Dr. W.F. Albright’s game-changing chronological shift

by Damien F. Mackey ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- If Dr. Albright was correct in his view that the Egyptian Manium (or Mannu), against whom the Akkadian potentate Naram-Sin (c. 2200 BC conventional dating) successfully waged war, was none other than the legendary first pharaoh Menes, then that must lead to the shocking conclusion that the beginning of the Egyptian dynastic history (c. 3100 BC conventional dating) is a millennium out of whack with Akkadian history. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. W.F. Albright had estimated that the “Mani lord of Magan” whom Naram-Sin claimed to have smote, could not have been any petty ruler, given that Naram-Sin called him “mighty” (… Mannu dannu šar Magan). (“Menes and Naram-Sin”, JEA, Vol. 6, No. 2, Apr., 1920). And so Albright wrote (p. 89): The fact that king Mannu here is called dannu, ‘mighty’, is very important, as no other of the princes conquered by Narâm-Sin has this honorific title in his inscriptions except the latter himself who, in common with the others of his dynasty, affixes dan(n)u … to his name: Narâm-Sin dan(n)u … Narâm-Sin, the mighty …. The lord of Magan must have been a powerful ruler to receive so illustrious an appellative. [End of quote] And, whilst admitting on the same page that: “It may possibly be that we are dealing with a mere coincidence, extraordinary perhaps, but fallacious, and that the supporting indications will reveal themselves as conspirators against the truth”, he nonetheless proceeded to make this strong statement in favour of his thesis: “Yet the lines of evidence, geographical, historical, chronological and archaeological, converge so remarkably in the direction of our thesis that we ought not shrink from the test – o bere o affogare!” My Conclusions I have fully accepted by now that Albright’s “lines of evidence” do lead to the conclusion that Naram-Sin’s foe, Mannu, was Menes, the first pharaoh, and that Mannu’s country of “Magan” was - as it always is in the ancient Syro-Mesopotamian records: EGYPT: Magan, Meluhha, Dilmun and Akkad https://www.academia.edu/87967450/Magan_Meluhha_Dilmun_and_Akkad For instance, following the tradition that Abram (later Abraham) was a contemporary of pharaoh Menes (Min), I have been able further chronologically to reduce the era of the clash between Naram-Sin and Menes to the time of Abram (c. 1900 BC). And, given that Abram was - from archaeological evidence - a contemporary of Narmer’s, I have ventured tentatively to identify the enigmatic Narmer (sometimes considered to have been Menes) as the Akkadian Naram-Sin, enemy of Menes. There were “several powerful forces in the land at the time of Abra[ha]m: namely, “Pharaoh [of Egypt]” ([Genesis]12:15); “Amraphel king of Shinar” (14:1); and “Abimelech king of Gerar” (20:2)”. Could any one of these have been Narmer? “Pharaoh” and “Abimelech” of early Genesis, I have concluded, were one and the same ruler. So the question really becomes whether Narmer could have been either:  Abram’s Pharaoh, or  Abram’s foe, Amraphel, the invading king of Shinar. In Egyptian dynastic terms, my preference for Pharaoh (= “Abimelech”) has been the long-reigning pharaoh, Hor-Aha (c. 3100, or 3000 BC, conventional dating). Hor-Aha, in turn, is often considered – based on his nomen – to have been the same as the legendary “Menes”. Phouka, for instance, presents pharaoh Hor-Aha’s “Nomen [as] Mn, Menes, ‘Established’”: http://www.phouka.com/pharaoh/pharaoh/dynasties/dyn01/01me). And, given the legendary association of Abraham with Menes, as already mentioned, I myself am inclined to think that the Egyptian identity of Abram’s (biblical) “Pharaoh” was Menes. Now, whilst pharaoh Hor-Aha (Menes) can also loom as a possible candidate for Narmer – {Phouka, though, suggests Narmer instead as a “presumed” father of Hor-Aha} – my preference is for Narmer as an Akkadian king of Shinar, rather than as a ruler of Egypt. So what makes most intriguing a possible collision of the semi-legendary pharaoh of Egypt, Menes, with a Shinarian potentate (and possibly “Amraphel” himself), is the emphatic view of Dr. W. F. Albright that Naram-Sin (of Akkad) had conquered Egypt, and that the “Manium” whom Naram-Sin boasts he had vanquished was in fact Menes himself. This, as we can appreciate, was an extremely radical conclusion for a scholar such as Albright to have reached. And Albright’s opening words reveal that he was completely aware of that fact: “Before proposing a