Genealogy and Character of Heroine Judith

 

Judith - Chapter 8

1 Judith was informed at the time of what had happened. She was the daughter of Merari son of Ox, son of Joseph, son of Oziel, son of Elkiah, son of Ananias, son of Gideon, son of Raphaim, son of Ahitub, son of Elijah, son of Hilkiah, son of Eliab, son of Nathanael, son of Salamiel, son of Sarasadai, son of Israel.



2 Her husband Manasseh, of her own tribe and family, had died at the time of the barley harvest.



3 He was supervising the men as they bound up the sheaves in the field when he caught sunstroke and had to take to his bed. He died in Bethulia, his home town, and was buried with his ancestors in the field that lies between Dothan and Balamon.



4 As a widow, Judith stayed inside her home for three years and four months.



5 She had had an upper room built for herself on the roof. She wore sackcloth next to the skin and dressed in widow's weeds.



6 She fasted every day of her widowhood except for the Sabbath eve, the Sabbath itself, the eve of New Moon, the feast of New Moon and the joyful festivals of the House of Israel.



7 Now she was very beautiful, charming to see. Her husband Manasseh had left her gold and silver, menservants and maidservants, herds and land; and she lived among all her possessions



8 without anyone finding a word to say against her, so devoutly did she fear God.



9 Hearing how the water shortage had demoralised the people and how they had complained bitterly to the headman of the town, and being also told what Uzziah had said to them and how he had given them his oath to surrender the town to the Assyrians in five days' time,



10 Judith immediately sent the serving-woman who ran her household to summon Chabris and Charmis, two elders of the town.



11 When these came in she said: 'Listen to me, leaders of the people of Bethulia. You were wrong to speak to the people as you did today and to bind yourself by oath, in defiance of God, to surrender the town to our enemies if the Lord did not come to your help within a set number of days.



12 Who are you, to put God to the test today, you, of all people, to set yourselves above him?



13 You put the Lord Almighty to the test! You do not understand anything, and never will.



14 If you cannot sound the depths of the human heart or unravel the arguments of the human mind, how can you fathom the God who made all things, or sound his mind or unravel his purposes? No, brothers, do not provoke the anger of the Lord our God.



15 Although it may not be his will to help us within the next five days, he has the power to protect us for as many days as he pleases, just as he has the power to destroy us before our enemies.



16 But you have no right to demand guarantees where the designs of the Lord our God are concerned. For God is not to be threatened as a human being is, nor is he, like a mere human, to be cajoled.



17 Rather, as we wait patiently for him to save, let us plead with him to help us. He will hear our voice if such is his good pleasure.



18 'And indeed of recent times and still today there is not one tribe of ours, or family, or village, or town that has worshipped gods made by human hand, as once was done,



19 which was the reason why our ancestors were delivered over to sword and sack, and perished in misery at the hands of our enemies.



20 We for our part acknowledge no other God but him; and so we may hope he will not look on us disdainfully or desert our nation.



21 'If indeed they capture us, as you expect, then all Judaea will be captured too, and our holy places plundered, and we shall answer with our blood for their profanation.



22 The slaughter of our brothers, the captivity of our country, the unpeopling of our heritage, will recoil on our own heads among the nations whose slaves we shall become, and our new masters will look down on us as an outrage and a disgrace;



23 for our surrender will not reinstate us in their favour; no, the Lord our God will make it a thing to be ashamed of.



24 So now, brothers, let us set an example to our brothers, since their lives depend on us, and the sanctuary -- Temple and altar -- rests on us.



25 'All this being so, let us rather give thanks to the Lord our God who, as he tested our ancestors, is now testing us.



26 Remember how he treated Abraham, all the ordeals of Isaac, all that happened to Jacob in Syrian Mesopotamia while he kept the sheep of Laban, his mother's brother.



27 For as these ordeals were intended by him to search their hearts, so now this is not vengeance that God is exacting on us, but a warning inflicted by the Lord on those who are near his heart.'



28 Uzziah replied, 'Everything you have just said comes from an honest heart and no one will contradict a word of it.



29 Not that today is the first time your wisdom has been displayed; from your earliest years all the people have known how shrewd you are and of how sound a heart.



30 But, parched with thirst, the people forced us to act as we had promised them and to bind ourselves by an inviolable oath.



31 You are a devout woman; pray to the Lord, then, to send us a downpour to fill our storage-wells, so that our faintness may pass.'



32 Judith replied, 'Listen to me, I intend to do something, the memory of which will be handed down to the children of our race from age to age.



33 Tonight you must be at the gate of the town. I shall make my way out with my attendant. Before the time fixed by you for surrendering the town to our enemies, the Lord will make use of me to rescue Israel.



34 You must not ask what I intend to do; I shall not tell you until I have done it.'



35 Uzziah and the chief men said, 'Go in peace. May the Lord show you a way to take revenge on our enemies.'



36 And leaving the upper room they went back to their posts.



...



Taken from: http://www.catholic.org/bible/book.php?id=18&bible_chapter=8




Judith a Type of Virgin Mary's Crushing of Serpent' s Head

The Blessed Virgin Mary is the one woman in the entire Bible who makes the claim, “All generations to come shall call me blessed” (Luke 1:48). And why is that? Well, Catholics believe it is because she was preserved from all time from sin by a special privilege of God. God got to create His own mother on earth.

....

The beautiful harp music rendition of Ave Maria you hear playing in the background comes from the beautiful Sally Fletcher, with her permission. If you would like to purchase a copy of it and other beautiful harp music by this wonderful person, click here.



Since original sin (The sin of Adam) is passed down through the womb from one generation to the next, God made Mary free from original sin so that Jesus would also be free from it. This Catholic dogma is called the Immaculate Conception of Mary. This doctrine does not mean that Mary doesn’t need a Savior; in fact, in her Magnificat speech, she says that “her soul rejoices in God my savior” (Luke 1:47). All this means is that she was prevented from falling into the snake pit of sin by the grace of God, rather than being saved from it after sinning, like the rest of us. Catholics believe that this was prefigured in Genesis 3:15, where God told Adam and Eve that He “Will put enmity” between the devil and “THE WOMAN”. Since Eve was in compliance with the devil, and not at enmity, THE WOMAN could not refer to her, but rather a future “WOMAN” who would have enmity (lifelong hatred) with Satan. The entire Genesis 3:15 verse reads as follows from the RSV:

“I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel."



Mary and Scripture

THE Woman Since women don’t have “seeds”, but eggs, this is very peculiar wording. Most biblical scholars believe that “the seed” is Jesus Christ”, and that He bruised satan’s head at the place of the skull, called Golgotha, at the crucifixion. If that is so, then Catholics believe that “THE WOMAN” could only refer to the Blessed Virgin Mary, who gave birth to Jesus, her “seed”. This is why Jesus always referred to Mary as “Woman”, rather than Mom or Mother. Mary can be viewed as a parallel to the Tabernacle of the Lord, as constructed by Moses in Exodus 40 and Luke Chapter 1. In Exodus 40:34-35, when the Tabernacle was completed, we learn the following:





"Then the cloud covered the tent of meeting, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle. And Moses was not able to enter the tent of meeting, because the cloud overshadowed it, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle.





" In Luke 1:35, the Bible says:



"And the angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you,and the power of the Most High will overshadow you;therefore the child to be born will be called holy,the Son of God."



In both cases, the word used to "overshadow" is "episkiasei".



Catholics also view Mary as the New Testament Ark of the Covenant. The Old Testament Ark of the Covenant contained three items – The Word of God in the form of stone tablets (the 10 Commandments), manna (bread) from Heaven, and the rod of Aaron that resprouted and came back to life (Hebrews 9:4). Just so, the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary contained Jesus Christ – The living Word of God (John 1:1), the bread of life (John 6:48), and the ruler with a rod of iron who also came back to life (Rev.12:5). At the Annunciation of Mary, Gabriel told her that the power of the most high would “overshadow” her (Luke 1:35). The term “overshadow” is significant, because it was also used to refer to the cherubim “overshadowing” the mercy seat of the Ark of the Covenant (Hebrews 9:5). The Ark was made with pure gold (Exodus 4ff), and was very holy, which parallels the Catholic teaching that Mary is also pure and holy. The Ark of the Covenant was so holy, that no ordinary person could even touch it. Uzzah reached out to steady it, and was instantly struck dead (2 Samuel 6:7). There are many parallels between the mention of the Ark in 2 Samuel 6 and Mary in Luke 1:



•David heads to the hills of Judah in 2 Samuel 6:2-3; Mary heads to the hills of Judah in Luke 1:39.

