ROLF FURULI’S WARPED “RESPONSE TO
CARL OLOF JONSSON” DISPROVED

 

POSTSCRIPT:  RESPONSE TO DAN-AKE MATTSSON 

A REPLY TO DAN-AKE MATTSSON’S ”ADDENDUM”

BY RUD PERSSON, A LONG-TIME FRIEND OF CARL OLOF JONSSON

Why I had to write this statement

 

In chapter 7 of my book The Gentile Times Reconsidered (3^rd ed. 1998; henceforth GTR-3), I discussed some attempts to overcome the crushing burden of evidence that exists against the Watch Tower Society’s date of 607 BCE for the destruction of Jerusalem. In that chapter, I also briefly described a few “unofficial defenses written by scholarly Witnesses,” including two failed attempts that Rolf Furuli wrote and that were sent to me from Norway in 1987 and 1990. 

 

I believe I gave a fair and polite description of Furuli’s two papers in my book. I treated him with respect and mercy, passing over details that I knew would be embarrassing to him. Because I suspected that Furuli might respond to my description of what happened, I made sure that all the details were correct. I can document everything I wrote in GTR-3 about his two papers, as I saved my correspondence with the Norwegian Jehovah’s Witnesses (and others involved) who contacted me after they read Furuli’s papers. Some of these Witnesses had corresponded with him and/or visited him to discuss the chronology. I never asked them to do so, but some of these Witnesses wrote to me and described their conversations with Furuli, and some of them sent me copies of their correspondence with him. They did so because they wanted my opinion of what Furuli had said or written. 

 

In mid-July 2003, a correspondent sent me an email that called attention to Rolf Furuli’s having written a “Response” to what I wrote about him in my book; the response was published in various ways on the Internet (e.g., on the Web site http://www.geocities.com/yhwhbible/furuli.htm). It grieves me that Furuli has painted a warped picture of what took place in connection with his papers and that he has repeatedly claimed that I didn’t tell the truth, that I gave a false presentation of the facts and thus misinformed readers, and that my rebuttal of his papers was unethical and immoral. None of these statements is true.

 

I have no wish to skewer anyone publicly. In connection with Philip Couture’s (an American Jehovah’s Witness) and Furuli’s papers, I wrote to both of them (to Furuli twice) and told them so and said that I would prefer to have private discussions with them about the Society’s chronology in a friendly, scholarly and Christian manner, instead of dealing with their criticism publicly in a coming edition of my book. Neither of them responded to my offer. Because Furuli has now gone public with a distorted version of the course of events I described in my book, I’m forced to disclose the facts about his claims and actions, including some of the less honorable ones.

 

 

FURULI’S FIRST PAPER

 

Did Furuli forbid his friend to lend his paper to others?

 

The first paragraph of Furuli’s “Response” contains several errors. He says:

 

“In 1986 I was approached by a friend of mine who had read Jonsson’s book, and he asked what I knew about the New Babylonian Chronology. After the conversation I lent him an organized collection of some of my notes, in order to help him in his study about the subject. Without my permission this person let my notes be copied and they were sent to Jonsson.”

 

These statements are incorrect. First, the year was 1987, not 1986. Second, it was Furuli who approached his old friend, not vice versa. Third, Furuli lent his so-called “notes” to his friend without any restrictions or reservations whatsoever. This friend, therefore, felt free to let several of his Witness friends read the material, and so some of them made copies of it. In a letter to me dated August 26, 1987, Furuli’s friend—a Norwegian Witness in Stathelle, Norway, named Bent Philipsen—told me how it all began. He wrote:

 

“One evening in January [1987] he [Furuli] quite unexpectedly called me on the phone, after we had not seen each other for many years, and had not discussed Biblical questions since the beginning of the 1970’s, to hear, as he said, what I felt about the unrest that existed here in this area to which he knew I had moved a few years earlier. During our conversation we found out that both of us had read your and Raymond Franz’ books, and he then invited me to visit them in Oslo on a weekend some weeks later. Why he called me just at that time I don’t know, but a few weeks earlier I had written to the Society regarding disfellowshippings and other matters.

 

“On Saturday, when all four of us [their wives included] were discussing the Gentile times, he took out his ‘tied-up’ [in Norwegian, ‘innbundne’] manuscript that I was allowed to take with me home, and before we left he advised Kirsten [Philipsen’s wife] against reading your book, and gave her his handwritten Biblical passages in Hebrew, plus a copy of Boscawen’s Addenda on the three kings from the [Ancient Near] East. He said nothing to the effect that his notes could not be read by others than myself, and I therefore lent them out to several others here, and he has never blamed me for that.”—Letter from Philipsen to Jonsson, dated August 26, 1987. 

 

As this letter confirms, Furuli didn’t tell Philipsen that he couldn’t share the material with others or copy it. Despite this fact, Furuli has repeatedly claimed that his material was “stolen!”

 

“Unworked notes.” Why wasn’t anyone told?

 

The paper that Furuli handed over to Philipsen, a ‘tied-up’ manuscript of more than 110 pages, was well organized, containing a title, an introduction, chapter divisions and chapter headings, subheadings, etc., and a bibliography at the end. The manuscript was a systematically organized attempt to refute my book. No one could get the impression that it was just some “unworked notes” or that it didn’t represent Furuli’s detailed views. Furuli didn’t tell Philipsen so, nor did he tell him that the notes contained views and arguments he no longer believed himself and that it therefore would be “wrong to quote them as an expression of my present viewpoints.” Because Furuli hadn’t forbidden him to lend the manuscript to others or to make copies of it, Philipsen shared the material with several friends. He, like others who read it, got the definite impression that this manuscript was Furuli’s promised “answer” to my book, and Furuli didn’t tell him otherwise.

 

Roar Henriksen, a former third-generation Jehovah’s Witness in Langesund, Norway, who broke with the organization a few weeks earlier, sent me Furuli’s manuscript on February 4, 1987. In the accompanying letter, Henriksen referred to the rumor that Furuli had been preparing an “answer” to my book, stating: “Here you have the result.” (Letter from Henriksen to Jonsson, February 4, 1987) He, too, pointed out in his letter that Furuli hadn’t asked that the material not be copied, and because the manuscript didn’t contain a copyright, he felt free to give me a copy and ask for my comments. Henriksen felt it was quite in order to let an author have a look at criticism of his book. I later came to know Philipsen and Henriksen personally and found them to be honest, sincere and trustworthy men, as well as Christians with a strong faith in God’s Word.

 

For a couple of years, rumors had circulated among the Witnesses in Norway, and to some extent among the Witnesses in Sweden, that Furuli was preparing a treatise that would refute my book. So when his paper of more than 110 pages came into my hands, I took it for granted that the manuscript was his promised “refutation.” Upon reading it, I found that Furuli not only criticized my book, but repeatedly questioned my motives, honesty, faith in God and his Word, and so on. Because we had never met and he evidently knew nothing about me aside from my book, I took this questioning for what it obviously was—a reflection of the usual negative attitude that loyal Witnesses have of so-called “apostates”, something I had become used to.

 

In an answer to Henriksen dated February 13, 1987, I made some critical comments about Furuli’s material and promised to work on a more detailed refutation as soon as I found some time. I also sent Henriksen a copy of my booklet, The Watch Tower Society and Absolute Chronology, published in 1981 under the pen-name Karl Burganger. I also forwarded the booklet and my initial critical comments to Philipsen, who presented them to Furuli later in February. In this way, Furuli found out that someone had sent his material to me, and in a letter to Philipsen dated March 1, 1987, he deplored that his notes “had come into the hands of disfellowshiped persons.” In his “Response” Furuli now claims that, “When I realized this, I wrote a letter to Jonsson and pointed out that the notes were copied against my will” and that he asked me to destroy them.

 

Furuli’s statement isn’t true. He didn’t send me a letter at this time, nor did he tell Philipsen that his material was just “unworked notes” that “not in all details” represented his own views.

 

Did Furuli send his letter to me before or after my rebuttal?

 

Furuli goes on to say: “Instead of complying with my request, Jonsson kept my notes, and offered a ‘rebuttal’ to them, which he sent to different persons, and they finally reached me.”

 

This presentation of the events is false. To be able to accuse me of  “unethical” conduct, Furuli turns the course of events upside-down. He misrepresents the order of events by claiming (1) that he wrote to me when he realized [in February, 1987] that someone had sent his “notes” to me, (2) that I then didn’t comply with his request, (3) that I wrote my rebuttal after I had received his request, and (4) that only then did my rebuttal finally reach him.

 

The actual course of events is as follows: (1) Soon after Furuli’s manuscript reached me early in February 1987, I began work on a rebuttal. (2) I sent the first part of my rebuttal, a discussion of 31 pages, to my Norwegian correspondents on April 10,  and Philipsen at once sent a copy of it to Furuli. (3) About a week after Furuli received my rebuttal, he sent me a letter dated April 23. [His letter was actually dated “23.4.86”, which was an obvious typing error for “23.4.87.”] I immmediately wrote to Furuli in a letter dated April 27, 1987, telling him that I would comply with his requests provided that he, too, stop circulating his paper and put an end to the false rumor that he had refuted my book.

