According to an article by The Times (London), an ancient clay tablet has provided evidence for the existence of a person named in the Bible - but only in NIV, TNIV and NLT, not in KJV, NAB or ESV, as mostly pointed out by Claude Mariottini. The tablet names Nebo-Sarsekim, an officer under Nebuchadnezzar, who is also named in Jeremiah 39:3, NIV and TNIV. For once we have clear and new archaeological evidence that TNIV is more accurate than ESV!
UPDATE 12th July: The Telegraph has more on this (thanks to Gary Hedrick for the link, note also, among others, my reply to him), including a photo of the tablet, and a complete translation in which Nebo-Sarsekim is called "the chief eunuch". This title ties up well with his Hebrew title rab-saris, "chief officer" in TNIV but saris generally if not always means "eunuch". This detail seems to me to confirm that this really is the same person with the same title. Also the date on the tablet, the tenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, is two years after Nebuchadnezzar first sacked the temple in Jerusalem and took all the gold from it, 2 Kings 24:13. So the gold mentioned in this tablet could well have been Nebo-Sarsekim's share of the spoil from Jerusalem.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
8 comments:
Peter, please note, however, that Jeremiah 39 does not place Nebo-sarsekim in or near Jerusalem at the time of Jehoiachin's deportation c. 597 BCE, but at the time the city was besieged, sacked, and dismantled, c. 586 BCE. If there is a Nebo-sarsekim in Jeremiah 39 (which is plausible but not certain), placing him in Jerusalem c. 597 and assigning him a "share of the treasure" is pure speculation.
Understood, Christopher. In response I might suggest that in 586 Nebuchadnezzar would very likely have made use of an officer with experience of Jerusalem from 597, and the Nebo-Sarsekim of the tablet must have got the gold from somewhere. But I accept that almost everything here is highly speculative. However, this does confirm that the name Nebo-Sarsekim was used by at least one chief eunuch in Nebuchadnezzar's time, and so was not a name made up by a Hellenistic contriver of fictional history - nor by the NIV translators! Your post is a good balanced discussion of this.
I have written more about this on my own blog, see also the comments, including links to several other scholarly discussions of this issue.
If all falls into place, then yes, the TNIV, in this verse, is more accurate than the ESV in this verse. But to make a blanket statement, "For once we have clear and new archaeological evidence that TNIV is more accurate than ESV," is definitely not proven. The fact of the matter is, in comparing translations, which passages do we look at, and what is the overall consensus from a much broader sampling. To me this is a comment that reflects our current "version wars," which is more about money and sales figures and bragging rights than genuine interest in truth and God's word.
Robert, you should of course read this post as claiming only that TNIV is more accurate at this particular point. But detractors of TNIV seem to think they have proved their point by looking at small numbers of alleged inaccuracies out of context, so it is nice to be able to turn the tables decisively in at least one place. And don't take me too seriously.
However, I utterly deny any suggestion that my interest in promoting TNIV is about "money and sales figures". It is entirely about promoting a good but much maligned Bible translation. I have no financial interest at all in the success of TNIV. I am almost certain the same is true of all of my fellow contributors to this blog, although one of them formerly had a financial interest.
There are interests that individuals can get from how well a translation they are aligned with does in sales, in popularity, etc. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but the marketing strategies are cut-throating as versions fight for market share among buyers.
My comment was based on an article from Christianity Today, which I quote says, "Peter Kirk gloats over at TNIV Truth, noting that Nebo-Sarsekim is named only in NIV, TNIV and NLT translations of Jeremiah 39:3. 'For once we have clear and new archaeological evidence that TNIV is more accurate than ESV,' he writes. Again, I was only commenting on what it said.
In the final analysis, God is the judge of our motives and efforts. I pray good comes from all translations in leading people to the truth and godly living. And whether it's the ESV, NASB, TNIV, NIV, or whatever translation we're considering, I am uncomfortable at taking potshots at each other. If I'm out of line, I apologize. But I know several others who have the same impression for what we see of such quotes in the media.
Robert, I was unaware that my name had got a mention in Christianity Today. I have now found this; here is a link. But I think they are misrepresenting me by using the word "gloats". Nor were my words intended as "potshots"; I simply wanted to point out that in this case TNIV is based on better scholarship than ESV (which, if you look through the blog posts on this, you will find was already understood before this tablet was found). And I have no responsibility for how the media report my words.
Peter,
Thanks for the clarifications. I understand anyone can take what anyone else says and misconstrue them. I appreciate your comments to make your point clear. May we all seek everything to the glory of God, and that which builds us all up in the most holy faith.
Post a Comment