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.
- 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.
- 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.
11 responses so far ↓
1 Jim // Jul 12, 2007 at 5:55 pm
I’ve been suggesting for a long time that the use of the Bible as historical source is a mistake. So I don;t think you and I are so far apart on that particular issue.
2 Claude Mariottini // Jul 12, 2007 at 6:07 pm
I disagree with your and Jim’s assessment of the situation. People keep on saying that what we have in the Bible is fictitious history written by people trying to justify the right of the post-exilic community to live in Jerusalem. However, if this history is fabricated, how come archaeological findings keep demonstrating that some of the people mentioned in the Bible were real people?
Claude Mariottini
3 Peter Kirk // Jul 12, 2007 at 6:14 pm
Doug, thanks for the link to Chris’ balanced article. Note that I have not claimed that this “proves the Bible”, only that it proves TNIV to be a better translation than ESV at this point (although I note Chris’ caution about this “proof”), and strongly indicates that Jeremiah is a contemporary account of events. But I have to say that Jim West’s “leading Old Testament scholar” is talking utter nonsense. There is simply no plausible historical scenario, except just possibly in the time of Ezra or Nehemiah, under which an Israelite would have been able and permitted to research such things in the archives of Babylon. In the Hellenistic period this would surely have been quite impossible. And why on earth would anyone bother to do anything like this if they wanted to write a fake book of Jeremiah?
4 doug // Jul 12, 2007 at 6:33 pm
Thanks, guys for the quick responses.
Jim, I do think you can (with some considerable caution) use some parts of the Bible to reconstruct history - I just don’t think that’s what it’s for. I don’t know if that leaves us nearer or further from each other’s views. I’m not entirely clear where you are on that.
Claude, I’m not saying it’s “fictitious history”, I’m saying all history is a narrative reconstruction of data. Good history accounts for the most data in its narrative. Whether a particular narrative is fictitious (e.g. Jonah) or prophetical-historical (e.g. Kings) is a separate judgement.
Peter, as you’ll note from my ironic characterization of it, I too find this scenario, particularly with reference to Jeremiah, fairly implausible.
5 Jim // Jul 12, 2007 at 7:17 pm
Doug I can only say that if you aren’t sure where I stand you’ve not read me much.
6 scott gray // Jul 13, 2007 at 4:17 am
it seems to me that an underlying question here has to do with methodology. scientific, historical, theological, and philosophical methodologies are not the same, (although they do overlap, like circles on a venn diagram). i think the canon (bible) is a collection of faith documents, with a certain degree of historicity, a strong bit of philosophy (i mean here reasoning and logic), and an incidental amount of science. it is not a collection of history documents. it is not a collection of philosophy documents. it is not a collection science documents. it is a collection of faith documents.
for example, one of the theological narratives in the bible, whether hebrew scriptures (’ot’), or christian scriptures (in this case ‘ot’ plus ‘nt’), is that of salvation history. this narrative has a bit to do with history, some to do with philosophy, little to do with science, but everything to do with theology. we arrive at this narrative primarily by theological methodology, not by scientific proof, not by historical evidence, not by philosophical logic.
historical methodology includes, i think, trying to establish what really happened, based on evidence written as close to the event as possible (contemporary accounts), from as many independent sources as possible (no collaboration), that all say the same thing happened (corroboration). often historical ‘proofs’ about biblical events have been based on evidence written long after the fact, by people who knew each others work, and only from scriptural sources (not contemporary, high collaboration, low corroboration), especially when the bible has been the only source used.
when evidence is found that leans toward the more historical ‘proof’ such as this nebo-sarsekim tablet, (higher corroboration, more contemporary evidence, corroboration could go either way), it is used often, i think, to make the argument that the theological conclusions then carry more weight, (possibly to convert non-believers who might be ‘sitting on the fence?’)
within a vibrant faith community, historical proofs, while interesting, don’t really matter in regards to the theological narratives.
scott gray
my notions here of historical methodology come from a debate between william lane craig and bart ehrman over the historical evidence of jesus’ resurrection, which can be down-loaded in pdf format here:
http://uncrediblehallq.blogspot.com/2006/06/craig-ehrman-debate.html
7 Higgaion » More on Nabu-sharrussu-ukin // Jul 13, 2007 at 11:32 am
[...] Kirk, Stephen Hebert, BK (sorry, that’s all the ID I have), Limbidgit (twice: here and here), Metacatholic, Henry Neufeld, and Jan Pieter van de Giessen (twice: here and here)—and probably others that [...]
8 Peter Kirk // Jul 13, 2007 at 12:07 pm
Jim, we know where you stand. It’s just that we think it is on sand without solid foundation, which might suddenly turn into quicksand.
9 John Hobbins // Jul 13, 2007 at 4:05 pm
I take a mediating position, if you will. See my post on the tablet, and the new post by Chris Heard, which aligns with it nicely.
John Hobbins
http://www.ancienthebrewpoetry.typepad.com
10 Abnormal Interests // Jul 14, 2007 at 12:12 am
Nabu-šarrussu-ukin on a Tablet…
I’m a little late to the party. Many abnormally interesting things about a recently announced tablet with the name Nabu-šarrussu-ukin have already been said. Nabu-šarrussu-ukin is name that may or may not be related to a possible Nebo-sarsekim who m…
11 H. Stadhouders // Feb 14, 2008 at 12:29 pm
An edition of the document can now be found at: http://igitur-archive.library.uu.nl/let/2008-0103-200958/UUindex.html
Leave a Comment