Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ray Moscow · 07-27-2007, 02:07 AM

I've been in the same room, and it all looked like chicken scratch to me.

Maybe Nabu-sharrussu-ukin was the "John Smith" of his day?

Ray Moscow · 07-27-2007, 02:41 AM

More seriously, they seem to mean this guy:

Quote:

Jeremiah 39:9: Then Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carried away captive into Babylon the remnant of the people that remained in the city, and those that fell away, that fell to him, with the rest of the people that remained.

Since when is a "chief enuch" also "the captain of the guard"? I would think warriors would need their cajones.

Ray

Chris Weimer · 07-27-2007, 02:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Moscow

More seriously, they seem to mean this guy:

Quote:

Jeremiah 39:9: Then Nebuzaradan the captain of the guard carried away captive into Babylon the remnant of the people that remained in the city, and those that fell away, that fell to him, with the rest of the people that remained.

Since when is a "chief enuch" also "the captain of the guard"? I would think warriors would need their cajones.

Ray

You did read the articles fully, didn't you? It explained the objection. Also, it's actually 39.3, not 39.9.

Ray Moscow · 07-27-2007, 03:20 AM

Sorry -- I just read the Time article. I usually avoid The Telegraph, especially on religious topics.

Quote:

Jeremiah 39:3: And all the princes of the king of Babylon came in, and sat in the middle gate, even Nergalsharezer, Samgarnebo, Sarsechim, Rabsaris, Nergalsharezer, Rabmag, with all the residue of the princes of the king of Babylon.

I suppose a chief enuch could be with "the residue of the princes of the king of Babylon", and the name is similar. It seems strange to list a enuch with the "princes", though.

Does it seem like a huge discovery to you? To me, it seems a bit interesting but hardly earth-shaking.

Chris Weimer · 07-27-2007, 03:22 AM

Eunuchs had a powerful position in antiquity. Or didn't you know?

The discovery itself furthers the idea that Jeremiah has some history in it. The question is how much history can be extracted out of Jeremiah, and how is this done?

Ray Moscow · 07-27-2007, 03:29 AM

Yes, enuchs could be powerful officials, but they were not "princes". Could you imagine anyone gelding anyone from any royal family? (Look out Prince Harry!)

Perhaps the Hebrew word translated "princes" carries a different meaning. Can anyone comment on that?

Your comment about the possible historicity of Jeremiah is a good one. I had just assumed that of course it carries at least a Judean perspective (maybe contemporary, maybe from somewhat later) on the events leading to the captivity.

I'll let more knowledgeable people comment on that.

Derec · 07-27-2007, 06:38 AM

So what really? Nobody (except a few minimalists) claims that Bible contains no history when dealing with exilic times.

Chris Weimer · 07-27-2007, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derec

So what really? Nobody (except a few minimalists) claims that Bible contains no history when dealing with exilic times.

Jeremiah is often taken as a post-exilic compilation of Jeremian traditions. While I'm quite sure most would not say that it contains no history at all, some do. My question is broader - what can we take from the text?

Chris Weimer · 07-27-2007, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ray Moscow

Yes, enuchs could be powerful officials, but they were not "princes". Could you imagine anyone gelding anyone from any royal family? (Look out Prince Harry!)

Read the passage again:

Quote:

and come in do all the heads of the king of Babylon, and they sit at the middle gate, Nergal-Sharezer, Samgar-Nebo, Sarsechim, chief of the eunuchs, Nergal-Sharezer, chief of the Mages, and all the rest of the heads of the king of Babylon.

How can you expect to do good exegesis with a) not understanding the underlying Hebrew, and b) not understanding what prince really means?

Sauron · 07-27-2007, 11:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Derec

So what really? Nobody (except a few minimalists) claims that Bible contains no history when dealing with exilic times.

Eunuch. Minimalists.

Heh. :devil1:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-27-2007, 02:07 AM	#11
Ray Moscow Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Surrey, England Posts: 1,255	I've been in the same room, and it all looked like chicken scratch to me. Maybe Nabu-sharrussu-ukin was the "John Smith" of his day?

07-27-2007, 03:22 AM	#15
Chris Weimer Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: none Posts: 9,879	Eunuchs had a powerful position in antiquity. Or didn't you know? The discovery itself furthers the idea that Jeremiah has some history in it. The question is how much history can be extracted out of Jeremiah, and how is this done?

07-27-2007, 03:29 AM	#16
Ray Moscow Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Surrey, England Posts: 1,255	Yes, enuchs could be powerful officials, but they were not "princes". Could you imagine anyone gelding anyone from any royal family? (Look out Prince Harry!) Perhaps the Hebrew word translated "princes" carries a different meaning. Can anyone comment on that? Your comment about the possible historicity of Jeremiah is a good one. I had just assumed that of course it carries at least a Judean perspective (maybe contemporary, maybe from somewhat later) on the events leading to the captivity. I'll let more knowledgeable people comment on that.

07-27-2007, 06:38 AM	#17
Derec Contributor Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 15,686	So what really? Nobody (except a few minimalists) claims that Bible contains no history when dealing with exilic times.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.