 

In his April 23 letter, Furuli for the first time explained to one of us who had his material that it was just “unworked notes” that “not in all details represent my present view,” and that “it is wrong to quote them as an expression of my present viewpoints.” If these comments reflected how Furuli viewed his material when he first shared it with Philipsen in January 1987, why didn’t he inform him? And when later in February he found out that Philipsen had shared the material with other Witnesses, and that I, too, had received a copy, why didn’t he inform anyone that the manuscript wasn’t an expression of his own viewpoints? It was only after he had received the first 31 pages of my refutation that he began to describe his manuscript as “unworked notes” that “not in all details” represented his present viewpoints.

 

Did I have to guess about Furuli’s reaction to my rebuttal? 

 

Furuli either deliberately—and therefore dishonestly—concealed from Philipsen and others that his paper wasn’t a trustworthy answer to my book, or he didn’t realize that it wasn’t trustworthy, until he read the first part of my refutation. Henriksen, Philipsen and others, including me, concluded that the latter was the case. That’s why I wrote (in GTR-3, p. 30 that “Furuli quickly realized that his discussion had been shown to be untenable.”

 

Furuli now claims: “This is not true. Because Jonsson cannot read the thoughts of others, how can he know that I realized that my notes were untenable, and how can he know that I sent the letter to him in order to stop him circulating his ‘rebuttal’? The truth is that I sent my letter to him before I read his so-called ‘rebuttal’, and my only motive was to notify him that he had no right to use my property, which was stolen, in any way.”

 

That Furuli’s letter was an attempt to stop the circulation of my rebuttal is obvious. In his letter, he explicitly asked me to destroy my copy of his manuscript and never quote from it in any context. This request, of course, implied that he didn’t want me to circulate my rebuttal, which contained numerous quotations from his manuscript.

 

As shown earlier, a copy of the first part of my rebuttal came into Furuli’s hands about a week before he wrote to me. His version of the story, however, which is demonstrably false, is that he didn’t get the copy until a long time after he wrote to me. That’s why he claims that he hadn’t read my rebuttal when he sent his letter. It seems obvious, then, that the real reason Furuli wrote to me was that my rebuttal reached him the week before.

 

That Furuli, upon reading my rebuttal, “quickly realized that his discussion had been shown to be untenable,” is demonstrably true. I didn’t have to read Furuli’s thoughts or guess his reactions when I wrote this statement in my book, because Furuli himself had admitted this fact in a conversation with two Witnesses, Jan and Wenche Kalstø from Sandefjord, Norway, who were twice invited to visit Furuli for conversations in 1990. During the second conversation, they wanted to read to Furuli from my rebuttal of his first paper and ask for his comments. But he refused to let them do so, admitting that his paper “represented a ‘strawman’, so what he had written was easy for Jonsson to refute.” (Letter from Kalstø to Jonsson, dated October 26, 1990) In a letter to Furuli dated January 1, 1991, Jan & Wenche Kalstø reminded Furuli of this fact, stating: “We have read your treatise (the ‘Strawman’), which is totally crushed by Jonsson’s ‘Reply’. You took exception to it yourself at our last meeting, stating that it was easy for Jonsson to overturn it. Why, then, don’t you tell this straight out to those you lend it to? Instebø [an elder] in Bergen did not get any such reservations.”

 

Thus, I didn’t have to read Furuli’s thoughts, and I didn’t have to speculate about Furuli’s reactions to my rebuttal, and therefore I didn’t, as Furuli claims, commit “a methodological blunder, which a balanced researcher should not commit.” My statement about his reaction was based on his own admissions to fellow Witnesses.

 

Did Furuli stop the circulation of his paper?

 

As explained above, upon receiving Furuli’s letter of April 23, I at once sent him an answer, dated April 27, 1987, in which I promised not to circulate his notes or quote from them and to stop the distribution of the first part of my refutation of them, provided that he, too, stop the circulation of his manuscript and also explain to the Norwegian Witnesses that the rumor that he had written a treatise in which he refuted my book was false. I soon found out, however, that he continued to share his manuscript with other Witnesses.

 

In his “Response” Furuli now claims that he didn’t distribute his manuscript after this correspondence: “I see that Jonsson claims that I ‘continued to circulate’ my ‘paper’ (= my unfinished notes), and that moved him to write his rebuttal which was subsequently sent to me. Again he does not tell the truth. I have never ‘distributed’ the notes that were copied and sent to Jonsson, to anybody, except the one person I mentioned earlier and to one other person. Because the material was nothing but unfinished notes, there was no reason for a distribution of it.”

 

Here again, Furuli isn’t telling the truth. Norwegian Witnesses informed me that Furuli continued to circulate his paper (his “unfinished notes”) after I answered his letter. And he was still doing so as late as 1990, when some Witnesses in Norway wrote to me and told me that Furuli had lent his first paper or parts thereof to several Witnesses, among them an elder in Oslo, Danne Mattson, and other elders in the city of Bergen (including R. Instebø). I also found out that these Witnesses used the paper in their discussions about the Society’s chronology.—Letter from Jan & Wenche Kalstø to Jonsson, dated September 20, 1990.

 

Furuli’s statements about this matter, therefore, simply aren’t true. He continued to circulate his paper, and he did so despite the fact that in a private conversation he had admitted that the paper was “a ‘strawman,’ so what he had written was easy for Jonsson to refute.”

 

In other places in Norway, too, elders continued to defend the Society’s chronology by referring to Furuli’s “refutation” of my book. Clearly, then, Furuli did nothing to end this false rumor, and so, because he didn’t stick to our agreement, I saw no reason to destroy his paper or prevent the Norwegian Witnesses from circulating my rebuttal. Instead, I decided to continue working on the remaining two parts of my rebuttal.

 

I also found out that Furuli spread a claim, orally as well as in writing (e.g., in a letter to Åge Grønning dated 22.7.90), that I had stolen his material!  How could I steal something that I didn’t even know existed until someone sent it to me? The accusation was so absurd that I didn’t even bother to discuss it. In his present “Response” Furuli continues to speak of his paper as “stolen material,” although he doesn’t directly refer to me as the “thief.”

 

 

FURULI’S SECOND PAPER

 

Another set of “unfinished notes”?

 

By early 1990, Furuli had prepared a second paper in which he tried to overcome the evidence presented in my work. In his “Response” Furuli describes this paper, too, as “not a ‘paper’” but “unfinished notes” that “were still in the preliminary stage.” These statements are strange, indeed, in view of the fact that he explicitly stated in a letter to a Witness in Norway, Åge Grønning, that the second paper was a finished work, in contrast to his earlier paper. Furuli wrote to Grönning about the new paper:

 

“Even if the material you want to read is a finished work [in Norwegian, “ferdig bearbeitet”], I do not want it to fall into the hands of disfellowshipped persons, and am, therefore, keeping down the copies of it.”—Letter from Furuli to Åge Grønning dated July 22, 1990.

 

Furuli was apparently so afraid that his new paper would fall into my hands that he lent it only to Witnesses he fully trusted. These people, in turn, weren’t allowed to copy it or share it with other Witnesses. They were allowed to let other Witnesses who had been disturbed after reading my book read it, but only in their presence and under their supervision. (Letter from Jan & Wenche Kalstø to Furuli, dated January 1, 1991) Thus Furuli sought to prevent his criticism from reaching the author of the book he was criticizing. He sought to prevent the Witnesses from hearing what the author himself had to say about the criticism of his book. He wanted to keep the stage and the audience for himself. What scholar who wants to be taken seriously would surround his criticism of another scholar’s work with rules aimed at preventing the scholar he’s criticizing from reading and responding to his criticism?

 

How the second paper reached me

 

Furuli claims that one of the Witnesses to whom he had lent his second paper (Jan Kalstø) “went straight away to a copying machine and the new set of unfinished notes [sic!] were immediately sent to Jonsson.” This statement is a groundless guess. Kalstø did not do that. But he did make the contents of part of the material known to me in another way. Also, Furuli had shared his new material, wholly or in part, with other Witnesses, so other people, including Grønning, sent different parts of  the 36 pages to me. In this way, I finally received the whole paper and had the opportunity to read it and prepare a refutation.

 

Slanderous lies

 

Finally, in their discussions with Furuli, Åge Grønning and Jan and Wenche Kalstø were shocked at the way Furuli dragged my name through the mud and repeatedly attacked me and my motives. In a discussion with Jan and Wenche Kalstø about my Supplement to the Gentile Times Reconsidered (published 1989), Furuli claimed that I had falsified letters from authorities, that my quotations from letters I received from scholars D. J. Wiseman and C.B.F. Walker were false, and that he had received a letter from Walker that contradicted what I wrote. Because Furuli did not allow the Kalstøs to read Walker’s letter, they wrote to me and asked about these allegations. I sent the Kalstøs copies of the letters I received from Wiseman and Walker that proved that I cited them correctly. I also wrote to Walker and asked him about his letter to Furuli. He sent me a copy of that letter, which I forwarded to the Kalstøs. They could see that nothing in the letter contradicted what I had written. They were forced to conclude that Furuli had lied to them and had tried to hoodwink them, which made them very upset. (Letter from Jan & Wenche Kalstø to Jonsson, dated September 20, 1990)

 

When, a few months later, Jan and Wenche Kalstø decided to leave the Witness organization, they wrote a letter to Furuli that included copies of the letters from Wiseman and Walker and pointed out that he had lied to them. They explained that one of the reasons for their decision to leave the organization was the dishonest methods he and other Witnesses used.—Letter from Jan & Wenche Kalstø to Rolf Furuli, dated January 1, 1991.

