Does he believe every astronomical tablet has been tampered with? I'm not sure how he thinks he can prove all of this when it corroborates with the rest of the evdience
Rolf Furuli's accusation about VAT 4956 being tampered with?
by possiblepineapple 93 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
Phizzy
I agree, even if someone had the expertise, they would know that it would clash with all the other tablets available at the time, but not to them, so why do the fake ?
Furulli is clutching at straws to bolster the already discredited W.T "Chronology". He does his reputation no favours with this heavily contrived nonsense.
-
Fencing
Furuli's entire purpose is just to be the Society's pet "scholar" whom they can point to whenever needed, to say, "See! There's a bonified book-learned person out there who agrees with us!" He provides a facade of there being "disagreement" in the archaeological world. In reality the only disagreement comes from Furuli himself, but the Society doesn't mention him by name, so they can just cite "some scholars" and make the R&F think there's this serious rift in the academic community about the date of Babylon's destruction.
It's such a laughable sham.
-
AnnOMaly
So even I am having trouble with RF's actual posotion regarding the tablet as he appears to argue three seperate cases
Bart, I think Furuli would say he is presenting different hypotheses about what may have happened to account for the problems he perceives with the tablet. He leaves the reader to make up his/her own mind. However, his own conclusions in his 3rd revised version are as follows:
"The following principle conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the discussion of VAT 4956: The diary may be a genuine tablet made in Seleucid times; or it may have been made in modern times [in previous edition: 'but in modern times someone has tampered with some of the cuneiform signs, or, the tablet was made in modern times;'], the obverse side by help of a mold, and the signs on the reverse side being written by someone. Because of the excellent fit of 13, or most likely all 14 lunar positions in 588/87, there are good reasons to believe that the lunar positions represent observations from that year, and that the original lunar tablet that was copied in Seleucid times was made in 588/87. Because three planetary positions are wrong, but not far from being correct, they may represent backward calculations by an astrologer who believed that 568/67 was year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II. Thus, the lunar positions seem to be original observations from 588/87, and the planetary positions, or some of them, seem to be backward calculations for the positions of the planets in 568/67." - p. 416
So untangle that.
Does he believe every astronomical tablet has been tampered with? I'm not sure how he thinks he can prove all of this when it corroborates with the rest of the evdience
Tampering? No, PP. He either tries to undermine the chronological usefulness of other astronomical tablets by quibbling over the interpretation of the signs for e.g. kings' names or the astronomical data, or he tries to redate them to fit with his preferred years.
-
possiblepineapple
Didn't the idea of them referring to other kings kind of get thrown out by COJ when he contacted the British museum about it or something?
-
possiblepineapple
How does the backwards calculating thing even work? It makes no sense
-
possiblepineapple
Isn't it pretty clear the astronomical data fits 567, not 587?
Also is there any chance that Hermann hunger will respond to these new revisions? Although I get the feeling R.F will never concede so we'll never see the end of his ideas
-
Londo111
VAT 4956 fits 568 BC as Nebuchadnezzar's 37th year, making Year 18, 587 BC. And it is pretty clear.
I’m not sure if it is worthwhile thinking too deeply about Rolf’s straw-grasping. Maybe at some point he will say, “Satan tampered with it!”
-
AnnOMaly
Didn't the idea of them referring to other kings kind of get thrown out by COJ when he contacted the British museum about it or something?
COJ has consulted professional cuneiformists to enquire about questionable readings on various tablets, whether it was to do with, say, a king's name or year or month or whatever, and he has published their answers either in his book or online.
How does the backwards calculating thing even work?
Lunar and planetary movements have repeating patterns that can be worked out, or at least approximated, mathematically. One of Furuli's hypotheses is that the Seleucid astrologer-scribes could have retro-calculated the planets' positions to fit with a chronological scheme they subscribed to.
It makes no sense
It's totally bonkers.
Isn't it pretty clear the astronomical data fits 567, not 587?
The diary? Absolutely - despite the two problematic lines.
Also is there any chance that Hermann hunger will respond to these new revisions?
I don't know.
Although I get the feeling R.F will never concede so we'll never see the end of his ideas
No, Furuli will never concede. He's locked himself into his beliefs and he's gone too far now to back down.
IMHO, based on what I've observed through his three editions, for every revision he publishes in response to the criticisms he's sustained, he makes his mess worse. In this latest edition where he addresses Hunger's review, I see him scrambling around, backpedaling on his past accusations (which are retained in this book, clear as day!) then making more, further contradicting himself, further obfuscating, and presenting more embarrassing misunderstandings and errors of fact. Hunger has spent a great deal of his precious time on Furuli already and I wouldn't blame him if he decided not to squander any more of it. Besides, with this latest edition, I think Furuli has dug a sufficiently deep pit for himself all on his own.
-
possiblepineapple
Are those two diary lines at all significant?