•David dances for joy in front of the Ark (2 Samuel 6:14); the unborn fetus John the Baptist leaps for joy in Elizabeth’s womb at the sound of Mary’s voice (1 Luke 44).

•David says “How can the Ark come to me”? (2 Samuel 6:9); Elizabeth says, “How is this that the Mother of my Lord has come to me”? (1 Luke 43).

•David and the Ark stayed for 3 months (2 Samuel 6:11); Mary stayed for 3 months (1 Luke 56).

So if Jesus is “The Word Made Flesh”, then Mary is “The Ark Made Flesh”. All of these parallels between the Ark of the Covenant in the Old Testament and the Blessed Virgin Mary in the New Testament is a branch of scripture study known as “typology”. In other words, events and people in the New Testament are prefigured by events and people in the Old Testament.





One such typology revolves around Revelation 12 and Genesis 37:9. In Genesis, Joseph says,



"Behold, I have dreamed another dream; and behold, the sun, the moon, and eleven stars were bowing down to me."



In Revelation 12:1, the scripture reads,



“And a great portent appeared in heaven, a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars.”



The obvious parallel is that the sun, the moon, and the eleven stars in Joseph’s dream represent his 11 brothers and all of Israel, while THE WOMAN in Revelation is adorned with these symbols of Israel. So who is the “WOMAN”? The first clue is the term “a great portent”. In Isaiah 7:14 in the Old Testament, it says,



“Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign. Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son and his name shall be called Emmanuel.”



The great portent of Revelation and the sign of Isaiah are one and the same – A Virgin who will give birth to the leader of Israel, Jesus Christ. That woman is the Blessed Virgin Mary. The writer of the book of Revelation, St. John the Apostle, was given by Jesus on the cross to Mary as her son, and Mary was given to John as his Mother, in John 19:26-27. This means that John knew Mary better than anyone, except for Jesus, and he is trying to tell us all something about her status in heaven. In the preceding verse, Revelation 11:19, John tells us that he sees the Ark of the Covenant. In the next verse, Revelation 12:1, he describes the Ark for us as “A woman clothed with the sun”, a term that could only mean the immaculately conceived Virgin Mary. The rest of Revelation 12 talks about the enmity prefigured in Genesis 3:15 between the devil and THE WOMAN, and how satan can’t get to her. In Revelation 12:17, it says that we are her children if we follow the commandments and bear testimony to Jesus.



Mary is also seen as the new Eve. Whereas Eve listened to the devil Lucifer and obeyed him, bringing sin and damnation into the world, Mary listened to the angel Gabriel and obeyed him, thus bringing grace and salvation into the world in the form of Jesus Christ. Mary and Jesus are forever linked together, just as Adam and Eve are. Eve came forth from the side of Adam; Jesus came forth from the womb of Mary. Eve was created immaculately and sinned; Mary was created immaculately and stayed sinless. Thus Mary and her obedience to God overcame Eve’s disobedience to God.



There are many biblical types of Mary in the Old Testament. Mary’s Magnificat in Luke 1 is very similar to Hannah’s canticle in 1 Samuel 2. Judith cutting off the head of the Army General Holofernes in Judith 13:8 to save Israel reminds us that Mary will help to bruise the head of the serpent.



The Blessed Virgin Mary is also seen as the Queen Mother. In the Old Testament, the Kings' mother was the queen. The Kings in the Old Testament, like Solomon, had so many wives that it would have been hard to choose one over the other, so the mother of the King became the Queen. Bathsheeba, David's wife, was King Solomon's Queen Mother. In 1 Kings 2, Adonijah approaches the Queen Bathsheeba to ask her to intercede on his behalf with King Solomon. When she asks her son for Adonijah's favor, King Solomon says "Make your request, my mother; for I will not refuse you". This is a parallel to the New Testament, John 2, when Mary intercedes on behalf of the wedding couple to Jesus about the wine that has run out. Solomon didn't refuse his Queen Mother in the Old Testament, and Jesus didn't refuse his Queen Mother in the New Testament. Neither does he refuse her now.



To learn more about Old Testament "types" (foreshadowings) of Mary, click here



Catholics believe that saints in Heaven, and especially the Blessed Virgin Mary, are still active in their roles to assist mankind in spiritual warfare. We know from James 5:16 that the prayers of the righteous are powerful, and we know from Matthew 22:32 that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living. In Revelation 5:8, it says that 24 elders in heaven present our petitions to God in the form of incense, which means that there are intermediaries in heaven who hear and present our prayers to God. If the dead rich man in hell can intercede for his brothers on earth with Abraham (Luke 16:27-28), how much more can Mary in heaven intercede for us here on earth with her son Jesus! Mary said in Luke 1:46 that her soul magnifies (To magnify means to enlarge, to make clearer, and to bring into focus) the Lord (her soul is still very much alive, as are all souls ever created by God). And since no one on earth was ever closer to Jesus in body, heart, and mind (Jesus got his flesh and blood from Mary), who better to intercede for us on our behalf than Mary? Giving honor and devotion to Mary (not worship) actually magnifies the Lord. To give honor to an artist's greatest creation (Mary) honors the creator (Jesus) !



The prayer, The Hail Mary, combines the words of Gabriel and Elizabeth with a petition at the end to pray for us. “Hail, Full of Grace, the Lord is with thee” are the words of Gabriel. These words indicate that Mary was full of grace BEFORE Jesus was in her womb. And no one can be full of grace and have any room left over for sin; otherwise she wouldn’t be “full” of grace. “Blessed art thou among women, and blessed is the fruit of thy womb Jesus” are the words of Elizabeth, the mother of John the Baptist. These words from scripture indicate that Mary is blessed more than any other woman, because Jesus is inside of her. Jesus said that you shall know a tree by its fruit, and since Jesus is the fruit of her womb and is sinless and holy, so must Mary be, since she is the tree which bore the fruit (Jesus), although she certainly is not God. The last part of the prayer is a petition to Mary to “pray for us sinners, now and at the hour of our death”.



BACK TO TOP



Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:1-



“First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all men.”



So asking for intercessory prayer is a very biblical thing to do, especially from a holy person like Mary (James 5:16).



So how can Mary hear thousands of prayers said to her daily from all over the world? Isn’t she just a human being and not God? Catholics believe we share in God’s divinity when we are in heaven. Why? Because of the words of Peter, in 2 Pet.1:3:



"His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence 4: by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature."



We see from these verses of Peter that saints in heaven are partakers in the divine nature, which includes hearing prayers. Saints in heaven have no power of their own. All of their power comes from Christ Jesus, who shares it with them. We know that they witness for us, because of the words of St. Paul, in Hebrews 12:1: “Therefore, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses…” Witnesses testify to a judge on behalf of the accused, and Paul here is saying that the saints in heaven are our witnesses. Notice that Paul didn't say that they were mere spectators; he called them WITNESSES. Asking these witnesses, especially Mary, to help us with our problems is a very good thing to do. Some people make the mistake of thinking that praying to a saint equals worshipping that saint like he/she is a god, but “to pray” simply means “to ask”, not “to worship”. And since all of their power comes from the amazing grace of Jesus Christ, it is not like conjuring up the dead and seeking hidden knowledge, which is expressly forbidden in Deuteronomy 18:10-11. After all, Jesus appeared with the very dead Moses and Elijah during the Transfiguration (Luke 9:30). Since Jesus never sinned, and conjuring up the dead as an occult practice is a sin, we see here that there is a true distinction between praying to saints for their intercession and calling up the dead to seek arcane knowledge.





