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