Sennacherib’s Joke

After the death of Sargon II, the king who conquered Samaria, Sennacherib, his son, became the new king of Assyria. Sargon had left his son a large empire. Sargon died in 705 B.C. When Sennacherib became king, he faced uprisings all over the empire. After ascending the throne, Sennacherib led two campaigns against Assyrian enemies in the north. A few years after he became king, Sennacherib led his forces toward Syria and Palestine.

Among the vassals who revolted against Assyria was Hezekiah, king of Judah. In preparing to revolt against Assyria, Hezekiah sought help from Egypt. He also took steps to regain independence by refusing to pay the vassal tribute. According to 2 Kings 18:7, Hezekiah “rebelled against the king of Assyria and would not serve him.”

Hezekiah’s plan to revolt against Assyria was motivated by the promises of help from Egypt and Babylon. Hezekiah made a covenant with Egypt, a covenant which the prophet Isaiah called a “covenant with death” (Isaiah 28:18). Trusting in the military help from Egypt (Isaiah 30:1-7; 31:1-3), Hezekiah refused to pay the annual tribute to Assyria.

Sennacherib responded swiftly. First, he subdued many rebellious vassals who had rebelled against him. Then, he came against Hezekiah. According to Assyrian records, Sennacherib destroyed forty-six fortified cities of Judah and deported their population to other parts of the Assyrian empire. As for Hezekiah, Sennacherib besieged Jerusalem and kept him in the city “like a bird in a cage.”

It was at that time, that Sennacherib sent a message to Hezekiah. Mario Liverani, in his book, Israel’s History and the History of Israel (London: Equinox Publishing Ltd, 2005) relates Hezekiah’s response to Sennacherib’s message. In his book, Liverani (p. 148) quotes the annals of Sennacherib to express Hezekiah’s reaction:

"As to Hezekiah, the Judean, he did not submit to my joke."

At a first reading, it seems that Hezekiah was being very ungrateful. Sennacherib sent him a joke and instead of accepting Sennacherib’s joke, Hezekiah refused it.

I wonder why Hezekiah rejected Sennacherib’s joke. As it is well known, some people just don’t know how to tell a joke, and maybe Sennacherib was one of those individuals. But, when one reads the joke Sennacherib imposed on Hezekiah, one understands the reason Hezekiah was not smiling.

During the invasion, Sennacherib conquered the strong cities of Judah and countless small villages in their vicinity. Sennacherib conquered the fortified cities of Judah and sent the surviving population into exile, a total of 200,150 people, young and old, male and female.

Sennacherib presents a triumphal account of his victory against Hezekiah:

As to Hezekiah, the Jew, . . . I laid siege to his strong cities, walled forts, and countless small villages, and conquered them by means of well-stamped earth-ramps and battering-rams brought near the walls with an attack by foot soldiers, using mines, breeches as well as trenches. I drove out 200,150 people, young and old, male and female, horses, mules, donkeys, camels, big and small cattle beyond counting, and considered them slaves. Himself I made a prisoner in Jerusalem, his royal residence, like a bird in a cage. I surrounded him with earthwork in order to molest those who were his city's gate. Thus I reduced his country, but I still increased the tribute and the presents to me as overlord which I imposed upon him beyond the former tribute, to be delivered annually. Hezekiah himself, did send me, later, to Nineveh, my lordly city, together with 30 talents of gold, 800 talents of silver, precious stones, antimony, large cuts of red stone, couches inlaid with ivory, nimedu-chairs inlaid with ivory, elephant-hides, ebony-wood, boxwood and all kinds of valuable treasures, his own daughters and concubines.

The tribute Sennacherib demanded from Hezekiah was no joke. It was so excessive that Hezekiah did not have enough silver and gold to pay the tribute; he gave all he had and paid the remainder in kind.

So, where is Sennacherib’s joke? The joke is only in a bad translation of Liverani’s book. The book was translated from Italian into English and the translators made a horrible mistake. Instead of translating: "as to Hezekiah, the Judean, he did not submit to my yoke," the translators translated: "as to Hezekiah, the Judean, he did not submit to my joke," thus, playing a joke on the readers.

Translating from one language to another is difficult. For this reason, translators must be very careful not to introduce into the text a foreign concept or a wrong message due to a faulty translation. I am sure the “joke” was unintentional, but for readers who may not be familiar with the annals of Sennacherib, the “joke” is not a joke at all.

Claude Mariottini
Professors of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Hezekiah, Mario Liverani, Sennacherib, Translation

The Date of the Exodus

Several weeks ago, I received an email from Prof. James K. Hoffmeier, Professor of Old Testament at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, informing me of his soon-to-be published article on the date of the Exodus. His email was prompted by a post in which I wrote that Hoffmeier accepted the 15th-century date for the Exodus.

In his email, Prof. Hoffmeier said that he had not taken a definite position on the date of the Exodus, but that his forthcoming article would clarify his position on this topic which has been the focus of intense scholarly debate. Prof. Hoffmeier’s article “What Is the Biblical Date for the Exodus?: A Response to Bryant Wood” was published in The Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50 (2007) 225-247. Hoffmeier’s article is a response to an article by Bryant Wood, “The Rise and Fall of the 13th-Century Exodus-Conquest Theory,” The Journal of the Evangelical Society 48 (2005) 475-489.

In this post, I want to summarize the arguments Prof. Hoffmeier presents for the date of the Exodus. Then, I will give my view of his argument and on the date of the Exodus. First, for those who are not familiar with the controversy, let me present the two proposed dates for Israel’s exodus from Egypt. Those who follow a higher chronology say that the Exodus occurred in the 15th century, that is, 1446 B.C. Those who follow a lower chronology believe that the Exodus occurred in the 13th century, that is, 1270-1260 B.C. Both dates are based on biblical information.

For many evangelicals and conservative scholars, the 15th-century date for the Exodus has been a determining factor of whether one’s theology is conservative or liberal. The 13th-century date for the Exodus has been considered by many to be one of the evidences that a person is theologically liberal and that one accepts biblical criticism.

The most important text that supports a 15th-century date for the Exodus is 1 Kings 6:1: “In the four hundred and eightieth year after the people of Israel came out of the land of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon's reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, which is the second month, he began to build the house of the LORD.”