There have been many private revelations of Mary, including the two most famous ones at Lourdes France (1858), and at Fatima Portugal in 1917. While none of these private revelations are binding on the faithful as dogma, there have been many documented miracles at Lourdes. Here she proclaimed to St. Bernadette that she is “The Immaculate Conception”. The predictions of Mary to the three shepherd children at Fatima, made during the year of the atheistic Russian Revolution, have all come to pass. They include that another worse war (WWI was already in progress in 1917) would come to pass if men didn’t reform their lives; that Russia would spread her errors throughout the world, and that an attempt on the life of a future Pope would be made. Pope John Paul II was indeed shot on May 13, the exact date of the first apparition to the children in 1917. Here she proclaimed herself to be the “Our Lady of the Rosary”, and she specifically asked everyone to say the rosary for peace. Her main messages have been for people to repent, to do penance for sinners, to pray a lot, and to reform their lives. She also showed the three shepherd children a short vision of the damned in hell, which scared them very much. Mary asked us all to pray for the poor sinners, because without OUR prayers, many will go to hell instead of heaven. So start praying for the conversion of everyone trapped in pornography, adultery, love of money, fornication, greed, lust, the occult, etc. Pray today and everyday specifically for these people. Mary asked us all to do it, so begin today



In 1984, Pope John Paul II followed the instructions of Mary at Fatima and dedicated the entire world, including Russia, to her Immaculate Heart. Soon after, a Catholic workers’ union in Poland (Solidarity) rose up and defeated the Communist Party in Europe, which began as an atheistic workers’ party in Russia (Bolsheviks).



St. Louis de Montfort says that the fastest and quickest way to reach Jesus is to be dedicated to Mary, as her role is lead you to her Son. Jesus came into the world the first time through the womb of Mary. It seems like Jesus is coming into the world the second time through the Immaculate Heart of Mary! Pope John Paul II’s motto was “Totus tuus”, or “Totally yours”. John Paul II dedicated his entire papacy to Mary, knowing well that it would be the shortest and quickest route to Jesus.



Catholics view Mary as the person who will defeat satan on earth. But she will not do it alone. Everyone who is consecrated to Jesus through Mary will help her in her God given mission to defeat the enemy. As the Archangel Gabriel once said - "HAIL FULL OF GRACE !"



BACK TO TOP



Fatima Prayers Prayers taught to the children at Fatima



Pardon Prayer



O My God, I believe, I adore, I trust, and I love you! And I beg pardon for those who do not believe, do not adore, do not trust, and do not love you.



Prayer of Reparation



O Most Holy Trinity, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, I adore thee profoundly. I offer thee the most precious Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Jesus Christ, present in all the tabernacles of the world, in reparation for the outrages, sacrileges and indifferences by which He is offended. By the infinite merits of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, and the Immaculate Heart of Mary, I beg of thee the conversion of poor sinners.



Eucharistic Prayer



Most Holy Trinity, I adore you! My God, my god, I love you in the Most Blessed Sacrament!



Sacrifice Prayer



O my Jesus, it is for love of you, in reparation for the offenses committed against the Immaculate Heart of Mary, and for the conversion of poor sinners.



Rosary Decade Prayer



O my Jesus, forgive us our sins, save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of Thy mercy.





....



Taken from: http://www.catholicbible101.com/theblessedvirginmary.htm








Review of Time & Prophecy - Hezekiah - part 4 - Sargon is Sennacherib

 

Greetings all,

I have mentioned several times now, that there is evidence that Sargon and Sennacherib are indeed the same person. I do not claim that their reigns overlapped each other, but I believe that Sargon (the Assyrian name) came to be called Sennacherib (the Babylonian name) much as Tiglathpileser (Assyrian) came to be called PUL by the Babylonians. I have given evidence from the Eponym and Assyrian King lists; and I have given evidence from scripture. But there is more.

This part is just a few snippets from from Damien Mackey’s internet article called ‘Sargon is Sennacherib’. IT is a fairly long article, but I wanted you all to see at least a couple of his major points. The rest of this section is all from his article:

What had struck me, however, was that Sargon's 12th and 15th year campaigns were worded very similarly to Sennacherib's first two campaigns.

Sargon: "In my twelfth year of reign, Marduk-apal-iddina [Merodach-baladan] and Shuturnahundu, the Elamite ... I ... smote with the sword, and conquered ..."

Sennacherib: "In my first campaign I accomplished the defeat of Merodach-baladan ... together with the army of Elam, his ally ....".

And:

Sargon: "Talta, king of the Ellipi ... reached the appointed limit of life ... Ispabara [his son] ... fled into ... the fortress of Marubishti, ... that fortress they overwhelmed as with a net. ... people ... I brought up."

Sennacherib: "... I turned and took the road to the land of the Ellipi. ... Ispabara, their king, ... fled .... The cities of Marubishti and Akkuddu, ... I destroyed .... Peoples of the lands my hands had conquered I settled therein". Added to this was the possibility that they had built their respective 'Palace Without Rival' close in time, because the accounts of each were worded almost identically [2]. Eric Aitchison alerted me to the incredible similarity in language between these two accounts: Sargon: "Palaces of ivory, maple, boxwood, musukkani-wood (mulberry?), cedar, cypress, juniper, pine and pistachio, the "Palace without Rival"2a), for my royal abode .... with great beams of cedar I roofed them. Door-leaves of cypress and maple I bound with ... shining bronze and set them up in their gates. A portico, patterned after a Hittite (Syrian) palace, which in the tongue of Amurru they call a bit-hilanni, I built before their gates. Eight lions, in pairs, weighing 4610 talents, of shining bronze, fashioned according to the workmanship of Ninagal, and of dazzling brightness; four cedar columns, exceedingly high, each 1 GAR in thickness ... I placed on top of the lion-colossi, I set them up as posts to support their doors. Mountain-sheep (as) mighty protecting deities, I cunningly constructed out of great blocks of mountain stone, and, setting them toward the four winds ... I adorned their entrances. Great slabs of limestone, - the (enemy) towns which my hands had captured I sculptured thereon and I had them set up around their (interior) walls; I made them objects of astonishment". Sennacherib: "Thereon I had them build a palace of ivory, maple, boxwood, mulberry (musukannu), cedar, cypress ... pistachio, the "Palace without a Rival"2a), for my royal abode. Beams of ceda .... Great door-leaves of cypress, whose odour ... I bound with shining copper and set them up in their doors. A portico, patterned after a Hittite (Syrian) palace, which they call in the Amorite tongue a bit-hilani, I constructed inside them (the doors) .... Eight lions, open at the knee, advancing, constructed out of 11,400 talents of shining bronze, of the workmanship of the god Nin-a-gal, and full of splendour ... two great cedar pillars, (which) I placed upon the lions (colossi), I set up as posts to support their doors. Four mountain sheep, as protecting deities ... of great blocks of mountain stone ... I fashioned cunningly, and setting them towards the four winds (directions), I adorned their entrances. Great slabs of limestone, the enemy tribes, whom my hands had conquered, dragged through them (the doors), and I set them up around the walls, - I made them objects of astonishment".

……

Conventional Theory's Strengths

(i) Primary

I can find only two examples of a primary nature for the conventional view.

By far the strongest support for convention in my opinion is Esarhaddon's above-quoted statement from what is called Prism S - and it appears in the same form in several other documents as well - that he was 'son of Sennacherib and (grand)son of Sargon'. Prism A in the British Museum is somewhat similar, though much more heavily bracketted [6]:

[Esarhaddon, the great king, the mighty king, king of the universe, king of Assyria, viceroy of Babylon, king] of [Sumer] and Akkad, [son of Sennacherib, the great king, the mighty king], king of Assyria, [(grand)son of Sargon, the great king, the mighty king], king of Assyria ....

The first document, Prism S, would be enough to stop me dead in my tracks, were it not for other evidences in support of my proposed merger.

The other, quasi-primary evidence is in regard to Sennacherib's accession. One reads in history books of supposed documentary evidence telling that Sargon was killed and that Sennacherib sat on the throne. Carl Olaf Jonsson gives it, bracketed again, as follows [7]:

For the eponym Nashur(a)-bel (705 BC) one of the Eponym Chronicles (Cb6) adds the note that the king (= Sargon) was killed, and that Sennacherib, on Ab 12, took his seat on the throne.

What one notices in all of the above cases of what I have deemed to be primary evidence is that bracketting is always involved. Prism S, the most formidable testimony, has the word "(grand)son" in brackets. In Prism A, the entire titulary has been square bracketed, which would indicate that Assyriologists have added what they presume to have been in the original text, now missing. And, regarding Sennacherib's accession, Jonsson qualifies the un-named predecessor king with the bracketted "(= Sargon)".

