And the "chief officer" being the same as the "chief eunuch"?? No, thanks, I don't want the benefit package on that key-man employment contract...
And even if it were 100% the very same person, how does that verify any other part of the Old Testament?
They were also developed for use in a more ancient agglutinative (possibly Uralic/Altaic, or Dravidian related) language which was, in the time of Jeremiah, supplanted with a Semitic language, so there's not a perfect fit between the indicated sound and the actual sound.
Kind of like tough, though, enough, thought. The letters don't match the sounds and you tough it out every day as though you'd given enough thought to the matter to simply ignore it.
So, yeah, this all rings true. Real folks doing the jobs imaginary folks can't do.
Yes, it is very plausible. Keep in mind that Old Testament Hebrew was written with no vowels. The vowels are basically just guessed at. And "sh" and "s" are the same letter in Semitic languages. The "in" at the end of the name was probably taken as a plural, which would be written "im" in Hebrew.
So "Nabu-sharrussu-ukin" could easily become "Nebo-Sarsekim" when transliterated into Hebrew.
Just recall they are not dealing with Words in the English language. but related languages. The Babylonians were Semites.
It was common for kings to elevate eunuchs to high office this way. It was done so that said officers wouldn't be a risk of fooling around with the king's concubines.
It is the same city, however. It would make sense that “Nabu-sharrussu-ukin” and “Nebo-Sarsekim” would be different transliterations for the same name
Ru Paul is trying his hand at politics these days.
I'd hate to think he was McCartney, too... whoa.
Nabu-sharrussu-ukin is the spelling from 2500 years ago. Nebo-Sarsekim is probably the modern english "sounds like".