 

I find no pleasure in describing the shortcomings of others, either publicly or privately, and I usually refrain from doing so. No one is perfect, and I’m well aware of my own faults. That I have here made known the above information about Furuli’s statements and conduct, therefore, is a rare exception that I feel forced into by his decision to publicize false statements.

 

Göteborg, September 2003

 

Carl Olof Jonsson

 

 

Confirmation:

 

The ”Disproval” above was sent to the persons involved to get their viewpoints. Jan Kalstø couldn’t be reached, as he had left Norway on August 15 for a trip round the world in his sailing-boat. Bent Philipsen, Roar Henriksen, and Åge Grønning all responded and approved of my use of their correspondence. As to the contents of my ”Disproval”, Bent Philipsen writes in his letter of August 27, 2003: ”I readily confirm that your description and the whole course of events agree with what I remember from that time.” Roar Henriksen wrote me a letter in English, also dated August 27, 2003, confirming that ”your description is exact in every detail.” Bent and Roar were not involved with Furuli’s second paper, but Roar Henriksen writes that ”I can only confirm that specific part of your reply as similar to what Jan Kalstø told me some years ago.”

 

 

Rolf Furuli’s new book

 

About a month ago, around the end of July and not long after Rolf Furuli’s ”Response” to me was made public on the internet, Furuli also published a new book, Persian Chronology and the Length of the Babylonian Exile of the Jews (Oslo: Rolf Furuli A/S, 2003). A closer look at the book reveals that this is just another ”strawman,” one more abortive attempt to overcome the evidence against the Watchtower Society’s chronology. This needs to be demonstrated, of course, and the book will be dealt with to all the recognized rules in due time on this site and elsewhere.

 

 

POSTSCRIPT:  RESPONSE TO DAN-AKE MATTSSON

Soon after I published the above disproof, Dan-Ake Mattsson, one of Rolf Furuli’s Jehovah’s Witness friends in Oslo, published a statement on the Internet (http://www.geocities.com/yhwhbible/mattsson.htm)

in defense of some of Furuli’s claims. Like Furuli’s “Response,” Mattsson’s statement is based on a distortion of facts, so I will here clarify the facts.

 

Mattsson’s first claim is:

 

“Jonsson takes conjecture as data”

 

Dan-Ake Mattsson says he is not concerned with differences “based on the details persons remember and do not remember fifteen years after the events.” Because my above disproof was not based on memory or conjecture, but on written correspondence I received in 1987, 1990, and 1991, Mattsson’s reference to what “court psychologists” say, etc. is irrelevant.

 

In my disproof  I stated that “some Witnesses in Norway wrote to me and told me that Furuli had lent his first paper or parts thereof to several Witnesses,” two of whom were Danne (Dan-Ake) Mattsson in Oslo and R. Instebø in Bergen. Mattsson claims that neither he nor Roald Instebø received Furuli’s 110-page manuscript. Note that he repeatedly mentions “the manuscript of 110 pages”, but carefully avoids mentioning whether Furuli loaned any parts of it to anyone. But some of my Norwegian sources state that both Mattsson and Instebø received at least parts of Furuli’s manuscript. Here are statements from two of them, Jan and Wenche Kalstø, directly quoted from their letters:

 

“We have read Furuli’s answer [of 23 April, 1987], where he claims that the treatise has only been lent out to his ‘faithless friend’. This is not the case. An elder in Oslo, Danne Mattson, has been allowed to read it and referred from [Norwegian: ‘refererte fra’] this work for us; it is generally known among the friends in the Oslo area that Furuli has refuted your book. Also in Bergen individual elders have been lent parts [italics added] of Furuli’s works and have referred to them in their ministry.”—Letter from Jan and Wenche Kalstø in Sandefjord, Norway, to Jonsson, dated 20 September, 1990.

 

In a letter to Furuli dated 1 January, 1991, Jan & Wenche Kalstø asked him why he loaned his first paper to others without any reservations, stating: “We have read your treatise (the ‘Strawman’), which is totally crushed by Jonsson’s ‘Reply’. You took exception to it yourself at our last meeting, stating that it was easy for Jonsson to overturn it. Why, then, don’t you tell this straight out to those you lend it to? Instebø [an elder] in Bergen did not get any such reservations.”

 

The question, then, is: Who is telling the truth, Jan & Wenche Kalstø or Dan-Ake Mattsson? If Mattsson insists that Jan & Wenche Kalstø lied about Instebø and him in their letters, this is an issue between them and him. Unfortunately, I have not been able to get in touch with either of them. As I said, Jan Kalstø left Norway for a trip around the world in his sailboat in August 2003, and I don’t know how to contact him.

 

Nevertheless, it is doubtful that the Kalstø’s would have lied about who received parts of Furuli’s manuscript so long ago. There would have been no point to it. Furuli could easily clear this up by publishing a copy of the Kalstø’s 1 January, 1991 letter to him (or at least, the relevant statements) on the Internet, along with the answer he may have sent them.

 

Mattsson goes on to discuss:

 

“The judicial and the ethical side of the matter”

 

Mattsson claims that he uses the data I gave in my above disproof as a basis for his discussion. But he does not! On the contrary, he erroneously states (point 3) that Furuli wrote me a letter dated “23 February 1987”, asking me to destroy his “notes”, and that (point 4), instead of destroying the notes, I “made a ‘rebuttal’ of 31 pages”. These are not the data I gave, as anyone can see in my above disproof. Furuli did not write me a letter dated “23 February 1987”. As I pointed out, the letter he wrote was dated two months later, 23 April, and I received it more than two weeks after I sent my 31-page rebuttal to my Norwegian correspondents. Like Furuli in his “Response,” then, Mattsson turns the course of events upside-down, claiming that I wrote my 31-page rebuttal after Furuli sent me his letter, so as to be able to accuse me of “unethical” conduct. Because Mattsson’s discussion of the “ethical side” is based on these false statements, his conclusions are, of course, groundless.

 

A careful look at Mattsson’s version of events shows that it’s not even self-consistent. Here is a summary of his version:

 

1.  4 February 1987: Furuli’s manuscript is sent to me.

 

2.  10 April 1987: I send a 31 page rebuttal to my Norwegian friends, who immediately send it to Furuli.

 

3.  23 February 1987: Furuli writes me a letter telling me to destroy his manuscript, about a week after he received my 31 page rebuttal.

 

4.  At an unspecified time after 1., 2., and 3., I make a rebuttal of 31 pages, and add 62 more pages to it.

 

Mattsson obviously has 2., 3. and 4. wrong, because if he claims his dates are correct, then 2. and 3. must be reversed in time. But then the sequence of events conflicts, because if Furuli received my 31 page rebuttal from my friends about 16 February, then I cannot have sent it to my friends on 10 April. But if 3. should be dated 23 April, as I stated above, then Mattsson’s claim in 4. is false. Obviously then, if Mattsson is unable correctly to give the times of four simple events, then he has no business claiming that he’s used time-dependent “data” to refute anything I’ve written.

 

With Furuli’s permission, I am willing to publish on the Internet a copy of his 23 April letter to me. Furuli could help clear the air on the date of this letter by giving me such permission, and by publishing his own copy (presuming he kept one) of the letter. We would then see who is telling the truth. It may be added that I shared copies of his letter with my Norwegian correspondents at that time, so they, too, know very well when Furuli wrote his letter.

 

It’s true that I later decided to write the two subsequent parts of my refutation (62 additional pages). I did this because of the information I received that Furuli, contrary to his implication that he would not, allowed his so-called “unfinished notes” to be circulated, wholly or in part, among Witnesses in Norway. Furuli and Mattsson both deny this. So far, however, they have not been able to present any factual evidence, such as copies of letters, indicating that my sources of information were and are unreliable. Are Furuli and Mattsson prepared to publicly accuse Jan & Wenche Kalstø of lying?

 

Mattsson ends by stating that he felt obliged to write his statement “because Jonsson has distorted the facts, and I know these facts.” As has been demonstrated above, it is Mattsson who has distorted the facts. Whether he has done so deliberately or not, I don’t know. If he really knows the facts, as he claims, then he has deliberately distorted them.

Carl Olof Jonsson, 19 September, 2003

 

 

 

A REPLY TO DAN-AKE MATTSSON’S ”ADDENDUM”

BY RUD PERSSON, A LONG-TIME FRIEND OF CARL OLOF JONSSON

 

Since the above ”Postscript” was written, Dan-Ake Mattsson has published an ”Addendum” to his ”Statement”, claiming that Carl Olof Jonsson ”twisted” his statements. He certainly did not. Since Mattsson also added some further distortions of Jonsson’s statements above, his ”Addendum” calls for correction.