It was customary for the Assyrian kings to record their titulary back through father and grandfather. There are two notable exceptions in neo-Assyrian history: interestingly, Sargon and Sennacherib, who record neither father nor grandfather. John Russell's explanation for this omission is as follows [8]:

In nearly every other Assyrian royal titulary, the name of the king was followed by a brief genealogy of the form "son of PN1, who was son of PN2," stressing the legitimacy of the king.

As Tadmor has observed, such a statement never appears in the titulary of Sennacherib. This omission is surprising since Sennacherib was unquestionably [sic] the legitimate heir of Sargon II. Tadmor suggests that Sennacherib omitted his father's name either because of disapproval of Sargon's policies or because of the shameful manner of Sargon's death ....

This may be, but it is important to note that Sargon also omitted the genealogy from his own titulary, presumably because, contrary to this name (Sargon is the biblical form of Šarru-kên: "the king is legitimate"), he was evidently not truly the legitimate ruler. Perhaps Sennacherib wished to avoid drawing attention to a flawed genealogy: the only way Sennacherib could credibly have used the standard genealogical formulation would have been with a statement such as "Sennacherib, son of Sargon, who was not the son of Shalmaneser", or "who was son of a nobody", and this is clearly worse than nothing at all.

That there was some unusual situation here cannot be doubted. And the bracketing that we find in Esarhaddon's titulary may be a further reflection of it. By contrast, Esarhaddon's son, Ashurbanipal, required no such bracketing when he declared: I am Assurbanipal ... offspring of the loins of Esarhaddon ...; grandson of Sennacherib ..." [9].

Taken from: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ancient_chronology/message/1893

Professor Robert Temple Could Not Be More Right About 'the Vicious Academic World'

Taken from Robert Temple’s Egyptian Dawn. Exposing the Real Truth Behind Ancient Egypt (Century 2010).

Pp. 399-400:

"[On the Atlantic Culture] …. Countless authors, ancient and modern, have commented upon the Atlantic cultures, but these remarks have rarely been given proper attention Perhaps the reason for this is that there is no academic disci¬pline or academic department concerned with 'Atlantic culture'. As soon as the archaeologists of one region of the world begin to discuss it, they feel uncomfortable, because they are 'straying beyond their boundaries'. There is nothing that makes an academic more nervous than that, because it opens him up to criticism by his colleagues. The academic world is a vicious world, where no mercy is ever shown, and where the slightest slip from 'consensus behaviour' can endanger an academic's entire career. It is only people like myself, who do not depend upon the favour and approval of peers for a livelihood, who can say what they like and stray over as many boundaries as they please. With every passing year, the competition for jobs within the academic community becomes more intense, the level of fear rises and the timidity of discourse increases. One of these days, the academic world will just seize up like a sea of ice, with no movement at all, and all opinions will remain perfectly rigid. Then everybody will be safe. …".

Pp. 430:

"…. Alessandra Nibbi's ideas are so extraordinarily interesting and rele¬vant that at one point I considered attempting an extended survey of them here, and compiling a comprehensive bibliography for her as I have done for Patrick O'Mara (whom she frequently published in her journal). If it were not for the activities of a few polite and genteel 'trouble-makers' like Nibbi and O'Mara, Egyptology would become totally petrified and incapable of ever generating a new insight. Thus, people like Nibbi and O'Mara should be encouraged enthusiastically, because they poke the corpses of the 'walking dead', the orthodox scholars who never deviate by a hair's-breadth from consensus opinions, and make them awaken from their sleepwalking and stir slightly. However, I have had to abandon my noble idea of surveying Nibbi's ideas, however important they are in terms of what I have been discussing, because the task would be too vast, and this book would never end. I shall content myself therefore with quoting only one of her many, many articles, which appeared in her own journal in 1995, as her comments are so shocking in the light of what we have been considering: ... we are given [in a book she has just quoted] a resume from the Egyptological textbooks on the 'Libvans' without considering the fact that there is a great deal of uncertainty and assumption in piecing together the Egyptological material, and no clarity at all concerning the geographical background of these people, which cannot have been the desert.... We must accept the Roman use of this term which applied to all the area immedi¬ately to the west of the Nile . . . Thus the term westerner is more appropriate than Libyan for the people we are discussing. . . More recent studies of 'Libyan' people have been reluctant to separate them from the area that is Libya today and rarely attempt to identify them from any evidence. We even find references to 'ethnically Libyan pharaohs', whatever that may imply: At the seminar which formed the basis of Anthony Leahy's Libya and Egypt c. 1300)-750 B.C. (1990), no attempt was made to define 'Libyan'. Scholars depended considerably on Leahy's earlier article on the Libyan period in Egypt which attempts to identity the foreign ‘Libyan' Dynasty in Egypt as rule by men of 'Libyan extraction', even though 'the retention of their ethnic identity is obscured by the evidence’. …".

"Those holding to the old orthodoxy of Egyptian History will soon vanish ..."

Rasputin said...

 

To Damien:

Your thesis on the Revised History of Hezekiah was brilliantly argued and should have resulted in a PHD so that your gift in complicated historical revisionism could have been more further developed. In this thesis, you covered an incredible amount of data but unfortunately one examiner has prevented you from achieving your full academic potential. The university will be poorer for not having awarded you a well deserved PHD for I surmise that you would have made hundreds of other connections in ancient history that would have shed more light in a field that is strewn with a great deal of confusion. Those holding to the old orthodoxy of Egyptian History will soon vanish and out of the mists will arise a new historical chronology that will again dramatically shorten the length of Egyptian chronology. I think the works of Velikovsky, Courville and Mackey and others will eventually unseat the modern Pharisees and Sadduccees who hold sway over the old orthodoxy which is dying as the revisionists get their ideas out in the internet. I hope that you are actively engaged in further research and I suspect you realize that the Hebrew Chronology which influenced three of the major religions in history is more critical than the Egyptian documents that are carved in stone as almost nothing in the Egyptian Chronology matches that of the Hebrews. Keep up the great research.

August 16, 2011 3:04 PM

Damien Mackey's response:

Great post, Rasputin. I am sure that your prophetic words will one day become a reality: "Those holding to the old orthodoxy of Egyptian History will soon vanish and out of the mists will arise a new historical chronology that will again dramatically shorten the length of Egyptian chronology". For much more of this kind of thinking, going way beyond Egypt, see "Other AMAIC sites" as listed in right hand column at: http://amaic1.blog.com/

August 25, 2011 5:36 PM

My thesis, A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background can be accessed at the University of Sydney site: http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973

My earlier MA thesis, The Sothic Star Theory of the Egyptian Calendar can be accessed at the University of Sydney site: http://hdl.handle.net/2123/1632

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background was passed for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (a doctorate award) by 2 of the 3 examiners.

The essential parts of their lengthy comments were:

Examiner 1

Overall, this is a most impressive piece of work. Employing a true multidisciplinary approach, Mr. Mackey has amassed abundant evidence from the fields of history, art history, archaeology, geography, topography, biblical studies, and linguistics to support his chronological thesis. At times, his dissertation reads like a page­-turning detective story.

Having said all that, this work should be regarded as primarily seminal in nature; it certainly cannot be construed as the final word on a subject that has confounded and occupied innumerable scholars over the past one hundred years. Yet, Mr. Mackey is to be applauded for a truly Herculean synthesizing effort that should keep a host of special­ists busy for years to come - assuming their willingness to analyze, dissect, and evaluate his doctoral thesis fairly and objectively.

…. Mr Mackey’s historical and chronological construct is a solid endeavor and challenge that unquestionably needs to be taken seriously. One can only hope that this will be the case.

The sheer range and scope alone of Mackey's dissertation, right­ or wrong, is sufficiently worthy of scholarly attention and discussion. I unhesitatingly recommend that the doctoral candidate - Damien Mackey - be awarded the degree of Doctor of Philosophy ….

Examiner 2

This two-volume revised thesis is a considerable improvement on the 2005 submission.

Much effort has been expended in this reworking to produce a substantially more sustainable piece of work.

Mackay [sic] states in the Preface that his thesis is an "in-depth chronological analysis and realignment of the era of Hezekiah and its background with a special focus upon trying to determine, in a revised context, who were the Judaean king's major contemporaries and what were their origins". To do so, he has based his arguments on the chronological revisions of the Sothic calender [sic] thus following the footsteps of Velikovsky and Courville. However, he has not been reticent to apply his critical ability, assessing and (where necessary) re-adjusting their datum.

