Comments on: More on Nabu-sharrussu-ukin http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=681 Sat, 21 Aug 2010 02:06:44 -0700 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Christopher Heard http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=681&cpage=1#comment-30713 Christopher Heard Mon, 16 Jul 2007 22:01:06 +0000 http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=681#comment-30713 Thank you for your comments, Larry. I was very much hoping you'd weigh in on this question. Thank you for your comments, Larry. I was very much hoping you’d weigh in on this question.

]]> By: Lawrence J. Mykytiuk http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=681&cpage=1#comment-30712 Lawrence J. Mykytiuk Mon, 16 Jul 2007 21:56:40 +0000 http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=681#comment-30712 Nice post, Chris. Identifying a biblical person in a then-contemporary inscription comes down to three questions. All three must be answered satisfactorily in order to make a valid ID. 1. Are the inscriptional and biblical data reliable in the sense that the inscription is authentic, rather than forged, and the biblical text is well grounded in the ancient manuscripts? 2. Do the inscriptional person and the biblical person have the same setting, that is, the same time (usually within fifty years of each other) and socio-political "place," in this instance, early sixth-century Babylonian? 3. Are the identifying marks of an individual sufficient to insure that they are not two different persons? If questions 1 and 2 are answered satisfactorily, as so far they seem to be in this instance, then the marks of an individual in answer to question 3 will tell you whether there is a valid ID or a non-ID. If only the name is in common between the inscription and the biblical text, then the ID (which I call grade 1) would be too doubtful to have any value. As today, many people have a particular given name. In this instance, the fact that we have both the name and the title puts the ID (grade 2, for two individual marks) on somewhat firmer ground, but as you correctly sense, it is still not entirely secure. Two persons having the same name could hold a given office and have the same title at around the same time. This level of strength is what Avigad (_Eretz-Israel_ 19 [1987]: 235-7, in Hebrew) said was sufficient to make a reasonable hypothesis. It can be termed "reasonable but uncertain." On greater levels of strength in such IDs, see my sidebar in a forthcoming issue of _Near Eastern Archaeology_. Larry Mykytiuk Purdue University Nice post, Chris. Identifying a biblical person in a then-contemporary inscription comes down to three questions. All three must be answered satisfactorily in order to make a valid ID.

1. Are the inscriptional and biblical data reliable in the sense that the inscription is authentic, rather than forged, and the biblical text is well grounded in the ancient manuscripts?

2. Do the inscriptional person and the biblical person have the same setting, that is, the same time (usually within fifty years of each other) and socio-political “place,” in this instance, early sixth-century Babylonian?

3. Are the identifying marks of an individual sufficient to insure that they are not two different persons?

If questions 1 and 2 are answered satisfactorily, as so far they seem to be in this instance, then the marks of an individual in answer to question 3 will tell you whether there is a valid ID or a non-ID. If only the name is in common between the inscription and the biblical text, then the ID (which I call grade 1) would be too doubtful to have any value. As today, many people have a particular given name.

In this instance, the fact that we have both the name and the title puts the ID (grade 2, for two individual marks) on somewhat firmer ground, but as you correctly sense, it is still not entirely secure. Two persons having the same name could hold a given office and have the same title at around the same time. This level of strength is what Avigad (_Eretz-Israel_ 19 [1987]: 235-7, in Hebrew) said was sufficient to make a reasonable hypothesis. It can be termed “reasonable but uncertain.”

On greater levels of strength in such IDs, see my sidebar in a forthcoming issue of _Near Eastern Archaeology_.

Larry Mykytiuk
Purdue University

]]> By: G.M. Grena http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=681&cpage=1#comment-30373 G.M. Grena Sat, 14 Jul 2007 17:23:01 +0000 http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=681#comment-30373 I appreciate your open-minded objectivity reflected by your use of "(s)he" for the author of Jeremiah. I'm sure Baruch would get a kick out of it too if (s)he could read your blog! Speaking of "wiki learning", I learned much from your post & the others you've linked to, & added a comparison table to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebo-Sarsekim_Tablet" rel="nofollow">the Wikipedia entry for the tablet</a> this morning. Thanks! I appreciate your open-minded objectivity reflected by your use of “(s)he” for the author of Jeremiah. I’m sure Baruch would get a kick out of it too if (s)he could read your blog!

Speaking of “wiki learning”, I learned much from your post & the others you’ve linked to, & added a comparison table to the Wikipedia entry for the tablet this morning. Thanks!

]]> By: biblicalia » Blog Archive » Contextual scholarship http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=681&cpage=1#comment-30270 biblicalia » Blog Archive » Contextual scholarship Sat, 14 Jul 2007 02:57:46 +0000 http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=681#comment-30270 [...] fine summary of the issue, and follow the links to various other bloggers’ posts, especially Chris Heard’s. It’s pretty clear that this simple little tablet has resolved the proper reading of Jeremiah [...] [...] fine summary of the issue, and follow the links to various other bloggers’ posts, especially Chris Heard’s. It’s pretty clear that this simple little tablet has resolved the proper reading of Jeremiah [...]

]]> By: Charles Halton http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=681&cpage=1#comment-30264 Charles Halton Sat, 14 Jul 2007 01:32:52 +0000 http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=681#comment-30264 Nice, now I saw the update. I agree, it is a really great way to learn! Nice, now I saw the update. I agree, it is a really great way to learn!

