Posts by scholar

248

H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"

by AnnOMaly in

a long-awaited review by professor h. hunger, foremost authority on babylonian astronomical cuneiform tablets, of dr. r. furuli's assyrian, babylonian, and egyptian chronology.

volume ii of assyrian, babylonian, egyptian, and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible is now available to read for anyone who is interested.

you can find it at http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewhunger.htm.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1506

My tentative review of Hunger is constrained by the following; followed by my personal observations:

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.

2. Furuli's work is of a technical nature thus Hunger's review should be the same but for the layman this poses a problem if one has no indepth knowledge of these areas such as linguistics, Semitic languages, philology and ancient astronomy. I can only comment on what I perceive and understand and by comparison of both scholarly responses. Where reference is made to the Bible then I can most certainly comment on the strengths and weaknesses of the argument.

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.

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? 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? 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?

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.

8. Any further assessment of Hunger's review of Furuli can only be done by a careful consideration of Jonsson's Reviews and now vice versa.

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.

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.

10. On the whole Furuli presented to the scholarly community a formidable thesis and argument which takes much courage and boldness, his methodology is very technical and detailed and Hunger and Jonsson have much more work to do if they wish to diminish Furuli's argument. I have forwarded such links to Furuli so that he can respond to Hunger and Jonsson as he sees fit.

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.

scholar JW

248

H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"

by AnnOMaly in

a long-awaited review by professor h. hunger, foremost authority on babylonian astronomical cuneiform tablets, of dr. r. furuli's assyrian, babylonian, and egyptian chronology.

volume ii of assyrian, babylonian, egyptian, and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible is now available to read for anyone who is interested.

you can find it at http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewhunger.htm.

scholar

isaac austin

Posts 6336-6337

Furuli is a scholar, he is an expert in Semitic languages. Hunger is a scholar also, an expert in Assyriology.

scholar JW

248

H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"

by AnnOMaly in

a long-awaited review by professor h. hunger, foremost authority on babylonian astronomical cuneiform tablets, of dr. r. furuli's assyrian, babylonian, and egyptian chronology.

volume ii of assyrian, babylonian, egyptian, and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible is now available to read for anyone who is interested.

you can find it at http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewhunger.htm.

scholar

isaac austin

Post 6335

Neither is Carl Jonsson and Herman Hunger

scholar JW

248

H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"

by AnnOMaly in

a long-awaited review by professor h. hunger, foremost authority on babylonian astronomical cuneiform tablets, of dr. r. furuli's assyrian, babylonian, and egyptian chronology.

volume ii of assyrian, babylonian, egyptian, and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible is now available to read for anyone who is interested.

you can find it at http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewhunger.htm.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1506

I have some time this morning so I should have something of a preliminary nature to say but you must be a good girl.

I found my copy of the article which was on one sheet ot paper with my underlining in red of some of the points that I raised in response to Gallagher on this forum. Carl Jonsson through my friend provided me with some details of Gallagher's academic qualifications just this morning. On the reverse side of my copy which was in fact in my Jonsson file was the Call Number for its holding in the Fisher Library at the University of Sydney. I had simply forgotten all about that Review but when I received another copy I knew immediately that I had it somewhere. Eureka!

Truly, scholar indeed is a 'muddle-headed' wombat to use and Aussie colloquialism.

scholar JW

248

H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"

by AnnOMaly in

a long-awaited review by professor h. hunger, foremost authority on babylonian astronomical cuneiform tablets, of dr. r. furuli's assyrian, babylonian, and egyptian chronology.

volume ii of assyrian, babylonian, egyptian, and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible is now available to read for anyone who is interested.

you can find it at http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewhunger.htm.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1505

A correction to my last post. I have just opened my Inbox for my emails and a friend of mine has just forwarded to me the copy of the Review in the AFO journal and I recognized it straight away. Yes, imust have a copy in my files because I had read and made as you comments on it. I have filed in another file somewhere so when you brought it up I consulted my Jonsson file and it was not there. So, the problem is now resolved and I have not lied to you or to others. Further , my friend also sent a copy of another Review of Jonsson's GTR in the Bibliotheca Orientalis. Now I am very happy to have Reviews by scholars on Jonsson's thesis.

scholar JW

248

H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"

by AnnOMaly in

a long-awaited review by professor h. hunger, foremost authority on babylonian astronomical cuneiform tablets, of dr. r. furuli's assyrian, babylonian, and egyptian chronology.

volume ii of assyrian, babylonian, egyptian, and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible is now available to read for anyone who is interested.

you can find it at http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewhunger.htm.

scholar

Ultimate Reality

Post 183

At last we concur that the seventy years was a period of desolation-servitude and exile. All that you need to change now isarethe events from Babylon to Judah and the two dates. Congratulations you are nearly there!

scholar JW

248

H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"

by AnnOMaly in

a long-awaited review by professor h. hunger, foremost authority on babylonian astronomical cuneiform tablets, of dr. r. furuli's assyrian, babylonian, and egyptian chronology.

volume ii of assyrian, babylonian, egyptian, and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible is now available to read for anyone who is interested.

you can find it at http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewhunger.htm.

scholar

AnnOMaly

Post 1505

You and I have a different definition of humility.

A comparison of both Hunger and Furuli in my opinion shows Hunger's 'nitpicking', Furuli is simply presenting his thesis in a careful manner. It is for the reader to make his /her assessment on this matter.

Yes, I will comment on those points in which I am competent to do so. You are right; 'raising the bar' with Hunger would be useless as shown by his reply by email to me. After all it is not my dispute but Furuli can respong as he sees fit.

Hunger' s 'nitpicking' is the consequence of his ignoring Furuli's methodology.

Frankly, I cannot recall the matter but it well have been that I acted on the basis that a copy was at hand or perhaps I indeed do have a copy somewhere in my files. Anyway, you were not prepared to post a copy of the Review if indeed you have it and can read German. A lie hardly but perhaps a innocent mistake. Can you forgive me?

scholar JW

248

H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"

by AnnOMaly in

a long-awaited review by professor h. hunger, foremost authority on babylonian astronomical cuneiform tablets, of dr. r. furuli's assyrian, babylonian, and egyptian chronology.

volume ii of assyrian, babylonian, egyptian, and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible is now available to read for anyone who is interested.

you can find it at http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewhunger.htm.

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

248

H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"

by AnnOMaly in

a long-awaited review by professor h. hunger, foremost authority on babylonian astronomical cuneiform tablets, of dr. r. furuli's assyrian, babylonian, and egyptian chronology.

volume ii of assyrian, babylonian, egyptian, and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible is now available to read for anyone who is interested.

you can find it at http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewhunger.htm.

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

248

H. Hunger Reviews R. Furuli's "Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II"

by AnnOMaly in

a long-awaited review by professor h. hunger, foremost authority on babylonian astronomical cuneiform tablets, of dr. r. furuli's assyrian, babylonian, and egyptian chronology.

volume ii of assyrian, babylonian, egyptian, and persian chronology compared with the chronology of the bible is now available to read for anyone who is interested.

you can find it at http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewhunger.htm.

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