To fulfill its stated brief in the Introduction, the thesis' subject-matter covered an enormous expanse from Egypt to Mesopotamia. Here Mackay has evaluated the arguments of so-called conventional scholars soundly. I see a major advance in the application of his critical abilities, over and above the previous attempt. Whilst his conclusions are sometimes tentative - and could not be otherwise - he has fulfilled the scholar's brief by showing his capacity to sift evidence carefully, as well as consulting mainstream opinion. I particularly appreciated his usage of archaeological data to support his arguments.

The study of the Book of Judith [Volume Two of thesis], in particular, showed promise. I appreciated the discussion of the book's placement (or non-placement) in the Jewish versus the Catholic canon. The accompanying commentary also was a good piece of work. I would recommend that, with judicious editing and some reworking, this part of the thesis be suitable for publication. Re the argument of historicity v. 'pious fiction', it might be worthwhile to consider the questions of 'intent and audience'.

The thesis still does show a tendency "to tie up loose ends", but the application was much more restrained and the accompanying argument highlighted the complexity of the problems that Mackay was attempting to unravel. These were generally worked convincingly within the framework of the thesis.

… In conclusion, the thesis fulfills the stated criteria necessary to achieve the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. It makes an original contribution to knowledge, shows copious evidence of independent critical ability on the part of Mackey, as well as having discovered new facts. ….

Yet Examiner 3 could apparently find virtually nothing worthwhile (“only one minor strength”) in this 500+ pages (two-volume) effort:

….

This thesis sought to present 'a more acceptable alternative' to the conventional dating system for the era of Hezekiah. The thesis, however, fell far short of achieving its aim. There was a failure to assess both primary and secondary sources in a rigorous, critical and objective way. This meant that the conclusions reached were not merely non-conventional (this in itself should not disqualify anyone from an award), but extremely tenuous and very far-fetched. As such, the thesis failed to achieve its aim.

….

The thesis suffered from the same flaws as Velikovsky's approach, which exerted considerable influence over the argument, including lending it a starting point. In particular, the whole notion of 'alter egos' was simply not justified and, in fact, beggars the imagination. There was no attempt to explain why so many singular persons (many of them monarchs) could each possess so many distinctly different personas. I suspect the reason is because the entire notion of 'alter egos' has no real basis in history and, therefore, cannot be adequately explained. If there was a real notion of 'alter egos' in history, then it is odd that there has been no real overt reference in historical sources to explain it. …. The whole 'alter-ego' system overlooked all the cultural and religious distinctions apparent in the Ancient Near East, and defied credibility. Under the conventional system, these difficulties are easily overcome by the sensible and credible proposition that each name represents a distinct person. Indeed, the conventional system is also able to take in all the sources, including the ones ignored in this thesis. Therefore, the thesis did not give 'a more acceptable alternative' to the conventional dating system.

….

There was one minor strength in the thesis, though with some reservation:

1. The suggestion that the reigns of some of the Ramessides may have been concurrent was plausible, even though it ultimately cannot be confirmed. The chronological links made with other points of Ancient Near Eastern history on the basis of this surmise, however, appeared premature, speculative, and tenuous. Furthermore, this minor strength in no way provides an opening to salvage the thesis.

In light of this analysis, I cannot in good conscience recommend that the degree of PhD be awarded. The thesis was unfortunately ill-conceived and ultimately fatally flawed in its methods and conclusions.

Examiner 4

Though the Faculty of Arts apparently told my supervisor (Professor Rifaat Ebied) that the doctorate would be awarded, the university’s highest committee (Post-Graduate Matters Committee) then stepped in to say that a 4^th examiner would be required.

This final arbitrator/examiner, completely ignoring the favourable Examiner’s 1 and 2, based his/her (I think) decision entirely on the unfavourable Examiner 3:

The thesis does not meet the necessary standards of an academic research. The methodology utilized is flawed through and through, the information dated and irrelevant to current research. The author is not aware of up-to-date bibliography and has ignored major basic studies in the field. His treatment of ancient texts - both biblical and non-biblical - is literal and naïve. He does not utilize tools such as dictionaries, nor does he show proficiency in basic biblical analysis. The thesis does not regard or address questions of possible sources, genres, accepted basic conceptions regarding the authors or ideological biases of the texts, or variants in different versions. His arguments are irrational and the conclusions he has reached are unsubstantiated and fanciful.

I fully agree with the detailed comments of the third examiner who has laid out the main weaknesses of the thesis, and they should be consulted for more detail on my position.

Damien F. Mackey's Defence of Post-Graduate Thesis Against 3rd Examiner's Criticisms

