Alan F
4466
So where and why not has Jonsson's muddle been reviewed as a Book Review which is the case with Furuli's latest tome.? Please no excuses just get the job done if you have any intellectual spine. A score of one out of twenty is a vast improvement over Jonsson who scores a zero. What the prominent SDA scholar had to say will be revealed when I receive further in formation from Furuli but if you cannot get Jonsson moving then I do not see why I have to reveal other opinions of Furuli's momentous contribution.
When you say Jonsson's work does not need a review then what you are admitting that his work is simply amateurish with no scholarly merit, a piece of worthless 'cult bashing'.
Grabbe's review of Furuli was hardly sarcastic but simply expressed a different opinion in fact he paid Furuli a compliment in stating that Furuli's thesis was a rewriting of scholarship. You pay Furuli a giant compliment when you compare Furuli's thesis with that of the gravitation theory. The so called masses of data supporting the Neo-Babylonian chronology is yet to be fully tested and Furuli unlike Jonsson has the academic credentials to subject current thinking to the blowtorch. There must be something drastically wrong with such secular chronology because the Bible proves there is a twenty year gap between the sacred and secular chronologies.
Regardless of how many lines of evidence used to support current Neo-Babylonian chronology it still conflicts with the biblical 'seventy years' of Jeremiah and the reference work that you have cited endorses 586 rather than Jonsson's 587 date and does not endorse ant precise ending of the Assyrian World Power which is pivotal to the Jonsson hypothesis. So your qoutation from DOTHB simply illustrates current thinking on chronology but methinks Furuli 's research will shake such thinking to its core.
Your quotation from the article by Depuydt indicates apart from sourcing Jonsson's work that there is now a need to prove Ptolemy's canon and that a "shift in the foundations of ancient chronology is to be expected in the years ahead". Such a paradigm shift has already begun with the researching of Babylonian and Egyptian chronology in Furuli's forthcoming second volume.
In regard to your support of Cagni that he himself is not cited in the article ASSYRIA, ASSYRIANS in the same reference and of course neither is Jonsson.
Your claim that Neo-Babylonian chronology solidly nails down the coffin lid on Watchtower chronology is simply wishful thinking because such chronology cannot account for the bib lical seventy years and falls short of some twenty years without mentioning the other problems of incomplete Babylonian and Egyptian history.
Bible Students from the time of Russell have been well served by a carefully crafted biblical chronology that with some fine tuning over many decades has contributed in somme small to the faith in the prophetic word. This contrasts well with secular chronologies base upon the theories of higher critics and poztates who have lost their faith in the truths and beauty of God's Word.
scholar JW