Nabû-šarrūssu-ukīn Tablet Update

Archaeology takes many forms. As the discovery of a tablet in the bowels of the British Museum by Michael Jursa last year proved, there are excellent finds to be made in the storage facilities of museums. Jursa’s tablet, BM 114789 (1920-12-13, 81), self-dated to the tenth year (595 bce) of Nabû-kudurri-ūṣur (= the Nebuchadrezzar / Nebuchadnezzar of the Bible), is important to students of the Bible because it mentions a Nabû-šarrūssu-(u)kīn rab-rēši (short for rab-ša-rēši). In all probability, the ‘[N]ebo sar-sekim rab-sarīs’ of Jer 39:3 and the ‘Nabû-šarrūssu-(u)kīn rab-rēši’ of Jursa’s tablet are one and the same person.

As David Vanderhooft noted before the discovery of the tablet, “A certain Nabû-šarrūssu-ukīn held the office of [ša] rēš šarri under Amel-Marduk in 561 B.C.E.” (The Neo-Babylonian Empire and Babylon in the Latter Prophets [HSS 59; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1999] 151). He proposed at that time that this individual is referred to in the now garbled text of Jeremiah 39:3 (= ‘Nebusarsekim’ in a number of translations). At SBL San Diego, David reiterated his tentative proposal in a lecture.

On this hypothesis, the same individual is attested with two different titles and under two different administrations over a 34 year time span (595, 586, and 561 bce). Not too surprising, if you think about it. In modern times, Rumsfeld and Cheney come to mind. Henry Stathouders, in an article to appear later this year in Biblische Notizen, notes that tenures of up to 49 years are attested in neo-Assyrian sources. In pre-publication form, the article is available online: go here.

The tablet confirms the likelihood that the author of Jer 39:3 was well-informed about details of the kind a professional scribe of the time would have known – someone like Baruch – but hardly anyone else. In particular, it is hard to account for the correctness of the names and titles on the hypothesis that the book of Jeremiah and Jer 39 in particular are the product of a historical novelist of the late Persian or early Hellenistic period.

Will minimalists be swayed by the mounting evidence that the book of Jeremiah contains details that are most easily explained on the hypothesis that they reflect information of the kind only a professional scribe of the time would have gotten right? I doubt it.

In the same way, there are maximalists who find it impossible to admit the contrary – that is, that the Hebrew Bible contains details that are most easily explained on the hypothesis that they reflect revisions of earlier tradition, and that said revisions reflect realities, events, and issues occasionally centuries removed from those addressed in the unrevised tradition.

We await Jursa’s edition of the tablet with all due impatience. In the meantime, Stathouders’ transcription, translation, and discussion are helpful.

A side issue is whether, in neo-Babylonian administrations, a rab-(ša)-rēši / rab-sarīs was a eunuch – as was often and perhaps always the case in neo-Assyrian administrations – or rather, a chief courtier who went by an ancient title which no longer described a necessary qualification. It is not unusual for titles to be retained after they no longer literally apply. Chief cupbearer and lord chamberlain are examples that come to mind. In short, it cannot be assumed that Nabû-šarrūssu-ukīn was a eunuch.

Hat tip: G. M Grena (Stadhouders' article is linked here) and J. P. van de Giessen. For earlier and still valid discussions of the tablet and Jeremiah 39 on this blog, go here, here, here, and here.

Comments

[G.M. Grena]

Thanks for another interesting commentary, Pastor Hobbins! I met Dr. Vanderhooft briefly at SBL, & in less than 60 seconds of interaction with him, was very impressed. Your citation of his 1999 work reaffirms this. I didn't know he lectured on this subject at SBL. Is this the paper you are referring to (S17-111; Hebrew Scriptures and Cognate Literature)? Since the abstract doesn't mention it, did you attend it & hear him discuss it, or did somebody else review it?

P.S. For the record, I'm a bit beyond a Maximalist (not sure which adjective to use since Gabriel Barkay fancies himself a "super-Maximalist", & I'm way beyond him), & have no problem whatsoever believing that the Hebrew Bible contains details that reflect revisions of earlier tradition. (Too many to list, & this post ain't the right forum.)

[JohnFH]

Thanks, G.M., for commenting here. But please call me John, not Pastor Hobbins, unless you plan to become a member of the parish I serve. (Truth be told, people here tend to call me PJ, but no, you don't want to know in what circumstances I was given that moniker.)

David Vanderhooft noted his proposal regarding Nabû-šarrūssu-(u)kīn and Jer 39:3 during his lecture in the SBL session you cite, but only in passing.

The high point of that lecture had to do with the way archaeological finds from ancient Nineveh and details in the book of Nahum illuminate each other. That was absolutely fascinating.

I think it's fine, of course, that you are a super-maximalist. I might differ with you on details, as I also differ with mini-minimalists, but in scholarship, all these things are legitimate objects of patient discussion.