Mattsson claims that ”It was Jonsson who started the whole thing by giving false information regarding Furuli in his book.” As Jonsson has alreday shown, this is not in harmony with the facts.

 

I have copies of most of the relevant letters and papers pertaining to this affair and I admire Jonsson´s calmness when writing about it in his book. Having the same information I personally would not have been as kind as Jonsson was if I were to write about it. There certainly was no reason not to accept the testimony of the Norwegian people who wrote to Jonsson about it. And that testimony was crystal clear: Furuli continued to let his material circulate after he wrote to Jonsson. It was not ”bad judgment” to accept these letters at face value. I know several of the people involved in Norway and they affirmed that Furuli’s material continued to circulate. None of them was informed by Furuli that his material was just ”unworked notes” that did not ”represent his present views” and therefore should be destroyed. Not even his old friend whom he had first lent the manuscript was informed about this. Furuli evidently felt it was only Jonsson who should be told this! It cannot be doubted, therefore, that Furuli himself was largely responsible for the circulation of his manuscript. I strongly adviced Jonsson to deal with this publicly in the 3rd edition of his book in English. And reluctantly he did so. 

 

Jonsson, after receiving Furuli’s letter, wanted to comply with Furuli’s wish not to circulate his rebuttal. This was also natural, for Jonsson, as his letter to Furuli shows, wanted to have a private dialogue with Furuli and sort out the issues re chronology between them. I have known Jonsson since 1974, and he is one of the most peaceful, fair and honest persons I know. He also has a firm belief in the Scriptures. But Furuli obviously did not want such a dialoge. However, it was only when reliable reports indicated that distribution of Furuli’s material continued, that Carl decided to distribute his rebuttal again. And the letters and other information received from Norway clearly showed that Furuli blackened Jonsson in a most vicious way. In a letter dated ”22.7.90” he even went as far as to claim that Jonsson had ”stolen” his ”unfinished notes” - an outrageous lie!  The two sets of Furuli’s written material received from different parts of Norway also conveyed the impression that Jonsson was dishonest!

I have copies of these sets and can testify that the 110-page manuscript as received many years ago does not contain a lot of pencil notes as Mattsson claims that the copy he now has seen does. There are only a few notes in the copy I have.  Obviously the bulk of the pencil notes etc were added later when Furuli had read Jonsson’s refutation of the manuscript. In a  letter received from Norway dated  ”20/9-90” it was stated that Mattsson had read the manuscript and had referred to its content in a conversation with the one who wrote this letter. In spite of what Mattsson claims, I still believe that the letter tells the truth. This does not necessarily mean that Mattson is now lying. I rather believe that his memory does not serve him well. However, his claim that as Jehovah’s Witnesses he and Furuli could not lie is unfounded. My study of the history of the Watchtower organization has made it quite clear that Witnesses are capable of lying when the interests of the organization so demands.

The sole basis for Furuli’s accusations is his false claim that he sent his letter to Jonsson already in February 1987 when he had realized that Jonsson had received a copy of his manuscript, and that Jonsson, instead of complying with his request to destroy it, started to write a rebuttal of it. Mattsson repeats this false story, even pinpointing the date of Furuli’s letter to February 23, 1987. Although Jonsson has repeatedly demonstrated that this is a gross distortion of the actual course of events, Mattsson ignores Jonsson’s correction and just repeats the same false story in his ”Addendum”! He states ”It is a completely different situation when a person definitely says: ’these are not my views,’ and his opponent ignores this saying, and makes a rebuttal to the views that the other person has denied that he has. This is exactly what Jonsson has done in connection with Furuli.”

However, this is exactly what Jonsson did not do. Furuli sent him his letter after, not before, he had received his rebuttal of 31 pages.

A copy of the letter is posted here, so that anyone, and in particular Mattsson, can check its date:

As anyone can see, the letter is clearly dated, not in February as Furuli and Mattsson claim, but on 23 April, just as Jonsson wrote in his book. This was about two weeks after he had sent the first part of his rebuttal to Norway on April 10, and about a week after Furuli had received a copy of it. The date of Furuli’s letter definitely and irrevocably disproves Furuli’s and Mattsson’s version of the event. Let us hope that the hard facts shown here will settle the matter.

Rud Persson, Ljungbyhed, Sweden, October 10, 2003

A critical review of Rolf Furuli’s 2^nd volume on chronology:

 

Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian Chronology. Volume II of Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible

(Oslo: Awatu Publishers, 2007).

 

Part I:  The astronomical “diary” VAT 4956

 

©  Carl Olof Jonsson, Göteborg, Sweden, 2007

 

 

Rolf Furuli’s new book on chronology, Assyrian, Babylonian and Egyptian Chronology (Oslo: Awatu Publishers, 2007), covers 368 pages. Chapter 6 (pages 94-123) and Appendix C (266-325), which together cover 90 pages or about 25 percent of the book, are devoted to an attempt to overcome the evidence provided by the astronomical cuneiform tablet VAT 4956, dated to the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar II.

 

VAT 4956 is a so-called astronomical “diary” that records the positions of the moon and the five planets visible to the naked eye observed during the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar. About 30 of these records are so well preserved that they can be checked by modern computations. These computations have confirmed that the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar corresponds to year 568/567 BCE (spring-to-spring).

 

For a detailed description of this tablet and its importance for the absolute chronology of the Neo-Babylonian period, see pages 157-164 of my book The Gentile Times Reconsidered, 4^th edition (Atlanta: Commentary Press, 2004).  

 

 

 

 

HAS VAT 4956 BEEN “TAMPERED WITH” IN MODERN TIMES?

 

Furuli dedicates a substantial part of his discussion to arguing that the cuneiform signs on the tablet have been “deliberately tampered with” in modern times. In particular he claims that the signs for “year 37” at the beginning of the text in line 1 on the obverse of the tablet and the signs for “year 38” and “year 37” in the concluding lines at the lower edge on the reverse seem to have been “incised” by someone in modern times. He also claims that the signs for the name “Nebuchadnezzar” in line 1 on the obverse have been manipulated. After a lengthy analysis Furuli presents the following hypothesis on pages 285, 286:

 

“A consideration of the data above together with the unusual publication history of the tablet leads to the following hypothesis: VAT 4956 is an authentic cuneiform tablet that was copied from older tablets in one of the last centuries B.C.E. It came to the Vorderasiatische Museum in Berlin about 1905 as one single entity. Someone discovered that the tablet was extremely important because it was an astronomical tablet with the hitherto oldest astronomical observations. These observations seemed to fit year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II according to the chronology of Ptolemy, but a clear connection with Nebuchadnezzar II was lacking. In order to make this connection perfectly clear, the one working with the tablet used a modern grinding machine on the edge of the tablet, thus incising the signs for ‘year 37’ and ‘year 38.’ The first line with the name of the king was also manipulated. Because of the vibration, the tablet broke into three pieces, which were then glued together. It was discovered that the fit of the signs on both sides of the break on the reverse side was not perfect, and a grinding machine was used to try to remedy this. If this hypothesis is correct, a direct link to years 37 and 38 of Nebuchadnezzar II was not originally found on the tablet, but the lunar observations are genuine, while the planetary positions are probably backward calculations.”

 

On pages 295-324 Furuli discusses the astronomical contents reported on the tablet. He finds that the planetary positions on the whole fit the year 568/567 BCE, but claims that the 13 lunar positions better fit the year 588/587 BCE. At the end of the Appendix on pages 324, 325, therefore, he draws the following conclusions:

 

 “The following principal conclusions can be drawn on the basis of the discussion of VAT 4956: The Diary is most likely a genuine tablet made in Seleucid times, but in modern times someone has tampered with some of the cuneiform signs. Because of the excellent fit of all 13 lunar positions in 588/87, there are good reasons to believe that the lunar positions represent observations from that year, and that the original tablet that was copied in Seleucid times was made in 588/87. Because so many of the planetary positions are approximately correct, but not completely correct, there are good reasons to believe that they 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 are backward calculations for the positions of the planets in 568/67.”

What about the claim that someone in modern times has “tampered” with the signs on the tablet and, by using “a modern grinding machine on the edge of the tablet,” has incised the signs for ‘year 37’ and ‘year 38’ on the tablet? Furuli proposes this idea as a “hypothesis,” as he knows very well that he has not been able to present any evidence in support of the idea.

 

According to Furuli’s hypothesis, the supposed modern forger did not only incise the signs for “year 37” and “year 38” at the edge of the tablet. He also incised the signs for “year 37” and “manipulated” the signs for the name of the king, Nebuchadnezzar, in the beginning of line 1 on the obverse. The first question is how he could have done this, as there would have been no space at all at the beginning of the line for adding anything?