Appendix: Exposing the Inadequacies of the 3rd Examiner’s Points in the Context of my Proposed ‘More Acceptable Alternative’ Model The 3rd examiner, unlike the Assessor, does make some points that are specifically relevant to the thesis, though he/she, just like the Assessor, never exhibits having come to terms at all with the overall complexity of the thesis, as had the 1st and 2nd examiners. Many of the 3rd examiner’s key points of criticism ignore some of the most fundamental aspects of my PhD thesis. Nor is there the least admittance by either the 3rd or the 4th examiner that the conventional system has its serious flaws. The chronologico-historical and art-historical anomalies that have been addressed in this thesis - and that are acknowledged by many competent scholars from different fields (see e.g. p. 18 of my thesis) - are genuine problems. This will become further evident from the following pages. The 3rd examiner’s 15 paragraphs can be broken down basically into alleged “weaknesses” relating to: (i) methodology, four paragraphs (1-4); (ii) primary and secondary sources, three paragraphs (5-6, 12); (iii) ‘alter egos’, vague similarities or similar equations for place names, five paragraphs (7-11, also 5 again); (iv) ‘dark age’, one paragraph (13); and (v) footnotes/aesthetics, two paragraphs (14-15). Then there follows that ‘favourable’ final paragraph (1) pointing to “one minor strength”: “The suggestion that the reigns of some of the Ramessides may have been concurrent was plausible …”. My comment: As if any work that may throw light on the important Ramesside era could be regarded as “minor”! [Moreover, a revision of the history of the Ramessides in relation to king Hezekiah constituted a major part of my thesis, namely Volume One, Part III (pp. 188-372)]. The 1st examiner seems to have appreciated this, when commenting: “pp. 339-340 – admirable attempt to recast the latter part of the 20th Dynasty [Ramesside] which has always appeared as a somewhat gray area” Let us consider the 3rd examiner’s five areas of criticism in turn. (i) Methodology (paragraphs 1-4) Regarding methodology, a major criticism offered by the 3rd examiner was that “tentative” points “were used as significant foundations for further conclusions”. The 2nd examiner had also used the word “tentative”, but with some proper understanding. Thus: “Whilst [Mackey’s] conclusions are somewhat tentative – and could not be otherwise – he has fulfilled the scholar’s brief …”. This 2nd examiner had, like the 1st examiner, fully appreciated that a completely new model of history must be of a tentative nature. The 3rd examiner though gives the impression that the whole thesis was basically a castle built in the air. “The vast majority of the argument was premised on a series of unproved ‘if’ statements”. “… numerous tentative points were effectively treated as … pivotal …”. My comment: My entire thesis was in fact built upon the most solid of foundations, even if the superstructure atop this may be subject to some future alteration. As I have been at pains to demonstrate, my PhD thesis was built upon: 1. A successful MA thesis that showed the inadequacies of the conventional chronological scheme, and with an examiner pointing to the opportunity now for an ‘alternative’ model to be undertaken. [My Abstract justifies my blazing of this new trail based on comments made by an examiner of my 1993 MA. Then, on p. 8, I argue my new thesis as being a logical development of my MA. This is repeated on p. 10 of Chapter 1. To reinforce all of this, I give a summary of my MA, beginning on p. 11. Pp. 16-21 make clear how much chronology and archaeology currently hang on Sothic dating. I summarise my efforts on this in my Conclusion, pp. 103-106]. Moreover: 2. My thesis was built upon a credible archaeological/stratigraphical foundation, as the 2nd examiner also happily noted: “I particularly appreciated [Mackey’s] usage of archaeological data to support his argument”. The 3rd examiner seems to have completely overlooked the solid foundations of this extensive work. Next: 3. As the thesis progressed into (as it must) the “alternative” model realm, my higher level foundation (for the background to king Hezekiah’s era) - still anchored though securely on 1. and 2. - became the now quite vast body of revisionist publications, based initially on the research of Drs. I. Velikovsky and D. Courville. As the 2nd examiner could clearly see: “[Mackey] has based his arguments on the chronological revisions of the Sothic calender [sic] thus following the footsteps of Velikovsky and Courville”. But not in a slavish fashion: “However, he has not been reticent to apply his critical ability, assessing and (where necessary) re-adjusting their datum”. Continuing on now right into the era of king Hezekiah of Judah, my foundations (still dependent on 1-3) were: 4. Five interlocking biblical (cf. 2 Kings 18:10)/neo-Assyrian correspondences, coinciding with the Fall of Samaria (c. 722/21 BC), namely: (a) Fall of Samaria; (b) beginning of Sargon II of Assyria’s rule; (c) sixth year of Hezekiah of Judah; (d) ninth year of Hoshea of Israel; (e) year one of Merodach-baladan II as king of Babylon, according to Sargon’s testimony: “In my twelfth year of reign, (Merodach-baladan) .... For 12 years, against the will (heart) of the gods, he held sway over Babylon ...”. [I discussed points (a)-(e) in detail in Chapter 1, pp. 21-28, returning to this in similar detail in Chapter 5, pp. 125-129, and then fully supplementing it in Chapter 12, pp. 349-350, and finally summarising it all on p. 372, Summary of Volume One]. Thus, I set out a clear foundational progression (1-4), whilst the ‘alter ego’ methodology was firmly established at the outset of my PhD thesis as being a key method to be used therein. [See also Chapter 3, pp. 52-53, for the beginning of my explanation of my ‘multi-identifications’ methodology, based on a very solid Velikovskian connection; this then being taken further in Chapter 4, pp. 111-115. (See also pp. 7-8 below of this Appendix)]. Yet, typically, the 3rd examiner will write: “… the whole notion of ‘alter egos’ was simply not justified …”. Other criticisms of a methodological nature made by the 3rd examiner were: “The argument itself did not flow. It often changed subject suddenly …”. But no examples/references are given. By contrast, the 2nd examiner – once again appreciating the difficulty of the task, and the context – wrote that “the accompanying argument highlighted the complexity of the problems that [Mackey] was attempting to unravel. These were generally worked convincingly within the framework of the thesis”. 3rd examiner again: “The thesis did not engage adequately with more conventional scholars which was necessary in order to achieve the stated goal of providing ‘a more acceptable alternative’ to their widely accepted theories.” But, according to the 2nd examiner, I have indeed in my wide-ranging thesis “evaluated the arguments of so-called conventional scholars soundly”. Moreover: “[Mackey] has fulfilled the scholar’s brief by showing his capacity to sift evidence carefully, as well as consulting mainstream opinion”. [On p. 5 of my Introduction I told of my indebtedness to conventional scholars/archaeologists of the past. In Chapter 11, p. 276, I praised “Bierbrier’s painstaking and laudable attempts to establish a clear chronological framework for Egyptian officials and workmen for the most difficult phase” of the Third Intermediate Period [TIP]. Moreover, I make it quite clear, in my treatment of the Ramessides and the difficult TIP that I did not intend to be “dogmatic”, but “tentative”, and that “I would be highly presumptuous” were I to presume that I could fully master the situation, Chapter 11, p. 258. See also Volume Two, p. 106]. 3rd examiner again: “Problems with conventional dating were exaggerated and often not considered in full, especially in terms of the solutions proposed by scholars advocating more conventional dating (e.g., Thiele). This also revealed a failure to deal with the purpose and literary-theological devices inherent in biblical chronologies”. My comments: For one of my key historical re-identifications, concerning Esarhaddon in relation to the neo-Assyrian succession, in Chapter 6, I actually gave detailed points, headed, “Conventional Theory’s Strengths” (pp. 135-142) as to why - although I was going to propose reasons for considering a departure from the conventional view - I nevertheless appreciated why the conventional view had a firm claim to being right. I revisited this in summary fashion also on pp. 150-151. And I returned to this point again in my final thesis Conclusion at the end of Volume Two (pp. 104-105). Moreover, I actually discussed Edwin Thiele at great length, first introducing him into the discussion on pp. 14-15 of Chapter 1, then considering him in more detail on pp. 22-27; an analysis that I continued in Chapter 5, pp. 125-129, and also in Chapter 12, p. 349. Though critical of the fact that Thiele had, following a faulty neo-Assyrian chronology, completely eradicated those five interlocking biblical/neo-Assyrian and Babylonian correspondences [(a)-(e) in point 4. on pp. 2-3 above], I did however (on pp. 126-129) consider the merits of Thiele’s overall system, acknowledging the problems that he faced. Indeed I recognised the validity of Thiele’s points in regard to the difficulties of a chronological correspondence between kings Hoshea and Hezekiah. And I coupled this with Assyriologist H. Tadmor’s related arguments, as noted by Thiele (Chapter 1, p. 22; Chapter 5, pp. 127-128; and Chapter 12, p. 354). At the same time I pointed to the inadequacies of Velikovsky’s revision, p. 25, his “sometimes … embarrassing gaffes”, indicating also that I would significantly modify his reconstruction of the el-Amarna period in Chapter 3, Chapter 4, Chapter 9 and Chapter 10. Thiele’s chronological problems with king Hezekiah though turn out to be artificial. Thiele is the one with the faulty methodology. Thanks to Thiele, Hezekiah has now become one of most vexed problems in biblical history, pp. 126, 129. Thiele, despite his “good intentions” (p. 129), ended up doing exactly what he intended not to do, when he had endeavoured to establish “a sound chronology for Old Testament times”, fitting it “into the events of the Near Eastern world” (p. 126). Consider what Thiele has now lost for