New archaeological find affirms Old Testament historicity
A clay tablet with details of one of Nebuchadnezzar’s court officials supports the
historicity of the book of Jeremiah
Written by Don Batten
Published: 31 July 2007(GMT+10)
This is the pre-publication version which was subsequently revised to appear in
Creation 30(2):14–15.
Photo Marie-Lan Nguyen
A clay tablet, similar to this one in the cuneiform script, is a receipt for payment
made by Nebo-Sarsekim, an official of Nebuchadnezzar mentioned in Jeremiah 39:3
A clay tablet recently deciphered in the British Museum contains a receipt issued
by a high official of Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon.1
The receipt is for gold donated to a temple in Babylon. The full translation reads:
‘(Regarding) 1.5 minas (0.75 kg) of gold, the property of Nabu-sharrussu-ukin,
the chief eunuch, which he sent via Arad-Banitu the eunuch to [the temple] Esangila:
Arad-Banitu has delivered [it] to Esangila. In the presence of Bel-usat, son of
Alpaya, the royal bodyguard, [and of] Nadin, son of Marduk-zer-ibni. Month XI, day
18, year 10 [of] Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon.’
Michael Jursa, a visiting professor from Vienna, made the discovery. The name on
the tablet, Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, seemed familiar and he recalled that Jeremiah 39:3 mentions ‘Nebo-Sarsekim a chief officer’
of Nebuchadnezzar who came into Jerusalem when Jerusalem was besieged and conquered.
The tablet is dated to the 10th year of Nebuchadnezzar II of Babylon (595 BC) or
12 years before the siege of Jerusalem. Jeremiah dates the visit of this man to
Jerusalem as in the 11th year of Zedekiah, 16 months after Nebuchadnezzar
besieged Jerusalem (Jeremiah 39:1–3).
Most English translations transliterate the names of the Nebuchadnezzar’s
officials following the tradition of the KJV: ‘Nergalsharezer, Samgarnebo,
Sarsechim, Rabsaris, Nergalsharezer, Rabmag’ although most translate
the titles or positions of the officials (‘Rabsaris’ as ‘chief
official’ or ‘chief eunuch’ and ‘Rabmag’ as ‘high
official’). As biblical Hebrew was written without spaces between words, in
the absence of archaeological evidence it is understandable that many translations
do not connect ‘Nebo’ with ‘Sarsechim’. However, at least
one English translation does, which lists the officials as: ‘Nergal-Sharezer
of Samgar, Nebo-Sarsekim a chief officer, Nergal-Sharezer a high official’
(New International Version). The Hebrew is: נבושרסכים,
where the vav (ו) and yod (י)
are consonants that indicate vowel occurrences. Hebrew does not have vowels like
English, so the reader has to insert the vowels from memory (this is not a problem
for someone who knows Hebrew well and knows the context!). Looking at the consonants
in the name on the tablet, NBShRSKN, there is undoubted correspondence with the
Hebrew, which transliterated into the Roman alphabet would be NBShRSKM (Hebrew ש can indicate an ‘sh’ or an ‘s’
sound). But the context reinforces the identification.
Dr Irving Finkel, a British Museum expert, said, ‘This is a fantastic discovery,
a world-class find. If Nebo-Sarsekim existed, which other lesser figures in the
Old Testament existed? A throwaway detail in the Old Testament turns out to be accurate
and true. I think that it means that the whole of the narrative [of Jeremiah] takes
on a new kind of power.’
Of course there are plenty of other archaeological findings that have confirmed
the historicity of the Old Testament (and the New Testament). In 2005 we reported
on the discovery of the Pool of Siloam,
which was fed by Hezekiah’s tunnel (2 Kings 20:20; John 9:7). Bible sceptics are repeatedly proven wrong
by archaeological discoveries. But this latest finding is so significant because
the person is a minor figure in history. A person writing some time after the events
could be expected to get the major players correct, but to get the names of relatively
insignificant persons right indicates that the writer was an eye-witness of the
events and recorded them accurately.
The errant JEDP hypothesis, which posits that the books of Moses (the Pentateuch)
were not written until a thousand years or more after the events described, continues
to be taught in many theological institutions, in spite of the overwhelming archaeological
evidence against it (see Debunking the Documentary
Hypothesis). It is difficult to believe that the sceptics have ever even
read the books of Moses to claim such a thing, because the historical detail given
throughout shouts that these books came from eyewitnesses (for example, see Numbers 7). How could someone writing so far removed from
the events know of such details? Or why would they bother to make up such things?
Those with the same sceptical attitude to the Bible reject the later writings as
non-historical also, such as the prophets (Daniel, Jeremiah, etc.). This discovery
at the British Museum is just one more piece of evidence that such sceptics are
wrong and that the Bible should be trusted.
Further reading
Recommended Resources
Reference
- Reynolds, Nigel, Tiny tablet provides proof for Old Testament, Telegraph.co.uk,
13 July 2007 <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/11/ntablet111.xml>
Return to text
| The information on this site can change lives—former atheists tell us so. Why? Because it’s information people haven’t heard before. So keep it coming by supporting the researchers and writers at CMI.  | | |
|