Prof. Hoffmeier correctly points out that the dates found in the book of Joshua through 1 Kings do not add up to 480 years. Prof. Hoffmeier calculated the number of years for Joshua, the judges and the kings of Israel up to Solomon and the numbers added up to 630-650 years. Those who accept a 15th-century date for the Exodus, have to harmonize the text by presupposing overlaps in the years some of the judges ruled in Israel.

Another way of arriving at a 15th-century date for the Exodus is using the chronological information provided by Shishak’s invasion of Judah in the 5th year of King Rehoboam, Solomon’s son. By synchronizing the date of Shishak’s and Rehoboam’s reigns, the date for the invasion would be 925 B.C. Thus, the death of Solomon would be in 930 B.C. and the fourth year of his reign would be 966 B.C. Adding to this date the 480 years of 1 Kings 6:1, then, the date of the Exodus would be 1446 B.C. However, Prof. Hoffmeier says that the biblical data would put the Exodus during the Hyksos’ occupation of Egypt.

The 13th-century date for the Exodus is based on Exodus 1:11 which says that while in Egypt, the Israelites built for Pharaoh the store-cities of Pithom and Rameses. Although the book of Exodus never identifies the name of the Pharaoh of the Exodus, this statement in Exodus 1:11 would place the Exodus in the reign of Rameses II, the Pharaoh of the 19th Dynasty who ruled from 1279-1213 B.C. (these are Hoffmeier’s dates; John Bright’s dates are 1290-1224 B.C).

A 13th-century date for the Exodus also finds support in the Merneptah Stela, a monument celebrating Merneptah’s military victories in Canaan. The Merneptah Stela is also known as the “Israel Stela” because it contains the first reference to Israel outside the Bible. Since Merneptah ruled Egypt from 1213-1203 B.C. (these are Hoffmeier’s dates; John Bright’s dates are 1224-1211 B.C), the reference to Israel indicates that during his reign Israel was already in Canaan.

Another evidence presented by Prof. Hoffmeier is the geographical references that appear in the book of Exodus. According to him, the names Pithom (Exodus 1:11), Migdol (Exodus 14:2), and Yam suf (“Sea of Reeds”) “are attested beginning in the 19th Dynasty sources, but are not found prior to the 13th century” (p. 235). In addition, Prof. Hoffmeier also says that toponyms such as Pi-hahiroth and Baal-Zaphon (Exodus 14:2) also begin to appear in 13th century documents.

Prof. Hoffmeier raises an important problem in the discussion of the Exodus. The problem he mentions is the absence of any reference to Egyptian military presence in Canaan in the books of Joshua and Judges. According to him, Merneptah’s presence in Canaan was due to Israel’s expansion in the days of the judges. After Merneptah’s invasion, Egypt’s influence in Canaan began to diminish because of the arrival of the Philistines.

Prof. Hoffmeier believes that a veiled reference to Merneptah may be found in Joshua 15:9 and 18:15. In these two passages the Hebrew words עין מי נפתוח are translated as “The Springs of Waters of Nephtoah.” However, he believes that the words for “spring” and “waters” are redundant and should be translated as “The Spring of Menephtoah,” a name identical to Merneptah.

In his article Prof. Hoffmeier discusses the issue of large and symbolic numbers, dealing primarily with the number 480 and the use of the number 40 in the Bible. He also discusses the problem of the Pharaoh of the Exodus and issues related to the conquest of Canaan.

In his conclusion, Prof. Hoffmeier says that there are biblical and archaeological evidence for a 13th-century for the date of the Exodus. I agree with his conclusions. The biblical evidence points to a 13th-century date for the Exodus and so does the archaeological evidence, as Prof. Hoffmeier has demonstrated. As for the large number in 1 Kings 6:1, it can be interpreted in different ways, as Prof. Hoffmeier also shows in his article.

I also concur with Prof. Hoffmeier's admonition at the end of his article: “I ... urge evangelical biblical scholars, historians, and archaeologists not to expend all their energies on defending a date for the exodus when the real debate today is whether the books of Exodus-Judges contain any history at all and if there was a sojourn and an exodus.”

Prof. Hoffmeier’s article deals with many important issues related to the 13th-century date of the exodus. This is an article worth reading.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Exodus, James Hoffmeier, Rameses, Merneptah

Hibernating

As you have realized by now, I have been unable to post to the blog for the last two weeks. No, I have not been hibernating. I have been finishing my work on the Self-Study. Let me explain.

Every ten years, an education institution has to apply for re-accreditation. Northern Baptist Seminary is accredited by The Commission on Accrediting of The Association of Theological Schools in the United States and Canada (ATS) and The Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools (NCA).

Our last accreditation visit was in 1997; in November 2007 we will receive a visit from ATS and NCA for the purpose of re-accreditation. In preparation for this visit, the seminary has to do a self-study to ascertain whether it is fulfilling its mission as described in the seminary’s Mission Statement. To prepare for the Self-Study visit, Northern’s President asked me to serve as the Director of the Self-Study.

Our Self-Study process took three full years of hard work. During this period, the faculty and staff of the seminary did a thorough study of the life and ministry of the seminary for the past ten years. At the end of the process, we had dozens of reports and documents detailing the results of the study. When the faculty and staff finished their work, I began writing the final Self-Study Report.

I began gathering the information last summer. For the past several months I have been writing the Self-Study Report. For the past two weeks I have been putting the final touches on the Report. I am glad to say that I finished editing the Self-Study Report yesterday. The result is a book of more than 200 pages, 102 appendixes, and about 100 footnotes.

Now, I can begin writing for pleasure. This is what is waiting for me. I am writing two articles for a new study Bible being published by Fortress Press. I have to write two more articles for The New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, a book review for The Expository Times, and two book reviews for the Review and Expositor. If I have time, I hope to finish writing an article on Zedekiah to be submitted for publication by the end of the year.

And then, there is the blog. Beginning next week, I hope to begin posting regularly to the blog. For the past two weeks I have been unable to answer the many emails and comments I received from readers, but I will do so beginning this weekend.

I missed blogging and I can’t wait to begin writing again.

AUGUST CARNIVAL

By the way, I am responsible for the August Carnival. If you have not submitted your entry, consider this an invitation to submit your best post for consideration. So, do it today.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tag: Blogging

The Case of the Chastity Ring

Can a teenager girl wear a chastity ring in school? A young Christian teenager lost her case because a court denied her request to wear her virginity ring on her finger. The judge who decided the case said the ring in question was “not intrinsically a Christian symbol like a cross” so her right to “manifest” her religion in public was not infringed.