synchronism between the first dynastic king of Egypt and the greatest of early Babylonian kings, one cannot but hesitate, fearful of seeming reckless”. Whilst Dr. W.F. Albright naturally adopted the standard view that, with the yet undiscovered city of Akkad thought to lie somewhere in Sumer (southern Babylonia), Naram-Sin was essentially a Mesopotamian (“Babylonian”) king, I myself have recently moved away from this, re-locating Akkad to Ugarit (Ras Shamra) on the Mediterranean coast (see article “Magan … Akkad”). The Might and Power of Naram-Sin Marc van de Mieroop tells us of the extent of Naram-Sin’s mighty reach, though typically understated without the inclusion of Egypt and Ethiopia (A History of the Ancient Near East. Ca. 3000-323 BC, Blackwell, 2004, p. 63): The statements of Sargon and Naram-Sin stand out, however, because of their wide geographical range: these were certainly the greatest military men of the time. Yet, as Naram-Sin had to repeat many of his grandfather’s campaigns, it seems these often amounted to no more than raids. The Akkadian kings focused their military attention on the regions of western Iran and northern Syria. In the east they encountered a number of states or cities, such as Elam, Parahshum, and Simurrum …. In the north they entered the upper Euphrates area, reaching the city of Tuttul at the confluence with the Balikh river, the cult center of Dagan that acted as a central focus of northern and western Syria. Mari and Ebla, the most prominent political centers of the region up till then, were destroyed. These places, which had been so close to northern Babylonia in cultural terms during the Early Dynastic period, were now considered to be major enemies. The accounts mention many places even more remote, such as the cedar forests in Lebanon, the headwaters of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers in eastern Turkey, Marhashi, east of Elam, and areas across the “Lower Sea,” i.e., the Persian Gulf. These were reached in far-flung forays for the procurement of rare goods, hard stone, wood, or silver. Booty from these areas was brought to Babylonia. Several stone vessels excavated at Ur and Nippur were inscribed with the statement that they were booty from Magan, for instance. It seems unlikely, however, that these areas were subsequently controlled by Akkad. Rather, the raids aimed at monopolizing access to trade routes. Ships from overseas areas, such as Dilmun (Bahrain), Magan … and Meluhha … are said to have moored in Akkad’s harbor. So when Naram-Sin claims that he conquered Magan, it seems more likely that he used his military might to guarantee access to its resources. Local circumstances determined to a great extent how Akkadian presence was maintained in this wide region. We observe a variety of interactions. At Susa in western Iran, for instance, the language of bureaucracy became Akkadian and the local rulers were referred to with Sumerian titles, such as governor (ensi) or general (shagina), which imply a full dependence on the kings of Akkad. On the other hand, the rulers of Susa retained some degree of authority. Naram-Sin concluded a treaty with an unnamed ruler or high official of Susa, a document written in the Elamite language. The agreement specified no submission to Akkad, only a promise by the Elamite to regard Naram-Sin’s enemies as his own. The autonomy of Elam should not be underestimated. In Syria the Akkadians established footholds in certain existing centers, indicated by the presence of military garrisons or trade representatives there. At … modern Tell Brak … a monumental building was erected with bricks stamped with the name of Naram-Sin. …. So mighty did Naram-Sin become that he even began to think of himself as a divine being (ibid., pp. 64-65): Already under Sargon the traditional title “King of Kish” came to mean “king of the world,” using the similarity of the name of the city of Kish and the Akkadian term for “the entire inhabited world,” kishshatum. Naram-Sin took such self-glorification to an extreme. First, he introduced a new title, “king of the four corners (of the universe).” His military successes led him to proclaim an even more exalted status. After crushing a major rebellion in the entirety of Babylonia, he took the unprecedented step in Mesopotamian history of making himself a god. A unique inscription found in northern Iraq, but not necessarily put there in Naram-Sin’s days, describes this act as requested by the citizens of the capital: ‘Naram-Sin, the strong one, king of Akkad: when the four corners (of the universe) together were hostile to him, he remained victorious in nine battles in a single year because of the love Ishtar bore for him, and he took captive those kings who had risen against him. Because he had been able to preserve his city in the time of crisis, (the inhabitants of) his city asked from Ishtar in Eanna, from Enlil in Nippur, from Dagan in Turrul, from Ninhursaga in Kesh, from Enki in Eridu, from Sin in Ur, from Shamash in Sippar, and from Nergal in Kutha, that he be the god of their city Akkad, and they built a temple for him in the midst of Akkad.’ Henceforth his name appeared in texts preceded by the cuneiform sign derived from the image of a star, which functioned as the indicator that what followed was the name of a god. Conceptually, this placed him in a very different realm from previous rulers. Earlier kings had been offered a cult after death, but Naram-Sin received one while he was still alive. The court initiated a process of royal glorification through other means as well. Perhaps the most visible of these efforts was in the arts. Stylistic changes originating in the reign of Sargon culminated in amazing refinement, naturalism, and spontaneity during Naram-Sin’s reign. Most impressive is his victory stele, a 2-meter-high stone carved in bas-relief depicting the king leading his troops in battle in the mountains. Naram-Sin dominates the composition in a pose of grandeur, and is much larger than those surrounding him. Wearing the insignia of royalty – bow, arrow, and battle ax – he is also crowned with the symbol of divinity, the horned helmet.

Damien F. Mackey’s A Tale of Two Theses

by Damien F. Mackey I. TWO THESES The year 2000 AD was a propitious one for me. Proclaimed by the Church as a Holy Year, counting from the Birth of Jesus Christ, 2000 was also the year in which I was invited to undertake a doctoral thesis at the University of Sydney. To do that had been my ambition even whilst I was engaged there in a most challenging Master’s thesis exploring the foundations of the conventional Egyptian chronology which I knew to be seriously flawed. That first thesis was undertaken under the supervision of Dr. Noel Weeks of the Department of History. He, a conventional historian, was a diligent supervisor, ever insisting upon a “rigorous methodology” – much needed to curb my flights of fancy. Dr. Weeks would ultimately remark that The Sothic Star Theory of the Egyptian Calendar, as the thesis came to be called, was “irrefutable”. The thesis was successful, it having been passed on both historical and scientific grounds. What particularly cheered me was that one of the favourable examiners had commented that my thesis had opened up the way for a “more acceptable alternative” to the textbook chronological history. For it had been my goal right from the start to explore a more satisfactory alternative. But the necessary work of demolition had been required before one could engage in the far more attractive (at least for me) work of reconstruction. The second university thesis I was envisaging would be a doctorate, a comprehensive reconstruction of the better part of ancient history. I was now in serious danger of biting off a lot more than I could chew, now free from the ‘shackles’ of “rigorous methodology”. One specific area that I believed had to be included pertained to the Book of Judith [BOJ]. From my first reading of this classic in the early 1980’s, I was convinced that the Judith drama was a real history – a conviction that never really left me since. I had wracked my brain for a couple of decades afterwards trying to nail the book to its historical locus, ultimately concluding that – what now appears to me to be most obvious – BOJ is the true account of the defeat of king Sennacherib’s 185,000-strong Assyrian army during the reign of king Hezekiah! Note: It needs to be pointed out that, why a revised history-chronology is so necessary, is because it is not until the approximate era of king Hezekiah (a very late era in BC history) that we finally arrive at quite a satisfactory historical correlation between: (i) Mesopotamia (Assyro-Babylonia) and (ii) Egypt/Ethiopia, in connection with the (iii) Bible, and in the context of (iv) realistic (though by no means perfect) BC dating. The famous El Amarna [EA] correspondence era of pharaohs Amenhotep III and IV (Akhnaton), whilst providing historians with the names, the countries and activities of many correspondents, has been unrealistically dated (iv above) to the C14th BC, instead of to the