us, pp. 23-24; also pp. 125-129. The 3rd examiner does not once allude to the fact that Thiele has completely eradicated an ancient multi-syncretism (a)-(e); one that the facts of modern archaeology have actually begun to support and further augment. I say (p. 128) that I shall attempt to enlarge this (a)-(e) correspondence even further by including, in Chapter 12, the Egyptian (f) and Ethiopian (g) contemporaries of the Fall of Samaria (a). Re biblical genre and purpose, I had definitely considered these throughout my thesis: e.g. Chapter 2, p. 33, where I had argued that the Bible was “didactic, not political science”; and p. 54 my explanation of el-Amarna’s geopolitical situation in relation to the Old Testament; and p. 55, on biblical perspective; and also pp. 72-73 on the Bible’s non-sophisticated attitude to geography. Then in Volume Two (pp. 89-91), I engaged in an in-depth textual analysis of the Isaian Denkschrift. (See also p. 6 of this Appendix). In conclusion, the 3rd examiner has completely failed to appreciate and understand the firm foundations upon which this thesis was built. This is in contrast to the 1st and 2nd examiners, who did not consider that my methodology was shallow. On the contrary, according to the 1st examiner: Mr. Mackey is very good at weighing alternatives … I … do not feel that he is “forcing a square peg into a roundhole”. His overall analyses and discussions are in depth and quite plausible. …. He has taken on a vast amount of material … and has dealt with it in considerable depth. If specialists and scholars with an open mind will approach his work dispassionately, [Mackey] has left a great deal to be studied and reconsidered. This is a seminal work – as it should be – and a door opened wide for further exploration. Whilst the 2nd examiner, impressed by my use of the archaeological data, also believes: … [Mackey] has evaluated the arguments of so-called conventional scholars soundly. … the thesis … makes an original contribution to knowledge, shows copious evidence of independent critical ability on the part of Mackey, as well as having discovered new facts. (ii) Primary and secondary sources (paragraphs 5-6, 12) 3rd examiner: “There was a failure to incorporate some key primary sources into the evidence, most notably the Babylonian Chronicles, the Assyrian King List, and Esarhaddon’s Vassal Treaty with Baal of Tyre”. By contrast, the 2nd examiner thought, regarding my “Bibliography. This was satisfactory – a testament to [Mackey’s] copious reading – and no changes are required”. And (3rd examiner): “The primary sources which featured in the thesis were never appraised or weighed in terms of genre, accuracy, reliability, purpose, and bias …. This was acutely apparent in the use of Assyrian annals, the canonical biblical literature, and the deutero-canonical books of Judith and Tobit”. My comment: I frequently in fact made use of the Babylonian Chronicles (e.g. Chapter 3, p. 78, Chapter 6, pp. 136-137, 147, 169), though being careful to note that this document is in fact a late source. I did indeed use the Assyrian King List (e.g. p. 131), but most notably in my discussion of “The Assuruballit Problem” [TAP], an Excursus dedicated to this very issue (pp. 230-253). I also used, extensively, the Taylor Prism, e.g. Chapter 6 (pp. 151-165); the Eponym Chronicle (pp. 144-145); the Assyrian Chronicle (e.g. p. 148); the Limmu Lists (p. 132); the ND4301 and ND4305 Nimrud fragments published by Wiseman (pp. 347-349). Moreover, the 3rd examiner here actually refers to my “use of Assyrian annals”. I also made extensive use of H. Tadmor and D. Luckenbill (Sargon II’s Khorsabad texts), with reference to the primary sources, especially throughout Chapter 6. In fact I went even deeper than merely using primary sources and had, following Tadmor, serious cause to criticize (in relation to the document that Tadmor called “Eponym Cb6”) the fact that Assyriologists, Winckler and Delitzsch, had presumed to add the name “Sargon” where it may not originally have been, pp. 137-138. Further to what I have already said above re my attention to genre, and to biblical perspective, much of my Chapter 1, in Volume Two (e.g., pp. 17-37), involved a discussion of the debate regarding the genre of the apocryphal Book of Judith, which I headed “A History and Critical Evaluation of [the Book of Judith]. A. Versions, Genre …”. See also my Chapter 3 (pp. 74-75) regarding how history has viewed this, and how history’s view of it has changed according to the different fashions or moral values of different epochs. In this I was notably successful, according to the 2nd examiner who wrote: The study of the Book of Judith, in particular, showed promise. I appreciated the discussion of the book’s placement (or non-placement) in the Jewish versus the Catholic canon. The accompanying commentary also was a good piece of work. I would recommend that, with judicious editing and some reworking, this part of the thesis be suitable for publication. Re the argument of history v. ‘pious fiction’, it might be worthwhile to consider the questions of ‘intent’ and ‘audience’. A significant amount of my Volume Two thus constituted a discussion of the textual nature of the Book of Judith, in which I concluded - following some millennia and a half of Judaeo-Christian tradition, I might add - that the book was in fact an ancient account of an actual history, and not just some sort of ‘pious parable/fiction’ (genre). My primary contribution was to show that this history was situated entirely within the era of Hezekiah. (iii) “‘alter egos’,” “equations of a similar nature for geographic place names”, and “vague similarities” or (paragraphs 7-11, also 5); Firstly ‘alter egos’ According to the 3rd examiner (a part of this we have already read): “The thesis suffered from the same flaws as Velikovsky’s approach, which exerted considerable influence over the argument, including lending it a starting point. In particular, the whole notion of ‘alter egos’ was simply not justified, and, in fact, beggars the imagination”. And: “… there was a distinct failure to look thoroughly at the linguistic problems associated with the various equations of names being proposed by the ‘alter-ego’ model. This led to some rather fanciful and improbable equations which are simply not credible linguistically, let alone historically …”. And: “… the thesis criticizes other scholars for failing to explain name correspondences (e.g., So = Saïs, p. 189) when it fails to do this many times over. This unfortunately reveals a scholarly double standard”. My comments: If one has, as I have, embarked upon a revision of ancient history based upon the view that Egyptian history has been grossly over-extended, thereby affecting the chronologies of the nations tied to it, then one has to determine upon a methodology that is appropriate towards rectifying this situation. This must of necessity involve a shortening of chronology. But it must not go against the evidence. As the 2nd examiner has noted, my approach was archaeologically-based, hence a sound foundation underpinned it all. This is in contrast, I believe, to the latter part of Velikovsky’s revision, where - in order to merge the entire neo-Hittite empire with the Babylonian (Nebuchednezzar II’s), and make the 19th Egyptian dynasty (that is concurrent with the Hittites) the same as the 26th Egyptian dynasty, concurrent with the Babylonian empire - Velikovsky had ruptured the true and well-established archaeological sequence which indicates that the 19th dynasty must follow on directly from the 18th. This bold plan of Velikovsky’s, to accommodate his chronological shrinkage, would have been wonderful had it been workable. But it was in fact doomed to failure right from the start because it went ruthlessly against the established archaeological evidence. Now the method of ‘alter egos’, and the merging of certain dynasties, is the one that revisionist scholars have tended to adopt to support the necessary chronological shrinkage. It makes good sense (where it does not violate the established evidence). And some very striking correspondences have already been made. I have built upon what I consider to have been the best of these, and have also significantly added to them, according to the 2nd examiner’s recognising that I have “discovered new facts”. In other words, the model that I have proposed seems to be fruitful and productive, not barren. But does not the 3rd examiner completely miss the point again by asserting, without qualification, that my equations are “simply not credible … historically …”, given that what I have produced is in fact quite a new model of history; one that according to both the 1st and 2nd examiners was convincing according to its context (e.g., 2nd examiner: “… problems [were] generally worked convincingly within the framework of the thesis”)? Some of my linguistic equations might indeed be controversial, with even the 2nd examiner saying, “occasionally I felt he rather stretched linguistic arguments”. I could have though, for instance, in my proposed equation of Jonah with Nahum (partly based on Tobit 14:4, versions of which variously give ‘Jonah’ and ‘Nahum’) ‘stretched’ the NAH element in both names (Jo-NAH-um) as part of my evidence for identifying Jonah with Nahum. However, I resisted this temptation, due to the fact that, as I would write (Volume Two p. 94), there is “only a superficial similarity between the names”, with ‘Jonah’ containing the letter h (Hebrew he), whilst ‘Nahum’ contains the letter ch (Hebrew het). Now, regarding name linguistics, the 1st examiner thought at least: On pp. 60ff., I found this to be a valiant effort to identify the EA correspondents and I especially like the linguistic equation of Abdi-ashirta with Dushratta [i.e., through Ab-DU-aSHRATTA, p. 67]. It is quite wrong for the 3rd examiner to claim that “there was a distinct failure to look thoroughly at the linguistic problems associated with the various equations of names being proposed by the ‘alter-ego’ model”. I especially justified my ‘alter ego’ connection for kings with the ADP (see Acronyms) or ‘Addu-principle’ (Chapter 3, pp. 68-71), according to which a king might use a different theophoric (‘god’ name) in a different region (e.g. Baal in Phoenicia; Hadad in Syria; Ashur in Assyria). This e.g. accounted for why the one king might have had dissimilar names. Another factor I