 

If there was another date and a different royal name on the original tablet, the modern forger had first to remove these signs (with the supposed grinding machine?) before the signs of the new date and the signs of the changes of the royal name could be incised on the tablet. But such a replacement of the first signs of line 1 could never have been done without leaving clear traces (e.g., depressions in the tablet) at the beginning of the line. No such traces exist. The signs look quite genuine. As one specialist on cuneiform points out:  

 

“Anyone acquainted with cuneiform can see that ‘year 37’ and ‘year 38’ are written by an experienced scribe. No modern person could have achieved to scratch (into dried clay!!) true-looking signs.” (Communication Hermann Hunger–C. O. Jonsson, Jan. 8, 200

 

Another problem with Furuli’s hypothesis is the identity of the supposed modern forger of the dates and the royal name on the tablet. The first translation of the tablet was that of Paul V. Neugebauer and Ernst Weidner, whose translation together with an astronomical examination and a discussion of it was published back in 1915. (“Ein astronomischer Beobachtungstext aus dem 37. Jahre Nebukadnezars II. (– 567/66),” Berichte über die Verhandlungen der königlich sächlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Leipzig. Philologisch-historische Klasse. 67. Band. Leipzig: B. G. Teubner, 1915)

 

As the article by Neugebauer and Weidner clearly shows, the date and the royal name (“year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar”) were already on the tablet in 1915 when they were examining it. Are we to believe that these two scholars were forgers, who co-operated in removing some of the original signs on the tablet and replacing them with signs of their own preference? Even Furuli admits that he “cannot imagine that any scientist working with the tablet at the Vorderasiatische Museum has committed fraud.” (Furuli, p. 285) He has no idea about who the supposed forger may have been, or how he/she managed to change the signs on line 1 without leaving any traces of it on the tablet.  

 

Finally, Furuli’s hypothesis is self-contradictory. If it were true that the planetary positions “represent backward calculations by an astrologer who believed that 568/67 was year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar II,” and if it were true that “the original tablet that was copied in Seleucid times was made in 588/87,” which Furuli argues was the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar, then the astrologer/copyist must have dated the tablet to the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar from the very beginning! No modern manipulation of the date would then have been necessary.

 

Furuli’s hypothesis is simply untenable. The only reason for his suggesting it is the desperate need to get rid of a tablet that inexorably demolishes his “Oslo [= Watchtower] chronology” and firmly establishes the absolute chronology for the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II (604-562 BCE).

 

As discussed in chapter 4 of my book The Gentile Times Reconsidered (Atlanta: Commentary Press, 2004), there are at least nine other astronomical tablets that perform the same service. Furuli’s futile attempts to undermine the enormous burden of evidence provided by these other astronomical tablets will be discussed in another, separate part of this review.

 

The question that remains to be discussed here is Furuli’s claim that the lunar positions that were observed in the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar and are recorded on VAT 4956 fit the year 588/587 better than 568/567 BCE.

 

 

DO THE LUNAR POSITIONS RECORDED ON VAT 4956

FIT 588/587 BETTER THAN 568/567 BCE?

 

On the back cover of his new book Rolf Furuli states that the conclusion of his study is that “the lunar data on the tablet [VAT 4956] better fit 588 than 568 B.C.E., and that this is the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar II.” What about this claim?

 

A careful examination of all the legible lunar positions recorded on this astronomical “diary” proves that the claim is false. Almost none of the lunar positions recorded on VAT 4956 fit the year 588/587 BCE, while nearly all of them excellently correspond to lunar positions in the year 568/567 BCE.

 

The astronomy program used for this examination is Chris Marriott’s SkyMap Pro 11.04, which uses the modern complete ELP2000-82B lunar theory. The “delta-T” value used for the secular acceleration of the Moon is 1.7 milliseconds per century, which is the result of the extensive research presented by F. Richard Stephenson in his Historical Eclipses and Earth’s Rotation (Cambridge, 1997). The program used, therefore, maintains high accuracy far into the past, which is not true of many other modern astronomy programs. 

 

About a year before Furuli’s book had been published in the autumn of 2007 I had examined his claim (which he had published officially in advance) and found that none of the lunar positions fit the year 588/587 BCE. I shared the first half of my results with some of my correspondents. I did not know at that time that Furuli not only moves the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar 20 years back to 588/587 BCE, but that he also moves the 37^th year about one extra month forward in the Julian calendar, which actually makes it fall too late in that year. The reason for this is the following:

 

On the obverse, line 17, VAT 4956 states that on day 15 of month III (Simanu) there was a “lunar eclipse that was omitted.” The phrase refers to an eclipse that had been calculated in advance to be invisible from the Babylonian horizon.

 

On page 126 Furuli explains that he has used this eclipse record as the “point of departure” for  mapping “the regnal years, the intercalary months, and the beginning of each month in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar II, both from the point of view that 568/67 and 588/87 B.C.E. represent his year 37.”

 

In the traditional date for the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar, this eclipse can easily be identified with the eclipse of July 4, 568 (Julian calendar). Thus the Babylonian date, the 15^th of month III, corresponds to July 4, 568 BCE. From that date we may count backward to the 1st of month III, which must have been June 20/21 (sunset to sunset), 568. As the tablet further shows that the preceding Month II (Ayyaru) had 29 days and Month I (Nisannu) 30 days, it is easy to figure out that the 1^st of Ayyaru fell on May 22/23, 568, and the 1^st of Nisannu (i.e., the 1^st day of year 37) on April 22/23, 568 BCE.

 

On moving back 20 years to 588/87 BCE – the 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar in Furuli’s alternative “Oslo Chronology” – we find that in this year, too, there was a lunar eclipse that could not be seen from the Babylonian horizon. It took place on July 15, 588 BCE. According to Furuli this is the eclipse that VAT 4956 dates to the 15^th of month III (Simanu). Reckoning backwards from July 15, Furuli dates the 1^st of month III to June 30, 588; the 1^st of month II (Ayyaru) to June 1, 588, and the 1^st of month I (Nisannu) to May 1. (In his discussions and/or calculations he is inconsistently alternating between May 1, May 2, and May 3).

 

There are a number of problems with Furuli’s dates. The first one is that the first day of the Babylonian year, Nisannu 1, never began as late as in May! As shown by the tables on pages 27-47 in R. A. Parker & W. H. Dubberstein’s Babylonian Chronology (Brown Univeristy Press, 1956), the 1^st of Nisannu never once in the 700-year period covered (626 BCE – CE 75) began as late as in May. The same holds true of the subsequent months: the 1^st of Ayyaru never began as late as on June 1, and the 1^st of Simanu never began as late as on June 30. For this reason alone the lunar eclipse that VAT 4956 dates to the 15^th of month III cannot be that of July 15, 588 BCE! This eclipse must have fallen in the middle of month IV in the Babylonian calendar. Furuli’s “point of departure” for his “Oslo Chronology,” therefore, is quite clearly wrong.

 

Very interestingly, the lunar eclipse of July 15, 588 BCE was recorded by the Babylonians on another cuneiform tablet, BM 38462, No. 1420 in A. Sachs’ LBAT catalogue, and No. 6 in H. Hunger’s Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia (ADT), Vol. V (Wien, 2001). I discussed this tablet on pages 180-182 of my book, The Gentile Times Reconsidered (3^rd ed. 1998, 4^th ed. 2004). The chronological strength of this tablet is just as decisive as that of VAT 4956. It contains annual lunar eclipse reports dating from the 1^st to at least the 29^th regnal year of Nebuchadnezzar (604/603 – 576/575 BCE). The preserved parts of the tablet contain as many as 37 records of eclipses, 22 of which were predicted, 14 observed, and one that is uncertain.

 

The entry containing the record of the July 15, 588 BCE eclipse (obverse, lines 16-1 is dated to year 17, not year 37, of Nebuchadnezzar! This entry reports two lunar eclipses in this year, one “omitted” and one observed. The first, “omitted” one, which refers to the eclipse of July 15, 588, is dated to month IV (Duzu), not to month III (Simanu). So it cannot be the eclipse dated to month III on VAT 4956. That this eclipse really is the one of July 15, 588 is confirmed by the detailed information given about the second, observed lunar eclipse, which is dated to month X (Tebetu) of year 17. The details about the time and the magnitude help to identify this eclipse beyond all reasonable doubts. The whole entry reads according to H. Hunger’s translation in ADT V, page 29:

 

“[Year] 17, Month IV, [omitted.]

[Month] X, the 13^th, morning watch, 1 beru 5^o [before sunrise^?]

All of it was covered. [It set eclips]ed.”

 

The second eclipse in month X – six months after the first – took place on January 8, 587 BCE. This date, therefore, corresponded to the 13^th of month X in the Babylonian calendar. This agrees with Parker & Dubberstein’s tables, which show that the 1^st of month X (Tebetu) fell on 26/27 December in 588 BCE. The Babylonians divided the 24-hour day into 12 beru or 360 USH (degrees), so one beru was two hours and 5 USH (= degrees of four minutes each) were 20 minutes. According to the tablet, then, this eclipse began 2 hours and 20 minutes before sunrise. It was total (“All of it was covered”), and it “[set eclips]ed,” i.e., it ended after moonset. What do modern computations of this eclipse show?

 

My astroprogram shows that the eclipse of January 8, 587 BCE began “in the morning watch” at 04:51, and that sunrise occurred at 07:12. The eclipse, then, began 2 hours and 21 minutes before sunrise – exactly as the tablet says. The difference of one minute is not real, as the USH (time degree of 4 minutes) is the shortest time unit used in this text. [The USH was not the shortest time unit of the Babylonians, of course, as they also divided the USH into 12 “fingers” of 20 seconds each.] The totality began at 05:53 and ended at 07:38. As moonset occurred at 07:17 according to my program, the eclipse was still total at moonset. Thus the moon “set while eclipsed.”