C9th BC – one reason why my first thesis focussed upon Egypt was necessary – and the biblical personages who emerge in EA quite abundantly all have names other than the ones given to them in the Bible (e.g., EA’s king of Amurru, Abdi-ashirta, is the biblical Syrian king, Ben-hadad; whilst EA’s Aziru is Hazael). In a few encounters with professor Rifaat Ebied of the Department of Hebrew and Semitic Studies (which became Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies), I had been able to convey to him my interest in writing a doctoral thesis, one focusing upon the Era of King Hezekiah [EOH]. Then one day in 2000, when I was trying to recall the Hebrew word for ‘wisdom’ (I had not yet studied the language), I decided to knock on the professor’s door to ask him – he being a teacher of Hebrew. He told me that the word was chokmah. And it was then that professor Ebied invited me to commence that new thesis. He gave me the choice of writing it on either EOH, or on the era of the prophet Jeremiah [EOJ]. The choice for me was a “no-brainer”. For, while I was bursting at the seams with ideas on EOH – especially with the inclusion of the BOJ factor – I had absolutely nothing to contribute on EOJ. Or so I then thought (but see II.). Professor Ebied accepted my choice of Hezekiah, also allowing for the inclusion of the BOJ. This was for me a dream come true. I was elated to think that the whole thing had come about due to my search for ‘wisdom’. And, also in a beautifully rounded year, 2000 AD (a Holy Year) – “without prejudice to all the corrections imposed by chronological exactitude” (John Paul II, Redemptor Hominis). First, though, I must undertake a year of ancient Hebrew – just as Egyptian Hieroglyphics (Macquarie University) had been a pre-requisite for my Sothic Star Theory thesis. Dreams can turn nightmarish, however, and I myself would greatly contribute to the less than euphoric aftermath by embarking upon an over-ambitious thesis that – whilst having Hezekiah and BOJ as its focal point – would attempt to range over a vast swathe of ancient history. My first version of it got largely hammered by examiners, and deservedly so. The second time around I was somewhat more circumspect and disciplined, though by no means was I disciplined enough. The final product, A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background, was highly controversial, it being both praised and slammed. For a moment, there, as professor Ebied has told me, he “had the doctoral thesis in the palm of [his] hand. The Arts Faculty had decided to award it”. But, then, in stepped the Postgraduate Matters Committee [PMC], which elected to bring in a referee to make a new, and final, verdict on my thesis. Up until this point, I had been quite accepting of the whole university procedure – (whatever I may actually think of the modern Australian university system in general, in thrall, as it can be, to the Communist Party of China). In the case of the first thesis, I had been allowed to challenge who I considered to be a biased examiner, and the outcome was successful. But, when the PMC entirely took the side of the one highly critical examiner, against the two others (one pro-revision, and one not) who had deemed the thesis to be worthy of a doctorate, dismissing the large 2-volume effort in virtually a single paragraph, I was disgusted to say the least. This time, unlike on the previous occasion, my challenge made no difference whatsoever. Surprisingly, in the end, an MA was awarded (2007), which outcome professor Ebied told me, in his long experience, did not usually happen. Reflecting back on all this, after more than a decade (now 27th October, 2021), I am perfectly content today that the thesis, described by one favourable examiner as “a Herculean effort’’, was not awarded a doctorate. It is way too flawed in various places. While that same favourable examiner had said that my thesis was likely to keep scholars of various disciplines occupied for many years to come – and indeed I still, to this day, find myself drawing abundantly from it for the writing of new and, hopefully better, articles – I have to say that reading back over some parts of my second thesis makes me wince with embarrassment. Thankfully, I have been able by now to make many corrections and modifications in those new articles, more than 1000 of which can be read at academia.edu II. ERA OF JEREMIAH ALSO PART OF IT When professor Ebied had given me that choice back in 2000 of writing a doctoral thesis on either EOH or EOJ, I had been of the