MetaCatholic

There’s been an interesting set of reactions to the story about the deciphering of a cuneiform script naming an Babylonian character who may also be named in the book of Jeremiah. Claude Mariottini first explains why this character Nebo-Sarsekim may not be in your translation, but should be. There is, however, something a little circular in his argument.

1. The cuneiform inscription showing Nebo-Sarsekim to be the name of a Babylonian court official confirms the theory of those who think that is how Jeremiah should be translated.
2. The fact that the same name is found in the inscription and Jeremiah confirms “that the events and people in the Bible have a true historical background.”

For Peter Kirk “Details like this are a strong indication that the book of Jeremiah is a genuine eye witness account of events.” (!) But there are others who think differently. Jim West is, it seems both sceptical himself, and has been talking to “a leading Old Testament scholar” (why the anonymity?) who says:

1- It [the cylinder seal] is important, of course, and says, probably, that the biblical authors had access to Babylonian archives.
2- It also explains why we have excellent external evidence from some periods and none from other periods. That is, external evidence depends on those times when there were contacts between Assyria/Babylonia and Palestine.
3- The Biblical writers could read cuneiform.
4- Those archives were preserved, or at least excerpts from them.

Somehow I fail to be entirely convinced by theories that suggest the OT (and above all the passionate book of Jeremiah) was written by a bunch of scholarly archivists going on sabbatical trips to Babylon for a spot of intensive library research. At the same time, it does illustrate that “facts” like the similarity of a name (and a difference of title) only emerge as data is gathered into some kind of information-bearing narrative of how the Bible came to be.

The most balanced account is given by Chris Heard (whose post is worth reading in full) who advises caution in assessing the evidence, and notes that conclusions can only be tentative

What baffles me in all of this is the concern about archaeology proving the Bible. This is a significant part of the way the press reported the story, and the way many bloggers have commented on it. It suggests to me both a lack of confidence in Scripture as the valuable book by which the Church reads God’s story and her own, and a mistaken view of history as a collection of discrete and independent facts which somehow have their own meaning apart from the interpretative narrative in which we order them.