The following story appeared in TimesOnline:

A teenager who took her school to court claiming breach of human rights because she was forbidden from wearing a chastity ring has lost her case been ordered to pay £12,000 in legal costs.

Lydia Playfoot, 16, claimed the ban at the Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex, was an "unlawful interference" with her right to express her Christian faith.

But deputy High Court judge Michael Supperstone said today that the ring was not an integral part of the Christian faith and upheld the school's right to enforce its uniform policy.

Lawyers for Ms Playfoot told an earlier hearing that her chastity ring was a "religious artefact" and should therefore be exempt from the school's general ban on jewellery -in the same way that Sikh pupils were allowed to wear bracelets known as Kara bangles

But the judge ruled that "whatever the ring is intended to symbolise, it is a piece of jewellery."

He added that Ms Playfoot's human rights had not been breached because she "voluntarily accepted the uniform policy of the school" and there were "other means open to her to practise her belief."

The judge also ordered Ms Playfoot's father, Philip, to pay £12,000 towards the school's legal costs. She was denied permission to appeal against the ruling.

Ms Playfoot said she was "very disappointed" by the decision and predicted that it would lead to other Christians being prevented from "publicly expressing and practising their faith".

A spokesman for the Church of England said it was a "great pity" that Ms Playfoot's "commendable commitment to upholding Christian teaching on chastity should have provoked controversy and the need for litigation."

"In this case, wearing a ring, though it is not intrinsically a Christian symbol like a cross, is clearly a symbol of the desire to uphold and practise an aspect of the Christian faith."

The National Secular Society, which has criticised the case as a "manipulative attempt to impose a particular religious viewpoint on the school", welcomed the result.

Ms Playfoot is one of a group of Christians at the Millais School who wore the ring engraved with a Biblical verse as a sign of their belief in abstinence from sex until marriage.

In court her lawyers claimed that the school, which allows Muslim and Sikh students to wear headscarfs and religious bracelets, breached her human rights by preventing her from wearing the ring.

It is that last statement that is disturbing:

In court her lawyers claimed that the school, which allows Muslim and Sikh students to wear headscarfs and religious bracelets, breached her human rights by preventing her from wearing the ring.

There is a double standard in society today. Many societies, including our society here in the USA, go out of their way to please and appease religious groups by allowing them to express their religion. These religious groups are allowed to wear, as the report said, headscarfs, religious bracelets, veils, garments, and other items that clearly express religious faith. However, the same privileges are denied to others just because they are Christians. To me, this is a double standard that must be addressed.

The whole issue is very complicated. We live in a pluralistic society, a society with Christians and atheists, Moslems and Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs. Should we please all or none? It seems that the courts have decided to favor the few against the many. What do you think?

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Chastity Ring, Christian Symbols, Religion, Virginity

Protestants React To Vatican’s Statement

The Associated Baptist Press has a detailed article about the reaction of some Protestants to the Pope’s statement that other Christians communities are not the church. The following is an excerpt of the news release:

DALLAS (ABP) -- The document issued July 10 by the Vatican was meant to clarify its doctrine of the church. But nearly a week later, its timing and language still leaves some Protestants and Catholics feeling confused or angry.

Much of the document, entitled "Responses to Some Questions Regarding Certain Aspects of the Doctrine on the Church," was aimed to clearly define “church.” The part that incited some anger said Christian denominations outside the Roman Catholic Church are not true churches. Instead only those with a direct link to the apostles and that submit to the authority of the pope are genuine. the Vatican said.

The document said Protestant churches suffer from a “profound wound,” causing them to warrant only “Christian community” status, not that of a church. The document said the Roman Catholic Church meets the criteria for a “church” because it can trace its history directly through bishops to the original apostles. It said Eastern Orthodox churches suffer from a lesser “wound” than Protestants because, while they claim apostolic authority, they don’t recognize the primacy of the pope.

“This is nothing but a naked attempt by Pope Benedict to ‘own’ Jesus by virtue of the Catholic Church considering the apostle Peter as its leader,” said American talk-show host Roland Martin. He told CNN July 13 that the Vatican document divides the community of faith rather than supports it.

There's little new in the Vatican document, however. Most of the contentious statements were also included in “Dominus Iesus,” a document issued in 2000 by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger before he became the current pope, Benedict XVI. According to Reuter’s, the purpose of July 10 document was to correct “erroneous or ambiguous” interpretations of the Second Vatican Council of the 1960s, which opened the door for ecumenical dialogue with non-Catholic Christian bodies.

Some critics say the divisive nature of the latest document is ironic, since Pope Benedict has portrayed himself as a supporter of Christian unity. The day after he was elected pope, he delivered a speech in which he said God will judge him for what he does to foster Christian unity.

One key Protestant leader added his criticism of the document, which he said "makes us question the seriousness with which the Roman Catholic Church takes its dialogues with Reformed family and other families of the church." Rev. Setri Nyomi, general secretary of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, offered that view in a letter to Cardinal Walter Kasper, the president of the Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, according to Catholic World News.


Read the news release in its entirety by clicking here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Catholic Church, Church, Pope, Protestants, Vatican

The Answer Atheists Can't Provide

In an article published in the Washington Post titled “What Atheists Can't Answer,” Michael Gerson asks this questions: “If the atheists are right, what would be the effect on human morality?” His article deals what the issue of what would happen to our world if “God were dethroned as the arbiter of moral truth.”

Gerson wrote:

“How do we choose between good and bad instincts? Theism, for several millennia, has given one answer: We should cultivate the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect requires it. While many of us fall tragically short, the ideal remains.”

“Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma.”

According to Gerson,

“America's Founders embraced public neutrality on matters of religion, but they were not indifferent to the existence of religious faith. George Washington warned against the ‘supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.” The Founders generally believed that the virtues necessary for self-government -- self-sacrifice, honesty, public spirit -- were strengthened by religious beliefs and institutions.”

Gerson concludes:

“Atheists and theists seem to agree that human beings have an innate desire for morality and purpose. For the theist, this is perfectly understandable: We long for love, harmony and sympathy because we are intended by a Creator to find them. In a world without God, however, this desire for love and purpose is a cruel joke of nature -- imprinted by evolution, but destined for disappointment, just as we are destined for oblivion, on a planet that will be consumed by fire before the sun grows dim and cold.”