firm opinion at that point in time that I could contribute nothing of any real worth about EOJ. However, as hinted back in I, how wrong I was. Because, as I have since come to realise (and hope to show here in II, and in III), EOJ was basically the EOH about which I believed I had much to offer. Searching for Hezekiah Something of which I had become painfully aware, during the course of writing my EOH thesis, was that, whilst various of its major characters were full dimensional (though sometimes only, perhaps, because I had overdone my penchant for alter egos), king Hezekiah himself, upon whom the thesis was supposed to be centred, always continued to remain somewhat ghostly in the background. Part of the reason for this is that the Old Testament itself will restrict its albeit fairly extensive coverage of EOH to just a few major incidents in the life of the great king: namely, his pious reform; his illness; his encounters with Assyria. Even in some of these cases, characters of lesser rank stand in for the king, seeming to overshadow Hezekiah. Thus the king’s three officials, not he, will go out to face the Rabshakeh of the invading Assyrian army; the prophet Isaiah will dominate much of the Hezekian narrative; and no Judaean king at all, only the Assyrian king, will be referred to throughout the entire BOJ. A further reason for Hezekiah’s seeming lack of dimension, I have lately come to realise, is because Hezekiah has also been sold short of a major alter ego: namely, as Josiah king of Judah. Perhaps it was better that I had not realised, in those days, that a part at least of EOJ had needed to be incorporated into EOH. That may, then, have served only the further to complicate the whole cumbersome effort – although it would also most certainly have poured some immense illumination on obscure issues. Today, writing hopefully from a far more solid base, I feel confident that I can begin to add that necessary extra dimension. Here, in II, I shall list some of the extraordinary match-ups between the supposedly two different eras (EOH and EOJ), this alone being sufficient proof for me that – despite some significant difficulties – the two eras need to be brought together as one. For a far more complete list, I urge the reader to check out Charles Pope’s “Chart 37” at: Chart 37: Comparison of Hezekiah and Josiah Narratives (domainofman.com) though I do not accept all of Pope’s comparisons, and would also add some others of my own. In III, I shall briefly assess some of those difficulties. Comparisons between EOH and EOJ - King Hezekiah of Judah is king Josiah of Judah; - King Manasseh of Judah is king Jehoiakim of Judah; - Isaiah, prophet, is Asaiah, king’s minister; - Hilkiah is Hilkiah; - Eliakim son of Hilkiah is (prophet) Jeremiah son of Hilkiah; - Judith is Huldah; - Manasseh, husband of Judith is Shallum, husband of Huldah. III. RESOLVING SOME KEY DIFFICULTIES (a) Hezekiah = Josiah Naturally one would expect to encounter some formidable difficulties when trying to demonstrate that Hezekiah/Josiah – supposedly separated the one from the other by over half a century (e.g., the intervening 55-year reign of king Manasseh) – constitutes just the one biblico-historical era. The biblical difficulties and comparisons Genealogies now have to be explained. And the Book of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) seems to witness against my reconstruction by presenting Hezekiah and Josiah as if two separate entities (Sirach 49:4-5): “Apart from David, Hezekiah and Josiah, they all [kings of Judah] heaped wrong on wrong”. This separation here of Hezekiah from Josiah could perhaps partly be accounted for by proposing a (Hebrew) waw consecutive, causing it to read “Hezekiah, even Josiah”. What this quote from Sirach does at least tell us, though, is that Hezekiah and Josiah were uniquely pious kings, the only ones to be so regarded alongside David himself. The liturgical and socio-political reforms of Hezekiah, of Josiah, may be shown to be wonderfully compatible by astute commentators, as some have already done. Reign lengths (allowing for co-regency) are very compatible as well (Hezekiah: 29; Josiah: 31). And, when we re-organise, and halve, the genealogical sequence: Hezekiah/Manasseh/Amon/Josiah/Jehoiakim/Jehoiachin (6 kings) to the streamlined Hezekiah = Josiah/ Manasseh = Jehoiakim/ Amon = Jehoiachin (3 kings) then we can really begin to make some biblico-historical progress and resolve conundrums (see next). The historical difficulties and comparisons Of similar great challenge, to