By confirming the historical accuracy of a tiny detail, a two-inch clay tablet long in the possession of the British Museum has given ammunition to those who believe that the Bible ”” specifically, in this case, the book of the prophet Jeremiah ”” is history. That, at least, is what the believers are claiming.
The tablet itself is certainly genuine. On July 10 the Museum announced that a Viennese expert working his way through thousands of similar clay documents in its possession translated one dating from 595 B.C that described a gift of 1.7 lbs. of gold to a Babylonian temple by a “chief eunuch” named Nabu-sharrussu-ukin.
A museum official called it “a world-class find.” What makes the ancient but seemingly mundane receipt significant is that the book of Jeremiah in the Hebrew Bible (or Old Testament) mentions the exact same official ”” though under a different transliteration, Nebo-Sarsekim, and a different title, chief officer, as accompanying the Babylonian King Nebuchadnezzar when he marched against Jerusalem in 587.
Jeremiah is one of the better-attested biblical works. Although I can’t lay hands on the reference at the moment, I remember reading (I think in [i]Biblical Archaeology Review[/i]) about a set of sealed document fragments found in the Old City about ten years ago, one of which bore the seal of Baruch son of Neriah, who was essentially Jeremiah’s secretary. The wax even had a fingerprint, probably the only biometric ID we are ever going to have on a biblical figure!
The spelling of biblical names differs depending on whether the name comes from the Septuagint, Syriac, Coptic or Hebrew. This is one reason it has taken so long to discover the kinship pattern of Abraham’s ancestors (Gen. 4 and 5) because different names appeared. The Syriac has Edar for Irad in Gen. 4, and the Septuagint that St. Chrysostom used for his homilies on Genesis gave the name Gaidad for Irad. Once the name of Cain’s grandson was more correctly identified as Irad, the correspondance to Jared became evident. Jared was named after Irad, his maternal grandfather, according to the bride’s naming prerogative, which I discuss at my blog Just Genesis (see below for link.)
You missed the best bit:
[blockquote] However, Robert Coote, an Old Testament professor at the more liberal San Francisco Theological Seminary, disagrees. Most academics who regard Jeremiah as a polemic, he claims, would concede that it makes use of materials originally written in Nebuchadnezzar’s age, so there is no reason for it not to include the name of a minor figure in his court. “The logical fallacy,” says Coote, “is to say that this one corroboration makes the whole narrative true and accurate.” [/blockquote]
Don’t you love the logic — they might have got the minor names right but I am absolutely sure they got the major message wrong. I know this because ….. I know it that’s why … and I am a Professor .. and that is good enough
There is a lack of humility and love of God among many who are Bible experts. Yet there is profound insight into God’s Word among the lowly who begin by believing that the whole narrative is true and accurate. Recently I was asked what motivates my Genesis research of 25+ years. What began as a teaching assignment became an obession of love. Why am I motivated to continue this research project? Because I am persuaded that Western modernity strips away all signs of the Creator and the Creator’s love.
Initially I approached Genesis as a person of faith and prayer, confident that God would reveal to me the riches of His written word. I undertook the research as much a lover as a theorist and looking back I see that clues came at critical moments, often from unlikely sources. In other words, I believe that God honored my approach and rewarded my steadfast efforts to make sense of Genesis.
Out of curiosity I decided in the early eighties to apply what I had learned in kinship analysis to the begats of Genesis 4 and 5. This section of Genesis is rarely pondered as it lists people who lived long ago. It makes fairly boring reading so people tend to skip over it, yet I was intrigued by the possibility of discovering something new by applying the tools set forth in E.L. Schusky’s Manual for Kinship Analysis. I’ve always loved the Bible, but by nature am a scientist, so the lover and the theorist in me had to work together if I was to accomplish anything.
We should pursue the truth by our reason and when we hit a wall, go forward by faith and love. The value of this method is that it shows that love of God and His written word do not repudiate logic or science.
As a lover I seek to know the singularity of the Genesis revelation. As a theorist I seek to know the universality of the Genesis revelation. As both lover and theorist I hope to discover what is evident from the text and demonstrate it to my readers without sterility.
Genesis is the foundation of the Bible, but it is also foundational to understanding what is ultimate and intimate. Many today echo Nietzsche’s shout that God is dead, but the echo rings hollow from the shining mountains where God has self-revealed to our spiritual Fathers.
Liberals are, in general, are a hoot. If something that is true goes against the set belief then obviously something is in error because it can’t be true because they are so smart they can deduce it is false. When something is not true that they want to be true then it is because nobody really is as smart as they are, and if they were as smart then they would understand that even thought it isn’t true it should be true therefore it has truth.
You’re right, Dave, and this is called madness or fantasy.