]]> By: Christopher Heard http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=681&cpage=1#comment-30252 Christopher Heard Fri, 13 Jul 2007 22:01:42 +0000 http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=681#comment-30252 Charles, I trust that by now you've seen the <a href="http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=682" rel="nofollow">update</a>. Thanks to you and John, both Kevin and I have come around to agree that Samgar is a Hebraicization of a <em>title</em> Sin-magir—a possibility I raised in my first post on the subject, but I did not have the data near to hand to check it out. Isn't this the way "wiki" learning is supposed to work: the wisdom of the group converging upon an understanding? Charles, I trust that by now you’ve seen the update. Thanks to you and John, both Kevin and I have come around to agree that Samgar is a Hebraicization of a title Sin-magir—a possibility I raised in my first post on the subject, but I did not have the data near to hand to check it out.

Isn’t this the way “wiki” learning is supposed to work: the wisdom of the group converging upon an understanding?

]]> By: Charles Halton http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=681&cpage=1#comment-30250 Charles Halton Fri, 13 Jul 2007 21:50:48 +0000 http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=681#comment-30250 I disagree with your interpretation of Samgar/Sinmagir as a place name in this instance. I'm working from memory here, but Sinmagir as a place name is only attested 2 or 3 times in the Middle Babylonian period according to the CAD entry. All other uses are from the Neo-Babylonian and Achaeminid periods and are used as titles, not place names. Furthermore, none of the other people in the Jeremiah 39:3 list have geographic components. I disagree with your interpretation of Samgar/Sinmagir as a place name in this instance. I’m working from memory here, but Sinmagir as a place name is only attested 2 or 3 times in the Middle Babylonian period according to the CAD entry. All other uses are from the Neo-Babylonian and Achaeminid periods and are used as titles, not place names. Furthermore, none of the other people in the Jeremiah 39:3 list have geographic components.

]]> By: Kevin P. Edgecomb http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=681&cpage=1#comment-30174 Kevin P. Edgecomb Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:32:03 +0000 http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=681#comment-30174 You're welcome, Chris. John is certainly right, too. I only knew about the place name, but he cites evidence for the exact term used as a title, which makes even more sense, making all three titles, rather than Samgar=Sinmagir being locative. I'll have to look into it some more. So, NIV is still a closer shot than the others, even if they flubbed on Samgar. This is fun stuff! You’re welcome, Chris. John is certainly right, too. I only knew about the place name, but he cites evidence for the exact term used as a title, which makes even more sense, making all three titles, rather than Samgar=Sinmagir being locative. I’ll have to look into it some more. So, NIV is still a closer shot than the others, even if they flubbed on Samgar. This is fun stuff!

]]> By: Christopher Heard http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=681&cpage=1#comment-30165 Christopher Heard Fri, 13 Jul 2007 16:17:12 +0000 http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=681#comment-30165 Peter: as a general rule, I am very slow to accept "no good reason against" as "a good reason for." Basically you are seeing my slow, plodding "scholarly personality" at work. At this point I think the differences between our takes on this question are simply a matter of degrees of confidence. It is just part of my academic temperament to be very, very careful, even overly cautious or overly tentative, with such matters. Peter: as a general rule, I am very slow to accept “no good reason against” as “a good reason for.” Basically you are seeing my slow, plodding “scholarly personality” at work. At this point I think the differences between our takes on this question are simply a matter of degrees of confidence. It is just part of my academic temperament to be very, very careful, even overly cautious or overly tentative, with such matters.

]]> By: Peter Kirk http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=681&cpage=1#comment-30158 Peter Kirk Fri, 13 Jul 2007 15:27:41 +0000 http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=681#comment-30158 Thanks for moving closer to my position. I didn't quite intend to say that "the Nabu-sharrussu-ukin temple gift receipt proves the translation “Samgar, Chief Eunuch Nebo-sarsekim” to be correct". Basically I am agreeing with your nuanced view that this adds to the probability. But perhaps a little more than you allow, for “Nebo-sarsekim” is more than just "a genuine Neo-Babylonian name", it is a name borne by a chief eunuch under Nebuchadnezzar only 9 years before the Jeremiah reference. Even if this is not the same individual, given the propensity for names to go with offices in this environment, this is definitely saying more than just "a genuine Neo-Babylonian name". As for the gold, I only said "could well", meaning that I consider this highly speculative. The only evidence I can suggest for it is that, if the two Nebo-Sarsekims are the same person, it would make sense for Nebuchadnezzar to send as one of the leaders of the second attack on Jerusalem someone with experience of the first one. And one has to consider how Nabu-sharrussu-ukin might have acquired 0.75 kg of gold; Jerusalem is a plausible source for it at just the right time, given the time it would take to transport all the spoil to Babylon. Also I can't think of good reason against this. Can you? Thanks for moving closer to my position. I didn’t quite intend to say that “the Nabu-sharrussu-ukin temple gift receipt proves the translation “Samgar, Chief Eunuch Nebo-sarsekim” to be correct”. Basically I am agreeing with your nuanced view that this adds to the probability. But perhaps a little more than you allow, for “Nebo-sarsekim” is more than just “a genuine Neo-Babylonian name”, it is a name borne by a chief eunuch under Nebuchadnezzar only 9 years before the Jeremiah reference. Even if this is not the same individual, given the propensity for names to go with offices in this environment, this is definitely saying more than just “a genuine Neo-Babylonian name”.

As for the gold, I only said “could well”, meaning that I consider this highly speculative. The only evidence I can suggest for it is that, if the two Nebo-Sarsekims are the same person, it would make sense for Nebuchadnezzar to send as one of the leaders of the second attack on Jerusalem someone with experience of the first one. And one has to consider how Nabu-sharrussu-ukin might have acquired 0.75 kg of gold; Jerusalem is a plausible source for it at just the right time, given the time it would take to transport all the spoil to Babylon. Also I can’t think of good reason against this. Can you?

]]>