that of resolving the biblical difficulties that arise from a fusion of EOH and EOJ, is the historical ‘aftershock’ that such a revised upheaval must needs generate. Hezekiah and Josiah are conventionally thought to have aligned with different Mesopotamian and Egypto-Ethiopian monarchs. Recall that in my Note in I. I had estimated that it was “not until the approximate era of king Hezekiah” that the chronological and historical ‘planets’ began properly to align. The emphasis here, though, must be on that word, “approximate”, for there is yet a searching revision required even for the reign of king Hezekiah over and above what I had undertaken in my EOH thesis – a further depth of revision of which I was then quite unaware. I refer to the effect of incorporating wholesale therein the reign of king Josiah (or EOJ). My early post-graduate research, with the era of Moses very much in mind, had been focussed upon the problem of Egyptian chronology, well explored by revisionists like Drs. Donovan Courville (The Exodus Problem and its Ramifications, 1971) and Immanuel Velikovsky (Ages in Chaos, 1952; Oedipus and Ikhnaton, 1960). It was generally assumed in their day that, whilst Egyptian chronology must be radically shortened in order to be able to accommodate itself to that of the other nations, Mesopotamian history was in far better shape. The chronology of Assyria, in particular, is considered to be highly accurate. With the passing of the years subsequent, however, it has become apparent to me, and to others, that this is far from being the case, and that Mesopotamia, too, must undergo a massive chronological renovation. Someone needs to write a thesis on it. I have tackled this problem now in many articles. Perhaps the key date in the entire Old Testament – at least in terms of specific historical worth – is the one given by the prophet Jeremiah in 25:1, 3: “… in the 4th year of Jehoiakim … 1st year of Nebuchadnezzar …. For 23 years, from the 13th year of Josiah …”. This ties precise biblical dates, and two Judaean kings, to a known Mesopotamian monarch. And, while Egypt-Ethiopia are not included, we known from 2 Kings 23:34 that pharaoh Necho was contemporaneous with Jehoiakim’s early reign. Thus: 23rd year. Prophet Jeremiah (counting from Year 13 of king Josiah) tells that this was the 4th year of king Jehoiakim of Judah and the 1st year of king Nebuchednezzar of Babylon (during the reign of pharaoh Necho of Egypt). This is most valuable chronological information. Jeremiah’s rock-solid data here is even more helpful than is the important chronological fusion in 2 Kings 18:1-10, tying king Hoshea of Israel and king Hezekiah of Judah (specific years given) to Shalmaneser the king of Assyria at the time of the siege and destruction of Samaria, because the contemporary pharaoh “So” (17:4) has proven most difficult to identify. Unfortunately, biblical chronologists and historians (most notably, in this case, Dr. Edwin Thiele, The Mysterious Numbers of the Hebrew Kings) have largely abandoned this set of multiple syncretisms, with them now dating the beginning of king Hezekiah’s reign some half a dozen years after the Fall of Samaria. This is totally unacceptable, and I felt that I had to devote a large portion of my EOH thesis towards reclaiming all of those precious syncretisms. With EOH and EOJ now merged, the un-named “northern” foe of Jeremiah 1:14-19 – whose identification is hotly debated amongst commentators – is simply to be recognised as the pugnacious Assyria of king Hezekiah’s time. Hezekiah’s/Josiah’s Assyrian contemporary was Sennacherib. Sennacherib’s so-called ‘son’, Esarhaddon – actually a new dynasty – is the same as the great Nebuchednezzar himself of Jeremiah 25:1. Nebuchednezzar is also the same as the mighty king, Ashurbanipal, of identical 43-year reign. For a fuller account of this albeit radical departure from tradition, see my relevant articles. This, my reconstruction, accounts for how the era of - Manasseh king of Judah, taken into Babylonian captivity by Esarhaddon (Ashurbanipal), and the era of - Jehoiakim king of Judah, taken into Babylonian captivity by Nebuchednezzar, may be paralleled and its history resolved. (b) Manasseh = Jehoiakim Recognising Manasseh as Jehoiakim will serve to explain why the prophet Jeremiah would attribute the Babylonian captivity to the presumably long dead Manasseh (Jeremiah 15:4), rather than to the prophet’s wickedly idolatrous contemporary, Jehoiakim. It enables for a wonderful reconstruction of the formerly somewhat empty, long