 

Furuli attempts to dismiss the enormous weight of evidence provided by this tablet in just a few very confusing statements on page 127 of his book. He erroneously claims that the many eclipses recorded “occurred in the month before they were expected, except in one case where the eclipse may have occurred two months before.” There is not the slightest truth in this statement. Both the predicted and the observed eclipses agree with modern computations. The statement seems to be based on the gross mistakes he has made on the previous page, where he has misidentified the months on LBAT 1421 with disastrous results for his calculations.

 

In the examination below, the lunar positions recorded on VAT 4956 are tested both for 568/567 BCE as the generally accepted 37^th year of Nebuchadnezzar and for Furuli’s alternative dates in 588/587 BCE as presented on pages 295-325 of his book.

 

Furuli has also tested the lunar positions for the year 586/585 BCE, one Saros period (223 months, or 18 years + c. 11 days) previous to 568/567. As Furuli himself rejects this year as not being any part of his “Oslo Chronology”, I will ignore it as well as all his computations for that year (which in any case are far from correct in most cases).

 

The record of the first lunar position on the obverse, line 1, of VAT 4956 reads:

 

(1)  Obv.´ line 1: “Year 37 of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon. Month I, (the 1^st of which was identical with) the 30^th (of the preceding month), the moon became visible behind the Bull of Heaven”.

 

Nisannu 1 = 22/23 April 568 BCE:

The information that the 1^st of Month I (Nisannu) was identical with the 30^th of the preceding month is given to show that the preceding lunar month (Addaru II of year 36, as shown also at Obv. line 5 of our text) had only 29 days. In 568 BCE the 1st day of Nisannu fell on 22/23 April (from evening 22 to evening 23) in the Julian calendar. After sunset (at c. 18:30) and before moonset (c. 19:34) on April 22 the new moon became visible c. 5.5^o east of (= behind) α Taurus, the most brilliant star in the constellation of Taurus (“the Bull of Heaven”). This is close enough to the position given on the tablet.

 

Furuli’s date: Nisannu 1 = 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd May 588 BCE:

In 588 BCE day 1 of Nisannu fell on 3/4 April according to the modern calculations of the first visibility of the new moon after conjunction. Between sunset (at c. 18:1 and moonset (at c. 19:14) on April 3 the new moon became visible at the western end of the constellation of Taurus, about 14^o west of (= in front of) α Taurus. Thus the moon was clearly not behind the constellation of Taurus at this time. This position, therefore, does not fit that on the tablet.

 

But as stated above, Furuli moves Nisannu 1 of 588 about one month forward in the Julian calendar, which is required by his identification of the lunar eclipse dated to month III on the tablet with the eclipse of July 15, 588. (Furuli, p. 296) This should have moved 1 Nisannu to 3/4 May, 588 BCE, a date that is scarcely possible, as all the evidence available shows that 1 Nisannu never fell that late in the Julian calendar in the Neo-Babylonian or any later period. But Furuli goes on to make an even more serious error in connection with this relocation of   Nisannu 1.

 

On page 311 Furuli explicitly states that, “In order to correlate the Babylonian calendar with the Julian calendar, I take as a point of departure that each month began with the sighting of the new moon.” He goes on to explain that, due to bad weather conditions, the month could sometimes “begin a day after the new moon.” Despite this pronounced (and quite correct) point of departure, Furuli, in his discussion of the planetary positions on page 296, dates the 1^st of Nisannu in 588, not to 3/4 May but to May 1. He does not seem to have realized that this was not the date of the sighting of the new moon after conjunction. On the contrary, this date not only preceded the first sighting of the new moon by two days, but also the date of conjunction (the time of lunar invisibility) by one day!

 

Later on, in the beginning of his discussion of the lunar positions on page 312, Furuli seems to have discovered that the May 1 date is problematic, because here he suddenly and without any explanation moves the beginning of 1 Nisannu in 588 forward, at first from May 1 to the evening of May 3, but finally, in the table at the bottom of the page, to the evening of May 2! Such manipulations of the Julian date for 1 Nisannu are, of course, inadmissible. One cannot have three different dates for 1 Nisannu in the same year!

 

True, the conjunction did occur on 2 May, at c. 03:39 local time. (Herman H. Goldstein, New and Full Moons 1001 B.C. to A.D. 1651, Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1973, p. 35) But this does not mean that the new moon became visible on that day in the evening after sunset. For a number of reasons, the time interval between the conjunction and the first sighting of the new moon is considerable. As Dr. Sacha Stern explains, “the time interval between conjunction and first evening of visibility is often as long as one day (24 hours); it ranges however, at Mediterranean latitudes between a minimum of about 15 hours and a maximum of well over two days.” (S. Stern, Calendar and Community, Oxford University Press, 2001, p. 100) The results of modern examinations of the first lunar crescents recorded on the Babylonian astronomical tablets from 568 to 74 BCE are presented by Uroš Anderlič, “Comparison with First Lunar Crescent Dates of L. Fatoohi,” available on the web at: http://www.univie.ac.at/EPH/Geschichte/First_Lunar_Crescents/Main-Comp-Fatoohi-Anderlic.htm . 

 

Thus the new moon could not be seen in the evening of 2 May, either. The earliest time for the visibility of the new moon was in the evening of 3 May, as stated above. Assuming that this incredibly late date for 1 Nisannu were correct, we find that the new moon did appear behind the constellation of Taurus in this evening (of May 3) between sunset (at c. 18:36) and moonset (at c. 20:05). But it was closer to the constellation of Gemini than to Taurus, so the position of the moon still does not fit very well.

 

In conclusion, the two dates for 1 Nisannu (1^st and 2^nd May) that Furuli actually uses in his computations are impossible. And should he have used May 3 as the date for 1 Nisannu, this would not have been of much help to him, as all the three dates are unacceptably late as the beginning of the Babylonian year.

 

(2)  Obv.´ line 3 says: “Night of the 9^th (error for: 8^th), the beginning of the night, the moon stood 1 cubit [= 2^o] in front of [= west of] β Virginis.”

 

Nisannu 8 = 29/30 April 568 BCE:

In 568 BCE the 8th of Nisannu fell on 29/30 April. In the beginning of the night on April 29 the moon stood about 3.6^o northwest of β Virginis, or about 2^o to the west (in front of) and 3^o to the north of (above) the star. This agrees quite well with the Babylonian measurement of 2^o, which, of course, is a rather rough and rounded-off figure.

 

Furuli’s date: Nisannu 9 = 11 May 588 BCE:

As Furuli (incorrectly) dates 1 Nisannu to 2 May in 588, he should have dated the 8^th and 9^th of Nisannu to May 9 and 10, respectively. However, he moves the dates another day forward, to May 10 and 11, respectively, as is shown in his table at the bottom of page 313. Based on this error, he claims that, “On Nisanu 9 [May 11], the moon stood 1 cubit (2^o) in front of β Virginis, exactly what the tablet says.” (Furuli, p. 313)

 

But this is wrong, too. In the “beginning of the night” of 11 May 588 the moon stood, not to the west of (in front of), but far to the east of (behind) β Virginis (about 13^o to the east of this star at 20:00). To add to the mess, the altitude/azimuth position of the moon in Furuli’s two columns to the right in his table is wrong, too, as it shows the position near midnight, not at “the beginning of the night” as the tablet says.

 

(3)  Obv.´ line 8: “Month II, the 1^st (of which followed the 30^th of the preceding month), the moon became visible while the sun stood there, 4 cubits [= 8^o] below β Geminorum.”

 

Ayyaru 1 = 22/23 May 568 BCE:

In 568 BCE the 1^st day of Month II (Ayyaru) fell on 22/23 May. The distance between sunset this evening (at c. 18:49) and moonset (at c. 20:46) was c. 117 minutes. This distance between the moon and the sun was long enough for the new moon to become visible while the sun still “stood there,” i.e., just above the horizon. At its appearance the new moon stood about 7.3^o south of (below) β Geminorum, which is very close to the position given on the tablet.

 

Furuli’s date: Ayyaru 1 = 1 June 588 BCE:

As Furuli has dated Nisannu 1 to 1 May, and later to 2 May, the 1^st of Ayyaru should fall one lunar month later.  Furuli (p. 314) dates it to June 1. This, however, conflicts with his earlier dates, because if Nisannu 1 began in the evening of 1 May as he holds at first (p. 296), and if Nisannu had 30 days as the tablet says, he should have dated the 1^st of Ayyaru to May 31. But because he later on redates the beginning of Nisannu 1 to the evening of 2 May (p. 312), he is now able to date the 1^st of Ayyaru to 1 June. But as was pointed out earlier, the 2 May date for Nisannu 1 is unacceptable, too, as the moon did not become visible until 3 May.

