Most Important Biblical Archaeological Find in 100 Years?

I posted yesterday about Austrian Assyriologist Michael Jursa’s (Wikipedia) discovery of the name Nabu-sharrussu-ukin, the chief eunuch of Nebuchadnezzar II, on a 2,500-year-old stone tablet.

Some consider this to be of monumental importance, calling it “the most important find in Biblical archaeology for 100 years,” others “a fantastic discovery, a world-class find.” Still others think it is being blown out of proportion.

Let’s take a closer look at some of the details.

The tablet 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.

The supposed significance of this is that it confirms the historicity of some of the details in Jeremiah 39, which records the Babylonian seige on Jerusalem. In Jeremiah 39:3, there is mention of Nebo-Sarsekim (a supposed alternate spelling of Nabu-sharrussu-ukin), who is described as an official of Nebuchanezzar II, the king of Babylon. The name, description, and time period all seem to match.

Initially I couldn’t make sense of the details because texts and translations divide the names differently in Jeremiah 39:3 (and neither the ESV nor the Hebrew text have the name Nebo-Sarsekim).

The Hebrew text treats Nebo-Sarsekim as two words rather than one (combining נבו with the previous word סמגר). This reading is followed by the Vulgate and many English translations (ESV, HCSB, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, KJV, NKJV, GNT, and LB.).

BHS: וַיָּבֹ֗אוּ כֹּ֚ל שָׂרֵ֣י מֶֽלֶךְ־בָּבֶ֔ל וַיֵּשְׁב֖וּ בְּשַׁ֣עַר הַתָּ֑וֶךְ נֵרְגַ֣ל שַׂר־אֶ֠צֶר סַֽמְגַּר־נְב֞וּ שַׂר־סְכִ֣ים רַב־סָרִ֗יס נֵרְגַ֤ל שַׂר־אֶ֙צֶר֙ רַב־מָ֔ג וְכָל־שְׁאֵרִ֔ית שָׂרֵ֖י מֶ֥לֶךְ בָּבֶֽל׃

VUL: et ingressi sunt omnes principes regis Babylonis et sederunt in porta media Neregel Sereser Semegar Nabu Sarsachim Rabsares Neregel Sereser Rebmag et omnes reliqui principes regis Babylonis.

ESV: Then all the officials of the king of Babylon came and sat in the middle gate: Nergal-sar-ezer, Samgar-nebu, Sar-sekim the Rab-saris, Nergal-sar-ezer the Rab-mag, with all the rest of the officers of the king of Babylon.

The Septuagint treats the radicals נבו (nebo) as part of the following word (שר־סכים) forming the single name Nebo-Sarsekim. Several English translations follow the LXX over the Hebrew text (NET, NIV, CEV, and NCV).

LXX: καὶ εἰσῆλθον πάντες οἱ ἡγεμόνες βασιλέως Βαβυλῶνος καὶ ἐκάθισαν ἐν πύλῃ τῇ μέσῃ, Ναργαλασαρ καὶ Σαμαγωθ καὶ Ναβουσαχαρ καὶ Ναβουσαρις καὶ Ναγαργασνασερ Ραβαμαγ καὶ οἱ κατάλοιποι ἡγεμόνες βασιλέως Βαβυλῶνος. (Jer 46:3)

NET: Then Nergal-Sharezer of Samgar, Nebo-Sarsekim, who was a chief officer, Nergal-Sharezer, who was a high official, and all the other officers of the king of Babylon came and set up quarters in the Middle Gate.

NIV: 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.

For further study on this issue, see the NET Bible note on this verse as well as

• F. B. Huey, Jeremiah, Lamentations, vol. 16, NAC (Nashville: B&H, 1993), 341, n. 71;
• J. Bright, Jeremiah, AB, 243;
• William McKane, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Jeremiah (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1986), 973;
• Gerald L. Keown, Jeremiah 26–52, vol. 27, WBC (Dallas: Word, 2002), 226, 28, 30.

Conclusion

Getting back to the main issue: what does this actually prove? Here’s the tentative conclusion of one who is working outside his field:

1. It’s an exciting find and significant from an archaeological standpoint as it seems that it is extrabiblical confirmation of the accuracy of some historical details in the book of Jeremiah, which is no surprise to those committed to the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible. (An OT PhD friend of mine noted that most critical scholars don’t really question the historical details of Jeremiah anyway.)
2. It also seems to have significance for biblical scholars concerning how to divide the names in Jeremiah 39:3. Prior to this discovery, there was uncertainty on how to divide the names. Now, it seems that we may have evidence in support of the LXX reading.
3. It is probably not as earth-shattering as some are making it out to be and certainly isn’t the most significant biblical archaeological discovery of the last one hundred years. The Dead Sea Scrolls were without question a far more significant discovery.

See our previous post, which I will update as new coverage becomes available:

• New Archaeological Evidence for the OT

Like this post? Subscribe to our feed .