Read the article by clicking here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Atheism, God, Theism

Jeremiah 39:3 and the Nebo-Sarsekim Tablet

In his post on Nebo-Sarsekim, “ The mystery of Nabu-sharrussu-ukin,” Chris Heard makes several important points which I want to address briefly in this post.

First, Chris asks: which version is correct, the NIV or the NRSV and the NJPSV? As I mentioned in my first post, all versions struggle with the Babylonian names, so, it is doubtful that the NRSV is better than the NIV in this case. Chris asks:

would it be appropriate to use the tablet to "correct" translations like the NRSV and NJPSV that read "Samgar-nebo, Sarsekim" rather than "Samgar, Nebo-sarsekim"?

Why not, if in this case the NRSV is wrong? In the past I have taken the NRSV against the NIV, but in this case I take the NIV against the NRSV. Even Chris leans “toward the NIV against the NRSV and NJPSV on the translation of the list of officials’ names.”

Second, Chris is puzzled with the presence of two Nergal-sharezers in Jeremiah 39:3. Since these two Nergal-sharezers have different titles, they probably were two different people working for the king of Babylon.

Third, Chris warns us that maybe the Nebo-Sarsekim of the clay tablet may not be the same Nebo-Sarsekim of Jeremiah 39:3. This is a fair assumption because if there were two Nergal-sharezers in Babylon, it is also possible that there was more than one Nebo-Sarsekim.

Many of the other issues raised by Chris have been addressed by Jack R. Lundbom in his commentary, Jeremiah 37-52 (The Anchor Bible; New York: Doubleday, 2004), 84-85.

Below I quote Lundbom’s comments in full. All the emphases are his; the abbreviations from works cited are quoted as they appear in the commentary. Those who want to read the works cited by Lundbom should consult his commentary. Lindbom wrote:

Nergalsharerer the Samgar, Nebusanechim the Rab-saris, Nergalsharezer the Rab-mag. Difficulty in rendering these Babylonian names shows up already in the Versions, which betray uncertainty about components and a general unawareness that names are followed by titles. What we have are three names with titles (Bogaert 1990: 317), the same number–but not all the same persons–as in v 13. If one were to read MT's hyphenated samgar-nebu as a separate name, which is possible (= Akk Sinmagir-Nabu), the names and individuals would then be four: Nergal-sharezer, Samgar-nebu, Sarsechim the Rab-saris, and Nergal-sharezer the Rab-mag (compare RSV, NJV, and NJB). But a contemporary cuneiform text suggests that samgar is a title for Nergal-sharezer (see below), leaving nebu a component of the following name. The samgar-nebu of MT is then incorrect.

Nergalsharezer the Samgar. Nergalsharezer is a Hebraicized form of Akk Nergal-sar-usur (Neriglissar). This individual, or else Nergalsharezer the Rab- mag cited here and in v 13, is likely the one who later seized the throne from Nebuchadrezzar's successor, Amelmarduk, and reigned from 560 to 556 B.C. (Bright 1965: 243; 1981: 352-53). Hebrew samgar (=Akk simmagir [sin-magir]) is the title of a high official, or else a place-name (CAD 15: 272-73; AHw 2: 1045). The consensus now is that samgar belongs with the prior name, which in Akk yields either Nergal-sar-user, the Sin-magir (high official), or Nergal- sar-user from Sin-magir (Bewer 1925-26). An individual so designated has come to light in "The Court of Nebuchadnezzar” document (ANET 308), where also the Nebuzaradan mentioned in vv. 9-14 is listed. Some commentators (Giesebrecht; Rudolph; Bright; Holladay; Jones; McKane) suggest that the two Nergalsharezers are only one person, but that view is to be rejected. These are two individuals with the same name (Kimhi), cited here with different titles in order to distinguish one from the other.

Nebusarsechim the Rab-saris. The now-expanded name of Nebusarsechim has support in LXX's Nabousachar. The component in MT is "Nebu" (as in Nebuchadrezzar), not "Nebo," as appears in Isa 46:l. Both are equivalent to Akk Nabu (= god). The Rab-saris ("chief of the eunuchs") is another title for a high state official.

Nergalsharezer the Rab-mag. The term rab-mag is a Hebraicized form of Akk rab mugi, the title of a high military official (mugu in CAD 10/2:171; Ahw 2:667; KB [3rd ed.]; its meaning, at least here, is not “chief astrologer/sootsayer” (pace BDB, 550; NJB). The term has turned up in an economic memoradum from the Sippar temple records (BM 49656:3), where the Nabopolassar’s accession reference is made to “the accountant of the rab magu” (Wiseman 1956:94).

The Nebo-Sarsekim Tablet was found among financial records unearthed in the ancient city of Sippar. It is not a coincidence that, according to Lundbom, the title of Nergalsharezer the Rab-mag and the name of Nebuzaradan also appear in documents found in the temple at Sippar.

Chris has a point: the Nebo-Sarsekim of the tablet may not be the same Nebo-Sarsekim of Jeremiah 39:3. But one thing is sure: the name Nebo-Sarsekim is not a name invented by some post-exilic theologian writing an invented history of Israel.

Previous posts on this topic::

The Book of Jeremiah and A New Archaeological Discovery

The Nebo-Sarsekim Tablet

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, Babylon, Jeremiah, Nebo-Sarsekim, Michael Jursa

The Nebo-Sarsekim Tablet

In my previous post on the Nebo-Sarsekim Tablet, I mentioned that Nebo-Sarsekim was the same individual mentioned in Jeremiah 39:3.

Peter Kirk alerted me to an article in The Telegraph that provides a photo and a full translation of the tablet.

According to the article in The Telegraph, the full translation of the
tablet reads as follows:

(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 tablet is dated to the 10th year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, 595 B.C.E., two years after the deportation of Jehoiachin, King of Judah. This date is very important. As Peter wrote:

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.

Credits:

I want to thank Peter Kirk for leading me to the article in The Telegraph.

The translation of the Nebo-Sarsekim Tablet appeared in The Telegraph.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, Babylon, Jeremiah, Nebo-Sarsekim, Nebuchadnezzar

Jim West's New Degrees

Jim West is a very popular blogger. This is the reason 303,539 people have visited his blog (by now that number must be much larger) and 168 blogs link to his blog. I think Jim's popularity is the reason people like to debate with him (they need additional hits for their blogs).

