A Boost for the Book of Jeremiah

[technomage]

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

.




http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...645738,00.html

[JB]

Justin! :wave:

You're a little late on this one, methinks.

[Lili]

Welcome back, Justin!

[Conductor42]

He's still alive!

[LostSheep]

Welcome back Justin!

Edited to add: Could you elaborate Justin on why you are skeptical about the corroborative value for the Bible about the cuneiform in this tablet? I read a short story at www.bib-arch.org about this tablet and I saw nothing that would have put this biblically corroborative evidence (from the tablet) in question. Why are you skeptical?

[shunyadragon]

.




http://www.time.com/time/world/artic...645738,00.html

The article and the view this archeological evidence does anything to justify the Conservative view of the historicity of the Bible is hyperbole. Almost all scholars consider the Bible as history, whether Minimalist, Maximist or somewhere inbetween, it is only the degree of historicity that it is subject to disagreement.

It is interesting that virtually all the evidence for the historicity of the Bible before about 100 to 300 BC is from cuniform and alpabetic-cuniform form Babylonian/Ugarit sources and not Hebrew sources.

[One Bad Pig]

Welcome back Justin!

Edited to add: Could you elaborate Justin on why you are skeptical about the corroborative value for the Bible about the cuneiform in this tablet? I read a short story at www.bib-arch.org about this tablet and I saw nothing that would have put this biblically corroborative evidence (from the tablet) in question. Why are you skeptical?

The skepticism in view in the OP is that of Time, not necessarily Justin.

[Sparko]

awesome.

Archeology keeps supporting the bible, even in the insignificant details.

[Conductor42]

The skepticism in view in the OP is that of Time, not necessarily Justin.

I thought the OP here was that Justin is still hiding out there!?

[LostSheep]

The skepticism in view in the OP is that of Time, not necessarily Justin.

OBP,

I must be being obtuse, but I don't grasp your answer. Are you saying that the timeframe (the timing or dating of the period in question in history) of the cuneiform or the tablet, or of the character or incident described in the tablet is what is in question?

Edited to add: Forgive me, but I didn't read the article linked in the OP and perhaps that's the source of my problem. I read about this tablet in a different article, before I stumbled on this thread in TWeb.

[One Bad Pig]

OBP,

I must be being obtuse, but I don't grasp your answer. Are you saying that the timeframe (the timing or dating of the period in question in history) of the cuneiform or the tablet, or of the character or incident described in the tablet is what is in question?

Edited to add: Forgive me, but I didn't read the article linked in the OP and perhaps that's the source of my problem. I read about this tablet in a different article, before I stumbled on this thread in TWeb.

All I was saying was that the words in the OP are a quote from the article, not Justin's own.

The skepticism seems to come from the "minimalist" position, which says that it was all made up, and historical corroboration just means that the writers found a little fact to mix with their fiction.

It must take a lot of "faith" to be a minimalist.

[shunyadragon]

All I was saying was that the words in the OP are a quote from the article, not Justin's own.

The skepticism seems to come from the "minimalist" position, which says that it was all made up, and historical corroboration just means that the writers found a little fact to mix with their fiction.

It must take a lot of "faith" to be a minimalist.

Sarcasm aside. This is a classic misrepresentation and generalization from the fundimentalist point of view. There is a wide range of belief and consideration of the historicity of the Bible between minimalist and maximalists. Basically all historians consider the Bible as history and not entirely made up. The difference is in the degree and accuracy of the Bible as a historical document.

[One Bad Pig]

Sarcasm aside. This is a classic misrepresentation and generalization from the fundimentalist point of view. There is a wide range of belief and consideration of the historicity of the Bible between minimalist and maximalists. Basically all historians consider the Bible as history and not entirely made up. The difference is in the degree and accuracy of the Bible as a historical document.

Fundamentalist? Did you read the article?

It's another chapter in a larger debate between scholars known as biblical "minimalists" and "maximalists." Maximalists, who include most conservative Christian experts, tend to accept that those parts of the Bible that include prolific historical detail are probably historically accurate. Minimalists tend to think that they were completed centuries after their alleged dates as propaganda for a later Jewish government. Jeremiah's story is one of the most vividly rendered lives in the Old Testament. His biography is accepted as fact by pious Jews and Christians, as are the book's details regarding the sack of Jerusalem, in which Nebo-Sarsekim reportedly participated, and the subsequent Jewish exile "by the rivers of Babylon," commemorated by the Book of Psalms and Bob Marley. Minimalists tend to regard it as a polemic, until proven otherwise.

Do you consider Time to be a fundamentalist magazine? As far as I've seen, minimalists will tend to accept as fact only things corroborated by non-Hebrew sources.

[LostSheep]

Do you consider Time to be a fundamentalist magazine? As far as I've seen, minimalists will tend to accept as fact only things corroborated by non-Hebrew sources.

Off topic, but NOW I understand where you got the "Time" word from in your original response to me OBP. I completely missed the connection before. I thought you meant "time" as in dates/historical times.

Sorry, my bad. I completely missed that, despite the link in the original post. I've got to read more carefully in the future .

Carry on.

[shunyadragon]

Fundamentalist? Did you read the article?

It's another chapter in a larger debate between scholars known as biblical "minimalists" and "maximalists." Maximalists, who include most conservative Christian experts, tend to accept that those parts of the Bible that include prolific historical detail are probably historically accurate. Minimalists tend to think that they were completed centuries after their alleged dates as propaganda for a later Jewish government. Jeremiah's story is one of the most vividly rendered lives in the Old Testament. His biography is accepted as fact by pious Jews and Christians, as are the book's details regarding the sack of Jerusalem, in which Nebo-Sarsekim reportedly participated, and the subsequent Jewish exile "by the rivers of Babylon," commemorated by the Book of Psalms and Bob Marley. Minimalists tend to regard it as a polemic, until proven otherwise.

Do you consider Time to be a fundamentalist magazine? As far as I've seen, minimalists will tend to accept as fact only things corroborated by non-Hebrew sources.

Do you really think a short article with a few comments represents the differences between the Minimalist and Maximalist positions?

I read the article, and no Time is not a 'Fundimentalist Magazine'. Neither does a vague quickie comments in time magazine, a general interest periodical, represent an understanding of the differences between the understanding of what Minimalist and Maximalist are concerning the historicity of the Bible. I will respond with a little better source tomorrow.

I actually think you actually know better about this than this post indicates.