 

Furuli’s choice of 1 June seems to be due to the fact that the new moon could not be sighted until that day. It became visible at sunset (c. 18:56) about 9.7^o below β Geminorum. This is not “exactly 4 cubits below” this star, as Furuli states (p. 314), but close to 5 cubits below it. Yet this would have been an acceptable approximation, had the date been right. But it does not only conflict with Furuli’s dating of Nisannu 1 to 1 May; the month of Ayyaru never began as late as in June. In addition, the altitude/azimuth position Furuli gives in his table (+ 54 and 256) is also wrong, as it does not show the position of the moon at sunset, but at c. 15:16, when it was still invisible. Actually, Furuli’s figures for the altitude/azimuth position at the time of observation are so often erroneous that they will henceforth be ignored. The only detail that fairly corresponds to the statement on the tablet, then, is the position of the moon. Everything else is wrong.

 

(4)  Obv.´ line 12: “Month III, (the first of which was identical with) the 30^th (of the preceding month), the moon became visible behind Cancer; it was thick; sunset to moonset: 20^o [= 80 minutes]”.

 

Simanu 1 = 20/21 June 568 BCE:

In 568 BCE the 1^st day of Month III (Simanu) fell on 20/21 June. Day 1 began in the evening after sunset on June 20. At that time the new moon became visible behind (= east of) Cancer, exactly as the tablet says. According to my astro-program the distance from sunset to moonset was c. 23^o (= 92 minutes; from sunset c. 19:06 to moonset c. 20:38). This is not very far from the measurement of the Babylonian astronomers. The discrepancy of 3^o is acceptable in view of the primitive instruments they seem to have used. As N. M. Swerdlow has suggested, “the measurements could have been made with something as simple as a graduated rod held at arm’s length.” (N. M. Swerdlow, The Babylonian Theory of the Planets, Princeton University Press, 1998, pp. 40, 187)

 

Furuli’s date: Simanu 1 = 30 June 588 BCE:

As Furuli dated the 1^st of Ayyaru to June 1, and as the tablet shows that Ayyaru had 29 days, he should date the 1^st of Simanu to June 30, which he does. And it is true that we do find the moon behind Cancer on this date. Furuli states that “it was 6^o to the left (behind) the center of Cancer, so the fit is excellent.” But he has to add immediately that “it was so close to the sun that it was not visible.” (Furuli, p. 315. Emphasis added.)

 

The reason is that the conjunction had occurred earlier on the very same day, at about 03:30. (H. H. Goldstine, op. cit., p. 35) In the evening the time distance between sunset (at c. 19:09) and moonset (at c. 19:32) was still no more than 23 minutes, i.e., less than 6^o, so the moon was too close to the sun to be visible. Furuli does not comment on the fact that the tablet gives the distance between sunset and moonset as much as 20^o (80 minutes), showing that the moon on Simanu 1 was far enough from the sun during the observation to be visible, contrary to the situation in the evening of June 30 in 588. For this reason alone Furuli’s date is disqualified.

 

(5)  Obv.´ line 14: “Night of the 5^th, beginning of the night, the moon passed towards the east 1 cubit [2^o] <above/below> the bright star at the end of the Lion’s foot [= β Virginis].”

 

Simanu 5 = 24/25 June 568 BCE:

In 568 BCE the 5^th of Simanu fell on 24/25 June according to the tables of R. A. Parker & W. H. Dubberstein (Babylonian Chronology, 1956, p. 28). In the evening of the 24th, the moon passed towards the east c. 2^o north of γ Virginis, not of β Virginis. So here is a problem. Either the Babylonian scholar misnamed the star, or he misdated the observation by one day. In the previous evening (on the 23^rd), the moon passed c. 4^o above (north of) β Virginis. Thus Johannes Koch translates the 5^th of Simanu into June 23 of the Julian calendar and calculates that in the evening that day at 22:36 the moon was 4^o 17´ above and 0^o 55´ behind β Virginis. (See J. Koch, “Zur Bedeutung von LÁL in den ‘Astronomical Diaries’ und in der Plejaden-Schaltregel,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies, Vol. 49, 1997, p. 88.)

 

Furuli’s date: Simanu 5 = 4 July 588 BCE:

Furuli dates the 5^th of Simanu to 4 July 588 BCE. He claims (p. 315) that on this date “the fit is excellent: the moon passed 1 cubit (2^o) above β Virginis.” Unfortunately, it did not. When the Babylonian day began (at sunset, c. 19:10) the moon was already c. 2 ½ cubits (5^o) behind (east of) β Virginis. It had passed above β Virginis about 12 hours earlier, in the morning before moonrise, but that would have been on Simanu 4, not on Simanu 5. So the fit is far from “excellent.”

 

(6)  Obv.´ line 15: “Night of the 8^th, first part of the night, the moon stood 2 ½ cubits [= 5^o] below β Librae.”

 

Simanu 8 = 27/28 June 568 BCE:

In 568 BCE the 8^th of Simanu fell on 27/28 June. My astro-program shows that in the early night of June 27 the moon stood c. 4.5^o south of β Librae, which is very close to the position given on the tablet.

 

Furuli’s date: Simanu 8 = 7 July 588 BCE:

Furuli, who dates the 8^th of Simanu to the 7th of July, 588 BCE, claims (p. 316) that the moon on that day “was 2 ½ cubits below β Librae, so the fit is excellent.” Again, Furuli is wrong. In the “first part of the night” on 7 July 588 BCE the moon stood as much as c. 6 cubits (12^o) west of (i.e., far from below) β Librae. It was in fact closer to the constellation of Virgo than to Libra. So Furuli’s date does not fit at all.

 

(7)  Obv.´ line 16: “Night of the 10^th, first part of the night, the moon was balanced 3 ½ cubits [= 7^o] above α Scorpii.”

 

Simanu 10 = 29/30 June 568 BCE:

In 568 BCE the 10^th of Simanu fell on 29/30 June. In the first part of the night of the 29^th, the moon stood about 8^o above (north of) α Scorpii, which is very close to the position described on the tablet.

 

Furuli’s date: Simanu 10 = 10 July 588 BCE:

As Furuli had dated Simanu 8 to July 7, he should have dated Simanu 10 to 9 July 588. But strangely, he mistranslates it into 10 July and claims (p. 317): “The moon was 3 ½ cubits (7^o) above α Scorpii, so the fit is excellent.” But in the “first part of the night” that day the moon was over 5 cubits (10^o) northeast of α Scorpii. And even if we move back to the early night of July 9, the moon at that time was about 5 cubits (10^o) northwest of α Scorpii. It would not be correct to state of any of these lunar positions that the “fit is excellent”. None of them fits.

 

(8)  Obv.´ line 17: “The 15^th, one god was seen with the other; sunrise to moonset: 7^o 30´ [= 30 minutes]. A lunar eclipse which was omitted [….]”

 

Simanu 15 = 4/5 July 568 BCE:

In 568 BCE the 15^th of Simanu fell on 4/5 July. The expression “one god was seen with the other” refers to the situation when the sun and the moon are both visible at the same time when standing in opposition to each other. This was the situation in the early morning of 5 July. From sunrise in the east at c. 04:51 to moonset in the west at c. 05:24, i.e., for about 33 minutes, “one god was seen with the other.” This is very close to the time distance recorded on the tablet, 7^o 30´, or 30 minutes.

 

Line 17 also records “a lunar eclipse which was omitted [….]”, an expression used of an eclipse that had been predicted in advance to be invisible from the Babylonian horizon. The text is somewhat damaged, but the reference is obviously to the lunar eclipse of July 4, 568 BCE, which according to modern calculations began about 12:50 and lasted until 14:52, local time. As it took place in the early afternoon when the moon was below the horizon, it could not be observed in Babylonia.

 

Furuli’s date: Simanu 15 = 15 July 588 BCE:

Furuli dates Simanu 15 to 15 July 588 BCE. True, there was a lunar eclipse on that day that was invisible from the Babylonian horizon. Furuli claims on page 317 that “the eclipses of July 15, 588; of July 4, 568; and of June 24, 586, all occurred on Simanu 15 and fit the description.” However, the time distances between sunrise and moonset at the dates in 588 and 586 do not fit at all with the information on the tablet. On 15 July 588 the moonset (at 04:50) occurred about five minutes before sunrise (04:55), so the two “gods” could not been seen with each other that day. And the same problem is connected with the June 24, 586 BCE date. Of the three alternatives, therefore, only the July 4, 568 BCE date fits the information on the tablet.

 

In passing, Hunger’s translation of the obv.´ line 18 should be corrected. It says: “[…. the moon was be]low the bright star at the end of the [Lion’s] foot [….]”

 

The signs within brackets are illegible and the text had to be restored by Hunger. But as he himself later explained, the word “moon” was just a guess that he had not checked. Modern calculations show that, if the day number (which is lost, too) was the 16^th (July 5/6), the heavenly body that was below “the bright star at the end of the Lion’s foot” (= β Virginis) must have been Venus, not the moon. This was later pointed out also by Johannes Koch (JCS 49, 1997, p. 84, n. 7, and p. 89). However, Koch calculates that Venus in the first part of the night of July 5 was 0^o 02´above and 1^o 06´ behind β Virginis, while the SkyMap Pro 11 program shows that Venus at that time was not 0^o 02´above but about 0^o 64´ below and about 0^o 89´ behind β Virginis. These results are in closer agreement with the tablet.