Maybe, it is because of Jim’s popularity that Michael F. Bird bestowed on Jim West three new degrees. In addition to his Th.D., which Jim earned, Michael bestowed on Jim the titles of OBE, QC, and a third one.

If you don’t know what OBE is (I did not know), click here.

If you don’t know what QC is (I did not know either), click here and look at # 2.

As for the third one, you better visit Michael’s blog and look under “Christian Blogs.”

I want to congratulate Jim for the first two degrees.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tag: Jim West

The Book of Jeremiah and A New Archaeological Discovery

According to the book of Jeremiah 39:1-3, in the ninth year of Zedekiah, king of Judah, in the tenth month, in the tenth day of the month, the army of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, came to Jerusalem and besieged the city.

Two and a half years later, that is, in the eleventh year of Zedekiah, in the fourth month, the Babylonians broke through the walls of the city and Jerusalem fell. When Jerusalem fell, the officers of the Babylonian army came in and sat in triumph at the Middle Gate.

The versions differ in translating the names of the officers of the Babylonian army. The following are some of the translations of Jeremiah 39:3:

The English Standard Version (ESV)

Jeremiah 39:3 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 King James Version (KJV)

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.

The New American Bible (NAB)

Jeremiah 39:3 All the princes of the king of Babylon came and occupied the middle gate: Nergal-sharezer, of Simmagir, the chief officer, Nebushazban, the high dignitary, and all the other princes of the king of Babylon....

The New International Version (NIV)

Jeremiah 39:3 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.

The New Living Translation (NLT)

Jeremiah 39:3 All the officers of the Babylonian army came in and sat in triumph at the Middle Gate: Nergal-sharezer of Samgar, and Nebo-sarsekim, a chief officer, and Nergal-sharezer, the king's adviser, and many others.

Note how the versions deal with the names:

The ESV has four officers: Nergal-sar-ezer, Samgar-nebu, Sar-sekim the Rab-saris, and Nergal-sar-ezer the Rab-mag.

The KJV has six officers: Nergalsharezer, Samgarnebo, Sarsechim, Rabsaris, Nergalsharezer, and Rabmag.

The NAB has two officers: Nergal-sharezer, of Simmagir, the chief officer, and Nebushazban, the high dignitary.

The NIV has three officers: Nergal-Sharezer of Samgar, Nebo-Sarsekim a chief officer, and Nergal-Sharezer a high official.

The NLT has three officers: Nergal-sharezer of Samgar, Nebo-sarsekim, a chief officer, and Nergal-sharezer, the king's adviser.

Of these translations, only the NIV and NLT seems to be correct. Most scholars today believe that Samgar is the name of a place and that Nebo-Saserkim is the name of one of the army officers. The NIV and NLT follow the Septuagint. The Septuagint translates the name of the army officer as Nabusachar.

This reading is now confirmed by the translation of a new clay tablet found in the British Museum. The following is an excerpt of the news release published by Timesonline.com:

The British Museum yesterday hailed a discovery within a modest clay tablet in its collection as a breakthrough for biblical archaeology - dramatic proof of the accuracy of the Old Testament.

The cuneiform inscription in a tablet dating from 595BC has been deciphered for the first time - revealing a reference to an official at the court of Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, that proves the historical existence of a figure mentioned in the Book of Jeremiah.

This is rare evidence in a nonbiblical source of a real person, other than kings, featured in the Bible.

The tablet names a Babylonian officer called Nebo-Sarsekim, who according to Jeremiah xxxix was present in 587BC when Nebuchadnezzar "marched against Jerusalem with his whole army and laid siege to it".

The cuneiform inscription records how Nebo-Sarsekim lavished a gift of gold on the Temple of Esangila in the fabled city of Babylon, where, at least in folk tradition, Nebuchadnezzar is credited with building the Hanging Gardens, one of the Seven Wonders of the World. British Museum staff are excited by the discovery. Irving Finkel, assistant keeper in the Department of the Middle East, said: "A mundane commercial transaction takes its place as a primary witness to one of the turning points in Old Testament history. This is a tablet that deserves to be famous."

The discovery was made by Michael Jursa, associate professor at the University of Vienna, on a routine research trip to the museum. "It's very exciting and very surprising," he said. "Finding something like this tablet, where we see a person mentioned in the Bible making an everyday payment to the temple in Babylon and quoting the exact date, is quite extraordinary."

Since 1991, Dr Jursa has been visiting the museum to study a collection of more than 100,000 inscribed tablets - the world's largest holdings. Although they are examined by international scholars daily, reading and piecing together fragments is painstaking work and more than half are yet to be published.

Cuneiform is the oldest known form of writing. During its 3,000-year history it was used to write about 15 languages including Babylonian, Assyrian, Hittite and Urartian. A wedged instrument - usually a cut reed - was used to press the signs into clay. This gave the writing system its name, "cuneiform", or wedge-shaped.

There are only a small number of scholars worldwide who can read cuneiform script. One of them is Dr Jursa, who told The Times yesterday that the British Museum tablet was so well preserved that it took him just a couple of minutes to decipher.

This one - which is 2.13 inches (5.5cm) wide - was acquired by the British Museum in 1920. Dr Jursa said: "But no one realised the connection. They didn't really read it."

It was unearthed from the ancient city of Sippar, where there was a huge sun temple, just over a mile from modern-day Baghdad. It was part of a large temple archive excavated for the British Museum in the 1870s.

Dr Jursa, who made the discovery while conducting research into officials at the Babylonian court, said that the tablet recorded Nebo-Sarsekim's gift of gold to the temple - a gift so large that it would be comparable in value today to the cost of a large townhouse.

On hearing of the discovery yesterday, Geza Vermes, the eminent emeritus professor of Jewish studies at the University of Oxford, said that such a discovery revealed that "the Biblical story is not altogether invented". He added: "This will be interesting for religious people as much as historians."

It is great day when archaeological findings confirm what we already knew: that the events and people in the Bible have a true historical background.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Archaeology, Babylon, Jeremiah, Nebuchadnezzar

Pope Declares: Other Christians Are Not the True Church

Pope Benedict XVI has declared in a document issued by the Vatican, that other Christians communities are not the true church. According to the Pope, Christ established only one church, the Catholic Church. The Pope said that Orthodox churches are “defective” and that Protestants and other Christian denominations are “not true churches but merely ecclesial communities” and for this reason, they do not have the “means of salvation.”