phase of king Manasseh, his conversion, and later building works. And it throws much light on the New Testament genealogies of Jesus the Messiah and of the Davidic dynasty: JESUS CHRIST THE LORD AND KING OF HISTORY. It may also solve the problem of the martyrdom of the prophet Isaiah, said to have occurred during the reign of king Manasseh. Only this re-arrangement, I believe, enables for a full recovery of the life of the prophet Jonah and of the associated Nineveh incident. For more on all of these topics, see my relevant articles. Moreover, though this takes us into an era just beyond EOH and EOJ, my having king Amon in parallel with Jehoiachin (var. Coniah) finally enables for a comprehensive identification of the “Haman son of Hammedatha” of the Book of Esther, whilst, further, providing a proper explanation for the origin of the foreign name, “Haman”. See, again, my relevant articles. That my revision – albeit shocking from a mainstream point of view – has, despite its flaws, been able to yield such a golden harvest of interconnections right across the board, is further encouragement to me and proof (when coupled with my parallel list at the end of II), that the whole heavily laden train is basically travelling along the right track. (c) Judith = Huldah My reconstruction of the history of BOJ in my thesis – virtually a thesis within a thesis – was warmly received for the most part, one examiner describing it as “a page turner”. BOJ is such an epic that it ought to be made the subject of countless movies. Due to the unfortunate confusion of names in our present translations of the book, though, its history and geography have proven extremely difficult to recapture. The story commences with a Year 12 campaign against the east by an Assyrian king, “Nebuchadnezzar”. This is actually Year 12 of Sargon II of Assyria against the eastern coalition of the troublesome Merodach-baladan (the “Arphaxad” of BOJ). A combination of BOJ and the Book of Tobit [BOT] could enable one to identify Sargon II with his supposed son, Sennacherib. Though my initial clue to this connection arose from a colleague pointing out the massive overlap between the reigns of Sargon II and Sennacherib, the overlap finally to be understood as being completely embracing. It was in this manner that I came to identify Sargon II as Sennacherib. That identification was only reinforced by a combination of the BOJ-BOT material. Without this fusion, which one examiner at least found to be quite convincing (it occupies an entire chapter {Chapter 6} in Volume One of my thesis), the overall history of BOJ is unobtainable. The main focus of the BOJ drama is Sennacherib’s campaign subsequent to his Year 12 victory, this time to the west, sending there a force of over 180,000 under the command of “Holofernes”, who is to be identified as Sennacherib’s eldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, the “Nadin” (“Nadab”) of BOT (14:), who betrayed Ahikar (the Achior of BOJ). In my EOH thesis, though, I would wrongly identify this “Holofernes” as Esarhaddon. The massive Assyrian army was stopped in its tracks at “Bethulia”, which, again, I wrongly identified in my thesis as the fairly insignificant Mithilia (Mesilieh), following C. R. Conder. Judith’s “Bethulia” (the northern Bethel) has been meticulously identified as the city of Shechem by C. C. Torrey. Against all other opinions as to what happened to Sennacherib’s army (e.g., Herodotus), it was a case of Judith’s slaying of the Assyrian commander-in-chief. The soldiery panicked and fled. It was a complete rout. The next in command to “Holofernes”, “Bagoas”, unidentified in my thesis, can now plausibly be equated with Nebuchednezzar (= Esarhaddon); Nebuchednezzar, according to Jewish tradition, having been involved in this ill-fated campaign. Such a view is shocking by conventional standards, quite chronologically impossible. It would have appeared such to me as well at the time of my writing of the thesis. Now, though, with Nebuchednezzar succeeding Sennacherib, the Jewish legend can be retained. Also untouched in my thesis – considering my failure then to collapse EOH into EOJ – is my more recent identification of the Judith who became ever more famous during her long life, as the wise and wonderful Huldah, that extraordinary prophetess during the reign of king Josiah whom the king would consult even over the great Asaiah (i.e., Isaiah). She was a female teacher-prophetess like the wise Deborah before her, in Huldah’s case, even an interpreter (exegete) of the Torah.