwarded such links to Furuli so that he can respond to Hunger and Jonsson as he sees fit.
I hope he does. It would be a most fascinating discussion.
In conclusion, this is only a tentative analysis of this most interesting and complex debate and I will have more to say when I get to some details on VAT 4956 for which I have some personal attachment going back at least 40 years.
I look forward to it.
By the way, you lose 1000 points for using the phrase "celebrated WT scholars" in this thread. Shame. And you were doing so well!
-
wobble
WT and Scholars in the same sentence is an oxymoron.
-
PSacramento
Not sure why you guys are bothering, "Scholar" has made it clear that any secualr evidence that go against his interpretation of the bible is viewed as false or corrupted or just plain wrong.
Why? Because HIS interpretation of the bible, which has no chronology in it, says so.
Untill the new light comes out showing that 607 is incorrect, it will always be correct for those to scared to leave their bubble.
-
AnnOMaly
Re: Neil's post #1914 <--- :-)
Furuli has certainly put the 'cat amongst the pidgeons' with his VAT tampering hypothesis.
I rather think that Furuli is the pigeon amongst the cats.
However, his presentation of the matter is quite compelling as he is the only person who has made a proper 'scientific' study of the tablet.
'[Furuli] is the only person who has made a proper "scientific" study of the tablet'? What arrant nonsense is that? For someone who says he's had a personal interest in this tablet for 40 years, it is astonishing that you are unaware of all the other 'proper scientific studies' of the tablet in the scholarly literature that have been published since the early 20th century.
-
Billy the Ex-Bethelite
scholar: "We will be around long after the sands of time have removed that Great Pyramid into the dustbowl of history."
I'm sure that's what the Millerites thought would happen. But they're long gone... just like Russell, Rutherford, Franz, and Jaracz. All false prophets to the very end. Wil Furuli be any different?
-
scholar
AnnOMaly
Post 1507/8
1. A disadvantage that I can live with.
3. The Reviewer would be the reader in this instance.
4. No, I would not say that it is a Svengali influence over certain scholars but simply collusion, a working together to defeat a common enemy. Evidence of collusion was confirmed by my receiving yesterday a reply from Jonsson to a my post, a resposnse to Hunger posted yesterday by means of a third party. Jonsson himself explains the circumstances behind Furuli's review and how and why it was posted on the Internet on a site hosted by Leslie Wiklander and why it was not published in the AFO.
5.6.7. I am firmly of the view that Hunger's review simply amounts to 'nitpicking' presented in a somewhat technical nature. However, their combined reviews of Jonsson and Hunger fail to measure up to Furuli's technical expertise. For example, their coverage of Furuli's analysis of the VAT4956 is somewhat deficient and weak in comparison to Furuli's arguments.
In respect of the astronomical observations I see that there are three different astro programs involved. Furuli has one, Jonsson uses another and Hunger relies on a source in which I suspect have usen another. In order, to make a proper evaluation of Furuli's data then surely there must be a better way of researching and interpreting the Phases of the Moon and the Planets in order to match Neb's 37 th year with either 588 or 568 BCE!.
Furuli was the first scholar to give scientific analysis to VAT 4956, he gives a detailed history of its provenance and the history its scholarship. For this, Furuli should have received commendation from Hunger and not criticism. Further, he gives in a few places a detailed summary of his findings on the tablet in which Hunger ignores and Jonsson trivializes.
Hunger it seems is critical not so much of Furuli's research but his hypothesis that the tablet was subject to modern tampering but he does not address the evidence that Furuli presents as a much plausible hypothesis that cannot and should not be so easily dismissed especially when it is championed to be the 'bees knees' of NB chronology.
9. Furuli ha snothing to lose in this debate but the likes of Hunger, Jonsson and Gallagher have much to loose if Furuli is only approximately correct. His research will move scholarship forward not hinder its progress and this can only be a good thing. Furuli's research is highly technical in nature and no doubt can benefit from criticism and fine tuning especially in areas of translation and the handling of data and if others find errors then such errors should be presented to Furuli.
Furuli is fully aware of what has been published regarding VAT 4956 and if you dispute his claim that his was the first scientific study then you should pursue that with him. For starters, where has anyone else published extensive photographs of the tablet?
Also, Jonsson himself does read these posts on this forum but because he is to busy to post he leaves such responses to the likes of yourself and others in which he chooses to identify.
Awaiting your reply with much anticipation and excitement.
scholar JW
-
isaacaustin
Pseudoscholar, You are a case in point of the deluded who follows a false prophet. Such ones will end up like you and Furuli. Not a good fate!
-
scholar
wobble
Post 3510
Circular reasoning is a product of logic and is not without its pitfalls but in the real world of 'common sense' and rationality it is a legitimated logical device in which we all employ in our normal lives. NB chronology also uses this tool and if WT scholars are accused of it then so be it. Let me put this question to you: Do you think Jesus, the Great Teacher can be accused of using Ciruclar Reasoning as a Rhetorical Device?
scholar JW
-
isaacaustin
Come on pseudoscholar...keep em coming. You are almost at 1919!