Below is the news release published by the Associated Press:

Pope Benedict XVI has reasserted the universal primacy of the Roman Catholic Church, approving a document released Tuesday that says Orthodox churches were defective and that other Christian denominations were not true churches.

Benedict approved a document from his old offices at the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that restates church teaching on relations with other Christians. It was the second time in a week the pope has corrected what he says are erroneous interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, the 1962-65 meetings that modernized the church.

On Saturday, Benedict revisited another key aspect of Vatican II by reviving the old Latin Mass. Traditional Catholics cheered the move, but more liberal ones called it a step back from Vatican II.

Benedict, who attended Vatican II as a young theologian, has long complained about what he considers the erroneous interpretation of the council by liberals, saying it was not a break from the past but rather a renewal of church tradition.

In the latest document - formulated as five questions and answers - the Vatican seeks to set the record straight on Vatican II's ecumenical intent, saying some contemporary theological interpretation had been "erroneous or ambiguous" and had prompted confusion and doubt.

It restates key sections of a 2000 document the pope wrote when he was prefect of the congregation, "Dominus Iesus," which set off a firestorm of criticism among Protestant and other Christian denominations because it said they were not true churches but merely ecclesial communities and therefore did not have the "means of salvation."

In the new document and an accompanying commentary, which were released as the pope vacations here in Italy's Dolomite mountains, the Vatican repeated that position.

"Christ 'established here on earth' only one church," the document said. The other communities "cannot be called 'churches' in the proper sense" because they do not have apostolic succession - the ability to trace their bishops back to Christ's original apostles.

The Rev. Sara MacVane of the Anglican Centre in Rome, said there was nothing new in the document.

"I don't know what motivated it at this time," she said. "But it's important always to point out that there's the official position and there's the huge amount of friendship and fellowship and worshipping together that goes on at all levels, certainly between Anglican and Catholics and all the other groups and Catholics."

The document said Orthodox churches were indeed "churches" because they have apostolic succession and that they enjoyed "many elements of sanctification and of truth." But it said they lack something because they do not recognize the primacy of the pope - a defect, or a "wound" that harmed them, it said.

"This is obviously not compatible with the doctrine of primacy which, according to the Catholic faith, is an 'internal constitutive principle' of the very existence of a particular church," the commentary said.

Despite the harsh tone of the document, it stresses that Benedict remains committed to ecumenical dialogue.

"However, if such dialogue is to be truly constructive, it must involve not just the mutual openness of the participants but also fidelity to the identity of the Catholic faith," the commentary said.

The document, signed by the congregation prefect, U.S. Cardinal William Levada, was approved by Benedict on June 29, the feast of Sts. Peter and Paul - a major ecumenical feast day.

There was no indication about why the pope felt it necessary to release the document, particularly since his 2000 document summed up the same principles. Some analysts suggested it could be a question of internal church politics, or that it could simply be an indication of Benedict using his office as pope to again stress key doctrinal issues from his time at the congregation.

The whole issue for the Catholic church is the issue of “apostolic succession.” If a church is unable to “trace their bishops back to Christ's original apostles,” then that church cannot be considered a true church. The fact is, that it is only through some manipulation of historical facts that the Catholic church can trace itself back to Peter.

The Pope said that the Catholic church is still “committed to ecumenical dialogue.” But ecumenical dialogue must be under the Pope’s terms: “However, if such dialogue is to be truly constructive, it must involve not just the mutual openness of the participants but also fidelity to the identity of the Catholic faith.”

To the Pope and to the Catholic church, the Protestant and other Christian “ecclesial communities” reinterate Luther’s words:

“Unless I am convicted by scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.”

And then, those words that made Luther famous, if he indeed spoke them:

“Here I stand. I cannot do otherwise. God help me, Amen!”

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Apostolic Succession, Benedict XVI , Catholic Church, Church, Pope

The Not So Real Wonder of the World

A few days ago, I wrote a post on the selection of the new Seven Wonders of the World. Jim West did not like the selection made by an international committee and by popular vote, so he selected his own “The Real ‘Seven Wonders’ of the Modern World.”

I may not disagree with selections 7 through 3, but I take umbrage with selection number 2. To Jim, the second wonder of the modern world is a school of biblical studies. Here is his selection:

2- The Copenhagen / Sheffield ‘School’ of Biblical Studies. Finally, the door is unlocked to a proper understanding of the biblical text.

I do not want to be offensive here (nothing personal), but I strongly disagree with Jim on this point. What the Copenhagen / Sheffield ‘School’ of Biblical Studies has done is not to open the door “to a proper understanding of the biblical text” but rather develop an exegetical method that has transformed the Old Testament stories into a set of “foundation myths” that were created in order to justify the existence of post-exilic Judaism.

In my view, the Copenhagen / Sheffield ‘School’ of Biblical Studies is a post-modern form of second century Marcionism. To the Marcionites, the Old Testament was a scandal because they believed the God of the Old Testament was a cruel God. Since for them the God of the Old Testament was not good, then the Old Testament had to be set aside.

The Copenhagen / Sheffield ‘School’ of Biblical Studies emphasizes that the Jews who came from exile in Babylon created the myths of the patriarchs, the Exodus, and the conquest in order to justify their occupation of the land. Since these foundation myths were created by the oppressors to justify their cause, then these myths (the stories of the Old Testament) must be set aside as non-historical because they were used by the returnees to oppress the remainees, the poor people who were living in the land at the time the returnees came back from exile.

The same approach is being used today to deny Israel the right to live in the land. According to modern Marcionites, a group of Zionists returned to Palestine and dispossessed the people who already lived there. People who deny Israel’s right to the land claim that these same Zionists used archaeology to prove that their ancestors lived in the land for more than three thousand years. Today’s Marcionites claim that since there were no patriarchs, no Exodus, no conquest, and no tenth century, modern Israel’s claim to the land is not valid because the Israel that was delivered from the house of oppression never existed since that ideal Israel was based on a fictitious history created by a group of people who occupied the land after they came from their exile in Babylon.