 

(9)  ´Rev. line 5: “Month XI, (the 1^st of which was identical with) the 30^th (of the preceding month), the moon became visible in the Swallow; sunset to moonset: 14^o 30´ [58 minutes]; the north wind blew. At that time, Jupiter was 1 cubit behind the elbow of Sagittarius [….]”

 

Shabatu 1 = 12/13 February 567 BCE:

In 568/567 BCE the first day of month XI (Shabatu) fell on 12/13 February 567 BCE. On day 12 the distance between sunset (at c. 17:44) and moonset (c. 18:53) was 69 minutes (17^o 15´), or 11 minutes (2^o 45´) more than those given on the tablet, 58 minutes. According to the tablet, the new moon became visible after sunset “in the Swallow.”

 

The “Swallow” covered or included a part of the constellation of Pisces. The exact extension of the “Swallow” is not quite clear. But it included a band of stars called “DUR SIM-MAH (ribbon of the swallow)” which included at least δ, ε, and ζ Pisces, perhaps also some other stars. The “ribbon of the swallow” is referred to in over a dozen astronomical reports dating from 567 to 78 BCE, and these have been helpful in locating at least some stars in the group. (Alexander Jones, “A Study of Babylonian Observations of Planets Near Normal Stars,” Archive for History of Exact Sciences, Vol. 58, 2004, pp. 483, 490) The “Swallow”, then, comprised at least the “ribbon of the swallow” and then extended westward along the Pisces.

 

Furuli’s discussion of SIM and SIM-MAH on page 296 is thoroughly misleading, as he tries to confuse the issue by referring to some older views without telling that they were abandoned long ago. This is true of Kugler’s suggestion back in 1914 that SIM-MAH applies to the northwest of Aquarius. To be sure, Furuli states that two modern scholars, E. Kasak and R. Veede, in an article published in 2001 applies SIM to “the Bull of Heaven” (Taurus). They do not! In their article (available on the web: http:/folklore.ee/folklore/vol16/planets.pdf) they do not mention SIM at all! Furuli also refers to the conclusion of van der Waerden (1974) that it applies to “the south-west part of Pisces” – as if this would be yet another view. The fact is that his conclusion does not conflict with that of other modern scholars, including that of Jones, Hunger, and Pingree. The impression Furuli tries to give, that modern experts widely disagree about the identity of SIM and SIM-MAH, is false. All agree that it covered or included a part of the constellation of Pisces.

 

My astro-program shows that in the evening after sunset on February 12, 567 BCE, the new moon became visible in the Pisces, about half-way between α Pisces in the south and γ Pisces in the west and c. 8.5^o below the centre of the western bow of the Pisces. Furuli’s statement that the moon at this time was “13^o below the central part of Pisces” is not correct. His claim that the position is “a somewhat inaccurate fit” is totally uncalled-for, in particular in view of his statement that “the fit is excellent” when he finds the lunar position on his own preferred date (February 22, 587) to have been “9^o below the central part of Pisces.”

 

There can be no doubt that the moon on February 12, 567 BCE was “in the Swallow,” just as is stated on the tablet. At that time Jupiter could also be seen in Sagittarius as the tablet says.

 

Furuli’s date: Shabatu 1 = 22 February 587 BCE:

Furuli’s date for Shabatu 1 is 22 February 587 BCE. And it is true that the moon on that day was “in the Swallow.” One problem with this date, however, is that the new moon at sunset was so close to the sun (less than 10^o) that it most probably was invisible. The conjunction had occurred earlier on the same Julian day, at c. 01:26. Besides, Jupiter was between Aries and Pisces, far away from Sagittarius where it is placed by the tablet.

 

(10)  ´Rev. line 12: “Month XII, the first (of which followed the 30^th of the preceding month), the moon became visible behind Aries while the sun stood there; sunset to moonset: 25^o [100 minutes], measured; earthshine; the north wind blew.”

 

Addaru 1 = 14/15 March 567 BCE:

In 568/567 BCE the first day of month XII (Addaru) fell on 14/15 March 567 BCE. On day 14 the distance between sunset (at c. 18:06) and moonset (at c. 19:50) was 104 minutes (26^o), which is very close to the Babylonian measurement, 25^o (100 minutes). The distance between the moon and the sun was long enough for the moon to become visible before sunset (“while the sun stood there”). At that time the moon stood about 15^o southeast of α Aries, thus partially behind and partially below the most brilliant star in Aries. This roughly agrees with the position given on the tablet.

 

Furuli’s date: Addaru 1 = 24 March 587 BCE:

Furuli’s date for Addaru 1 is 24 March 587 BCE. Of the position of the moon Furuli says (p. 321): “The moon was 13^o to the left of (behind) Aries, so the fit is excellent.” This is not quite correct. About 86 minutes (c. 21.5^o) before sunset (“while the sun stood there”), the moon stood about 7^o to the south of (below) the nearest star in Aries (δ Aries) and about 20^o to the southeast of (i.e., partially below and partially behind) α Aries. This position is not very exact, but acceptable.

 

(11)  ´Rev. line 13: “Night of the 2^nd, the moon was balanced 4 cubits [8^o] below η Tauri.”

 

Addaru 2 = 15/16 March 567 BCE:

In 567 BCE the 2^nd of Addaru fell on 15/16 March. In the night of the 15^th, at c. 19:00, the moon was 4 cubits (8^o) directly to the south of (below) η Tauri, also known as Alcyone, the most brilliant star in the star cluster Pleiades. This position agrees exactly with that given on the tablet.

 

Furuli’s date: Addaru 2 = 25 March 587 BCE:

Furuli dates Addaru 2 to 25 March 587 BCE. In the night of that day, at c. 19:00, the moon was about 10.5^o southeast of η Tauri, a position that does not agree very well with that given on the tablet. The fit is definitely not “excellent” as Furuli (p. 321) claims it is.

 

(12)  ´Rev. line 14: “Night of the 7^th, the moon was surrounded by a halo; Praesepe and α Leonis [stood] in [it ….]” 

 

Addaru 7 = 20/21 March 567 BCE:

In 567 BCE the 7^th of Addaru fell on 20/21 March. In the night of the 20^th/21^st the moon stood between α Leonis and Praesepe, the latter being an open star cluster close to the centre of the constellation of Cancer. As they lie about 23^o apart, the halo must have covered a large area in the sky. The next line (line 15), in fact, goes on to state that “the halo surrounded Cancer and Leo.” As the moon stood between these two constellations, its position agrees with that given on the tablet.

 

Furuli’s statement (p. 322) that Cancer “is either the constellation or the zodiacal sign that covers 30^o of the heaven” is anachronistic, as the zodiacal belt was not divided into signs of 30^o each until much later, in the Persian era.

 

Furuli’s date: Addaru 7 = 30 March 587 BCE:

Furuli’s date for Addaru 7 is 30 March 587 BCE. He states that Cancer in that night “was 4^o above the moon and α Leonis was 13^o below the moon.” However, Cancer was not above but in front of (west of) the moon, and α Leonis was not below but behind (east of) the moon. But as this lunar position was nearly the same as on 20/21 March, 567 BCE, both positions fit.

 

 

(13)  ´Rev. line 16: “The 12^th, one god was seen with the other; sunrise to moonset: 1^o 30´ [6 minutes]; ….”

 

Addaru 12 = 25/26 March 567 BCE:

In 567 BCE the 12^th of Addaru fell on 25/26 March. According to the tablet sunrise occurred 1^o 30´ – 6 minutes – before moonset, meaning that one “god” could be “seen with the other” in the morning for six minutes. My astro-program shows that in the morning of March 26 the sun rose at c. 06:08 and the moon set c. 06:11, that is, they could both be seen at the same time above the horizon for about 3 minutes, which is close to the time given on the tablet.

 

Furuli’s date: Addaru 12 = 4/5 April 587 BCE:

Furuli has misunderstood the kind of phenomenon referred to by the expression “one god was seen with the other”. He explains on page 323: “To say that one god (the sun) was seen with the other god (the moon) was one way to express that the moon was full.”

 

Although it is true that the moon was nearly full when it was seen with the sun, this is not exactly what the expression refers to. As explained earlier, it refers to the situation when the sun and the moon stand in opposition to each other – the sun in the east and the moon in the west – and both can be seen simultaneously above the horizon for a short period of time. As Furuli has not understood this, his comments on the text are mistaken and irrelevant.

 

Furuli’s date for the 12^th of Addaru is 4/5 April 587 BCE. In the morning of April 5 the sun rose at c. 05:54. But the moon had already set at c. 05:13, i.e., about 41 minutes before sunrise. Thus one “god” could not be seen “with the other” this morning. Furuli’s date, then, is wrong. Only the 567 BCE date fits the statement on the tablet.

 

In summary, at least 10 of the 13 lunar positions examined fit the 568/567 BCE date quite well, one (no. 10) is acceptable, while two (nos. 2 and 5) are acceptable only if the dates are moved back one day. Of Furuli’s dates in 588/587 BCE only one (no. 12) fits, while 9 do not fit at all. The fits of the remaining three (9, 10, and 11) are far from good but acceptable.

 

The conclusion is, that the observations were made in 568/567 BCE. The year 588/587 BCE is definitely out of the question.