A really interesting piece from Evangelical Alliance's Friday Night Theology today, picking up from articles in the Times and Telegraph online about a scholar who's been working through "some of the 100,000+ cuneiform tablets" at the British Museum, dating back as far as 3000BC. He was tracking Babylonian financial transactions (what a life, eh?) and came across a name he recognised - I'm sure you will too(!) : Nebo-Sarsekim...
Then all the officials of the king of Babylon came and took seats in the Middle Gate: Nergal-Sharezer of Samgar, Nebo-Sarsekim a chief officer, Nergal-Sharezer a high official and all the other officials of the king of Babylon. [Jer 39:3 NIV]
It's from a passage in the Bible about the siege of Jerusalem and is dated biblically as 587BC - which accords precisely with the Cuneiform records from just 8 years' earlier showing naming the same official in Nebuchadnezzar's court.
As FNT comments:
It is rare, though not unheard of, for such minor biblical characters to have their identity confirmed archaeologically, and this is a perfect example. One of the experts at the British Museum, Dr Irving Finkel, highlighted the importance of the discovery: "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."
Perhaps, even more significantly, Professor Geza Vermes - who is one of those scholars to repeatedly cast doubt on the historical truth of the Bible - acknowledged that this finding indicated "the biblical story is not altogether invented".
Indeed it is not. The Bible we hold in our hands always has been, and always will be the truth. Repeated attempts at discrediting its reliability are made. However, the discovery this week joins a long list of archaeological findings that support its credibility. Our faith is not based on such findings, but they do nibble away at the excuses some people hold for not taking God or the Bible seriously - a point we might want to make this weekend.
It's a nice story, and I quite agree with your comments. I would add, though, the extra complexion that we are supposed to look at each of the books in the bible and read them, primarily, as the author intended them when they were written. Those books which are histories, should be read as history. Those which are poetry should be read as poetry, and so on. This is what we mean when we say the bible is 'true'. I say this as a believer who gets into trouble with fundies for suggesting that the first few chapters of Genesis don't mean that the world was literally created in seven days just 10 000 years ago! I do believe the bible, but I don't read these chapters as a historical or scientific account.
Posted by: Jamie G | July 14, 2007 at 09:47 PM