If people all over the world had to vote for the Copenhagen / Sheffield ‘School’ of Biblical Studies as one of the Real Seven Wonders of the Modern World, the Copenhagen / Sheffield ‘School’ of Biblical Studies would receive only one vote, and it would not be mine.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Israel, Jews, Judaism, Marcion, Marcionites

Second Temple Judaism

Today I just became acquainted with the web page of Lisbeth S. Fried, a visiting scholar at the Frankel Center for Judaic Studies and the Department of Near Eastern Studies at the University of Michigan.

Fried’s site contains reprints of several of her works. Most of the articles deal with the post-exilic period and Second Temple Judaism.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Judaism, Second Temple

Jeremiah 1:1-10: The Call to Preach

Every pastor is a prophet, and every prophet is a pastor. What distinguishes a minister as a prophet is not the prophet’s criticism of society, even though prophets were critics of their society. And, it is not that prophets preached judgment and condemnation, even though they did. What distinguishes a minister as a prophet is the call of God to speak on behalf of God.

There are two words used in the Bible to describe a prophet. The first word is found in the Old Testament. It is the Hebrew word nabi. The word nabi is translated “prophet” in English, but in Hebrew the word means “one who is called.”

The second word is found in the New Testament. It is the word prophetes, which in English is translated as “prophet.” The word prophetes is composed of two Greek words: pro and phetes. In English, the word prophetes means “to speak on behalf of” someone.

Pastors are prophets. They are prophets because they have a call from God to proclaim the word of God to a lost world. They are prophets because in their ministry they speak on behalf of God.
In describing the call to preach, I have chosen the call of the prophet Jeremiah to illustrate a pastor’s ministry and to emphasize what is involved in being a minister of God.

The most important thing in the ministry is knowing that one has been called of God. In the Old Testament, a prophet was not “called of God,” but rather, the prophet was “sent by God.” Speaking about false prophets, the Lord said: “I did not send the prophets, yet they ran” (Jeremiah 23:21).

Jeremiah 1:1-10 is a narrative that introduces the call experience of Jeremiah, a man from Anathoth. The elements that are present in the call experience of Jeremiah are also present in the call experience of every minister.

First, a minister is in the ministry because of a direct call from God. The ministry is not a job, it is a vocation, and unless someone is called by God to preach God’s word, that person has no place in the ministry.

The Lord said to Jeremiah: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you” (v. 5). Every pastor has an intimate relationship with God. The word “to know” refers to a special relationship between God and Jeremiah. It was the same word used to describe the relationship between God and Israel. The Lord said to Israel: “You only have I known of all the families of the earth” (Amos 3:2). And when Israel failed God, God lamented that there was no knowledge of God in the land. Thus when God said that he knew Jeremiah, God was emphasizing his personal commitment to Jeremiah.

God knows every person whom he calls into the ministry and the Lord has a personal interest in their ministry. Because God called them and cares for them, he is also committed to their success as ministers.

Second, a minister is set apart for a special work. God said to Jeremiah: “before you were born, I set you apart” (v.5). The expression “to set apart” in Hebrew means “to make it holy.” God sets a person apart for ministry, for special work. In the Bible, anything or anyone who belonged to God was holy, set a part for God’s use.

God also sets apart people and gives them special tasks. All believers are holy people; we are set apart for God’s special use. We, as believers, are set apart from the world to become a special people, a holy people.

Prophets had two very important functions as people called by God. First, a prophet acted as an ambassador for God. God told Jeremiah: “I appointed you as a prophet to the nations” (v.5). One is appointed by God in the same way an ambassador is appointed by the president. Jeremiah was appointed to represent God and to speak on behalf of God to all the nations.

Ministers are God’s ambassadors. Their assignment may not be to a specific nation, but to a specific state, a specific city, or a specific community. Ministers represent God in their community in the same way Jeremiah represented God before Israel and before Babylon.

Second, a prophet acted as a representative of God. The prophet Jeremiah had been “set apart” by God. “Set apart” means “holy.” The prophet was a holy person. God commanded his people: “You shall be holy; for I the Lord your God am holy” (Leviticus 19:2). Because the prophet represents a holy God, the prophet is a holy person who lives a holy life. Not a perfect life, because only God is perfect. A holy life means a life set apart.

That is the only way a minister can be effective in the ministry. Ministers must learn how to live a life that is completely dedicated to God and to his cause. The word “sanctify” is the same word translated to “set apart” or to “make holy.” Because Jesus desired that his disciples would learn how to live a holy life, he had to set himself apart, he had to sanctify himself for his work. Jesus said: “And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth” (John 17:19). Jesus also said: “Sanctify them by the truth: your word is truth” (John 17:17).

“Your word is truth.” The ministry of those who are called by God is focused on the word of God. It is through God’s word that people are made holy, set apart for God’s work. This is why Jeremiah’s ministry was a ministry of the word of God.

When Jeremiah heard God’s call to the ministry, Jeremiah objected. He said: “Ah, Sovereign Lord, I do not know how to speak; I am only a child” (v. 6).

“I do not know how or what to speak, for I am only a child.” In Hebrew the word “child” does not mean a little boy; it means someone who has little experience. What Jeremiah was saying was this: “Oh Lord, why do you call me to preach, when I do not know what to say.”

The proclamation of the word is the key factor of the ministry of those who are called. The minister must preach the word of God every week. Sunday after Sunday, week after week, the minister must be ready to proclaim the word of God. But the question is: what to preach?

Different people deal with this problem in different ways. Some pastors go to the Internet and get a sermon every week. This, I say, is the poorest way of preaching God’s word. I doubt that Jeremiah would search the Internet for a word from God. Other pastors buy books of sermons and preach them every week. These sermons outlines are very popular today. Hundreds of books are written every year providing sermons for busy pastors. Everything comes included, even the illustrations.

But if you read the book of the prophet Jeremiah, he would be against this practice of preaching other people’s sermons. In Jeremiah 23:29-30 the Lord said: “Is not my word like fire, says the LORD, and like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces?” God’s word has power: it is like a hammer that breaks a rock in pieces.

How does a prophet prepare to preach? A prophet receives the word directly from God. When God called Jeremiah to preach, God also equipped Jeremiah to preach: “Then the Lord reached out his hand and touched my mouth and said to me, ‘Now, I have put my words in your mouth’” (v. 9).

Because ministers have been called by God and because he has appointed them to speak on his behalf, God himself will put his words in their mouth and they will speak on behalf of God. This is the ministry that God has given to ministers: the ministry of the word of God.

If ministers want to be effective as ministers of Jesus Christ, if they want to speak on behalf of God, then they must allow God to put his words in their mouths. There are several things ministers must do to succeed in their ministry.

God said: “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you.” God knows those whom he called. In turn, ministers must know God. Ministers must be good students of the word of God. When they study, God will teach them. Ministers must be people of prayer. When they pray, God will speak to them the things they must proclaim.

God said: “Before you came forth out of the womb, I sanctified you.” God has sanctified those whom he has called; he has set them apart. Now, ministers must take seriously the words of Jesus. Jesus said: “For them I sanctify myself, that they too may be truly sanctified” (John 17:19).

For the sake of the people under their care, ministers must sanctify themselves, they must live holy lives. Ministers must allow their life to reflect the holiness and the love of God. Ministers must learn to love their people in the same way God loves them. Ministers must serve their people that their people might be sanctified by the truth, the word of God.

Ministers must focus their ministry on the word of God. They must preach God’s word with power. They must teach God’s word with enthusiasm. God’s word to Joshua should be a guide to those who are called to be ministers of God: “Do not let this Book of the Law depart from your mouth; meditate on it day and night, so that you may be careful to do everything written in it. Then you will be prosperous and successful” (Joshua 1:8).

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Divine Call, Jeremiah, Ministers, Ministry, Pastors

The New 7 Wonders of the World

The new 7 wonders of the world has been announced. They are:

1. The Colosseum in Rome

2. The Great Wall of China

3. Taj Mahal in India

4. The Ancient City of Petra in Jordan

5. The Incan Ruins of Machu Picchu in Peru

6. The Statue of Christ Redeemer in Brazil

7. The Chichen Itza Pyramid in Mexico

Of the new seven wonders of the world, five of them are directly or indirectly related to religion.

Read the news release here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Religion, Seven Wonders

The Proper Reading of Genesis 1:1

Iyov has an interesting post about two scholars discussing the proper reading of Genesis 1:1. Read the post by clicking here.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tag: Genesis

Biblical Studies Carnival XIX

Biblical Studies Carnival XIX has been posted. The Biblical Studies Carnival lists the best posts written by bibliobloggers during the month of June. The list was compiled by Stephen L. Cook from Virginia Theological Seminary and posted at Biblische Ausbildung.

I will be hosting Biblical Studies Carnival XX in August. I would like to invite bibliobloggers everywhere to send me your entries for consideration. Since July is a month when many people will be on vacation, it becomes important that you contact me as soon as possible with your entries. You can contact me at claude at claudemariottini dot com.

Have a nice Summer.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Atheists and the Bible

In my interview with Jim West published in Biblioblog, I said a few words about atheists that caused Duane Smith’s heart “to skip a beat.”

In response to what I wrote, Duane wrote a post, “Who Can ‘Fully’ Interpret the Bible?” in which he takes issue with what I said about atheists and biblical interpretation. Read his post and learn the full scope of his argument.

Jim West comments on my statement and Duane’s response in a post titled “Duane Smith v. Claude Mariottini” and presents the dialogue as an adversarial argument between atheist Duane and Christian Claude. Jim concludes his post by saying that “in some respects Claude is right. In some respects Duane is right.”

I will begin this post by responding to some of Duane’s arguments. It is possible that I made a mistake by putting all atheists in one group. Duane classifies himself “as a secular student with an interest in the Hebrew Bible.” Thus, his position on the Bible makes him different from the strident atheist whose sole aim is to ridicule the Bible.

Duane is a secular person who believes “that the Bible has had a tremendous influence on Western civilization.” His view is completely different from Bertrand Russell who believed that every bit of human progress in law, morality, and science has been opposed because of the teaching of the Bible. In his lecture “Why I Am Not A Christian,” Russell wrote: “A good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and courage; it does not need a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free intelligence by the words uttered long ago by ignorant men.”

Atheists like Bertrand Russell, Robert Ingersoll, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens approach the Bible with such a negative view that for them, the Bible is a book of lies and contradictions and the work of a demon. Strident atheists share Voltaire’s view of the Bible. Voltaire defined the Bible as “what fools have written, what imbeciles command, what rogues teach.”

So, how can strident atheists interpret the Bible when they do not believe in God, deny the possibility of revelation, reject the concept of inspiration, do not believe in divine intervention, faith, prayer, the possibility of miracles, or the concept of divine justice?

I agree with Jim West when he said that atheists “can be extraordinarily good historians and philologians.” Atheists can relate some historical events of the Bible to Assyrian and Babylonian histories, but the Bible is more than just a book of history. It is a religious book written by people of faith who believed that God had entered human history.

Atheists can study the words of the Bible (either in Hebrew, Aramaic, or Greek) and understand precisely what the words mean and what the words communicate. But the Bible is more than just letters: “the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life” (2 Corinthians 3:6).

Duane has two criticisms which he believes disprove my argument. First, he said that “in order to provide as full an interpretation of a text as possible, the interpreter must be part of that text’s living tradition.” By this he means that for a proper interpretation of the text the interpreter must be alive when the text was written.

But this argument is not true. Albert Einstein's theory of relativity is very complicated but scientists can understand the theory of relativity today even though many of them were not alive when Einstein developed it. In addition, the Bible is different. “The word of God is living and active” (Hebrews 4:12). Because the word of God is living, then the believer does not need to have been alive when the word was written because the word is alive today, at a time when the believer is alive. The word of God makes itself contemporary with the believer. Thus, the believer becomes part of the text’s living tradition.

Second, Duane said: “Claude would be justifiably upset if I claimed he couldn’t fully understand Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens because he isn’t an atheist.”

But the fact is that I can. The works of Dawkins and Hitchens are only words and anyone can read words and understand precisely what the words mean and what the words communicate. Notwithstanding all the enthusiasm and the bravado in Dawkins’ and Hitchens’ words, they are, after all, only words.

The Bible, on the other hand, is the living word of the living God. And, that word became human and lived here on earth among us (John 1:14). This truth is hard for atheists to accept.

It is God who teaches us to understand his word. This is the reason the Psalmist prayed: “Teach me” (Psalm 119:12). So, the proper understanding of the Bible requires divine instruction. But how can people call on him in whom they have not believed? And that is the dilemma atheists face.

Claude Mariottini
Professor of Old Testament
Northern Baptist Seminary

Tags: Atheists, Bible, Interpretation