suggested was the well-attested religious syncretism at the time (p. 91), with the likelihood of a Yahweh and a Baal name being used together. With ADP, el-Amarna names (presumably C14th BC) now appear abundantly in C9th texts (p. 71). Also: [On pp. 68 I gave an explanation of possible Semitic use of Indo European names. Also on p. 174 I made it clear that, whilst certain equations may connect the same name, my identification was not based on name similarity alone; though it is nice when that happens. On pp. 208-209 I applied the ADP to Tushratta]. There were many further arguments in favour of my ‘alter ego’ comparisons, e.g: [P. 65 Boutflower has shown the name Tabeel to have been comparable with Tab rimmon. P. 146, Tiglath-pileser III was also ‘Pul[u]’, both in history and the Bible. We know that Assyrians took different names as rulers of Babylon, p. 184. P. 179-180 my folding of the Middle Bronze I & II Ages also involved name folding. P. 138, explanation of Sargon II’s name as a throne name; Sennacherib, as a personal name. P. 139, Tobit clearly says who Sennacherib’s father was, “Shalmaneser”, not Sargon (p. 184, the name Sargon, meaning “true King”, is suspicious – he may well have been a usurper). P. 147 Tiglath-pileser is a throne name, not a personal name. P. 169 Esarhaddon was known to have had two different names. The biblical Hadoram is also Joram, p. 69, and the name Adda-danu = Balu shipti, p. 70]. In light of all this, one has to wonder if the 3rd examiner has properly read the thesis! And to make me question this even further there is the 3rd examiner’s mistaken comment re “So = Saïs, p. 189”; this being, incidentally, the only occasion in all of sixteen paragraphs where the 3rd examiner cites a specific page (let alone Chapter, or Volume) of my thesis. By the time we have come to this p. 189 (re “So = Saïs …”), I had already given pages (see above) of linguistic arguments and principles in support of my thesis, and these would continue on, including into Volume Two, Part II (pp. 37-46) and in the Excursus, pp. 87-102. So I cannot justifiably be flatly accused of ‘failing to explain name correspondences’. My particular criticism of the So = Saïs equation was that “So” was a biblical king of Egypt, whereas Saïs is well known to have been a city in the W. Egyptian Delta. However unconvincing scholars may find some of my own equations, be they of people or places, at least I cannot be accused of ever having attempted to force an identification of one designated as a person with a known place (city), as some conventional historians have proposed in the case of So = Saïs. That strange ‘osmosis’ (a person becoming a place) is the point of my argument here. As I claim, my ‘alternative’ historical model is not a barren one. At least the 2nd examiner, as we read, did not think so (“new facts”). Nor did the 1st examiner, who liked e.g. the following comparisons: p. 82 - good attempt to identify the enigmatic Kassites (who remain a real problem). pp. 88ff. – excellent point regarding use of Hebrew in [el-Amarna] correspondence. pp. 90ff. – a provocative and detailed discussion of the [el-Amarna] correspondence in order to identify the correspondents. pp. 133ff. –The Sargon II-Sennacherib equation is provocative, comprehensive and near compelling. It stands as a major challenge to traditional specialists in Mesopotamian history and archaeology. p. 180 – a tantalizing comparison between 12th and 8th century BC individuals. pp. 180ff. – good discussion of Kassite/Assyro-Babylonian similarities. pp. 300ff. – very good discussion of the meaning of the Israel Stele. pp. 316ff. – good attempt to unravel the relationship between the 21st and 22nd [Egyptian] dynasties; pp. 322-327 – drives home the point about objects identified as “heirlooms” owing to a misplaced chronology. This same 1st examiner, too, had fully appreciated the degree of difficulty involved with certain aspects of my thesis, particularly in relation to Egypt’s most troublesome Third Intermediate Period, or TIP [i.e., Dynasties 21-26]: pp. 358ff. – an interesting attempt to sort out “who was who” in the 21st & 22nd Dynasties. This seems to be one of the most confusing periods in Ancient Egyptian history (pace Kitchen) and may never be straightened out. Mackey is to be commended for his effort. [Indeed, the great Egyptologist Sir Alan Gardiner had despaired of this historical period’s ever being properly resolved. See quote on p. 338 of thesis]. My thesis in fact, as I made clear (Chapter 3, p. 51), would tackle head on the three most vexed problems for the Velikovskian based revision (none of which is problem free in the conventional system), namely: ‘The Assuruballit Problem’ [henceforth TAP]; where to locate Ramses II (in the new scheme); and the resolution of the complex TIP. And, whilst I thought ultimately (thesis Conclusion, pp. 103-106) that I had managed to propose a positive solution to (i) and (ii), I did not claim to have done more than to provide “at least the outline of a solution - rather than a comprehensive revision - for (iii)”. Generally, as I have said, my ‘alternative’ historical model can be fruitful, having the potential to solve some glaring, unresolved problems that have persisted in - even bedevilled - the conventional system. Some of these, which are a bit technical in full detail, I shall now illustrate in brief: One of the most glaring problems is the lack of archaeology for a supposed 400 years of Kassite history (see section ‘dark age’ for more detail on this), completely resolved in my chronological shrinkage and identification of the Kassites with Assyro-Babylonian kings. See also the 1st examiner’s favourable comments above on my treatment of the Kassites. The conventional system cannot explain why, whereas Assuruballit of Assyria’s father - as given in the el-Amarna letters - was called Assur-nadin-ahe, his father is named in the Assyrian King List as Eriba-Adad, not Assur-nadin-ahe. Yet so much is based on this supposed connection, as we read in Centuries of Darkness: “Thus the much vaunted synchronism between Akhenaten and Assuruballit I, the main linch-pin between Egyptian and Assyrian Late Bronze Age chronologies, is flawed and must be treated with caution” (cited on p. 231 of thesis). My multi-identification of Tushratta enabled for me to explain how this Mitannian king had been in a position to send the statue of Ishtar of Nineveh (Assyria) to pharaoh Amenhotep III in Egypt, in the hope of curing the latter’s illness. For Tushratta was also, according to my reconstruction, Ashurnasirpal II of Assyria, pp. 73, 76-81. [See also p. 80, art evidence for Ashurnasirpal II as a contemporary of Egypt’s Late Kingdom]. *** My equation, Tushratta = Abdi-ashirta (the 2nd examiner, as we saw, liked the linguistic connection here), serves to answer my persistent question (e.g. pp. 65-67, 73) as to why two contemporary kings, Tushratta and Abdi-ashirta, ruling the same regions, and with the same ambitions and aspirations (e.g. to consolidate rule over Mitanni), never clashed, nor do their names ever appear together in the el-Amarna correspondence. The mention in 2 Chronicles 21:16-17 of “the Arabians, who were near the Cushites [Ethiopians]”, who sacked king Jehoram’s palace in Jerusalem has bewildered biblical scholars (see my discussion in Chapter 4, pp. 112-114). E.g: “This curious verse can hardly signify that the Arabians took and plundered Jerusalem” (quote on p. 114). But it is perfectly explainable in a revised context. In fact we often meet with cases in which the conventional scenario leads to such statements of bewilderment or astonishment, e.g: p. 73, where Campbell had sought for “... a way to explain a Mitannian raid into upper Syria sometime during the final years of Amenophis [Amenhotep] III, carried out by Tušratta [Tushratta] while he was maintaining loyal friendship with Egypt”. But Campbell finally had to admit to having “no satisfactory explanation”. [See also Roux, p. 14 below, on Kassite archaeology]. The fairly recently published Tang-i Var inscription (see Chapter 6, p. 144, Chapter 12, pp. 350-351, 364) has thrown into complete and unexpected confusion the conventional syncretisms between Sargon II of Assyria and the 25th Ethiopian dynasty; a problem that does not exist in my renovation of neo-Assyrian history and the TIP. And, with Sargon II to be merged with Sennacherib, as I have argued, then Thiele’s problems with harmonizing the reign of king Hezekiah of Judah against the neo-Assyrian rule are no longer relevant. As the 1st examiner notes, this (Sargon II = Sennacherib) was “provocative, comprehensive and near compelling”. [For more on this, see p. 13 below of this Appendix)]. Art-historical problems of similarities between C12th BC (‘Middle’ Assyro-Babylonian) and C8th BC (‘Neo’ Assyro-Babylonian) art (pp. 80-81, also pp. 250-251) do not exist in my model, which provides a chronological folding of the ‘Middle’ and ‘Neo’ eras. [See also p. 250, for art of Horemheb, Egypt’s Late Kingdom, like that found in neo-Assyria; p. 251, for art depicting the ‘Sea Peoples’, again Late Kingdom, like that of Shalmaneser III of a supposedly later period]. Secondly, “equations of a similar nature for geographic place names” There were actually rather few such geographical “equations” proposed in the thesis, and the 3rd examiner mentions only two of these, namely: “… Lachish = Ashdod; Rages = Damascus”. Regarding the first, Lachish = Ashdod, I noted Chapter 6 (p. 154) that Sargon II had, in his Annals, actually referred simultaneously to two Ashdods: “Ashdod, Gimtu [Gath?], Ashdudimmu [Ashdod-by-the-Sea], I besieged and captured”. The conventional historians do not explain why. My thesis does. They are two separate locations, with ‘Ashdod-by-the-Sea’ being the conventional Ashdod; whereas ‘Ashdod’, unqualified, is Lachish. This identification solves a host of problems, including why Sargon II, who actually took the fort of Azekah in Judah (pp. 158-159) would have studiously ignored Azekah’s neighbour fort (p. 140), the mighty Lachish. Sargon II claims to have subdued Judah (as noted on p. 154). For other resolutions, and arguments in favour of this equation, Ashdod = Lachish, see pp. 151, 160-162. As regards the equation Rages = Damascus, the 3rd examiner has made the comment: “… simply contradictory … Rages, situated in a mountainous terrain, was equated with Damascus which was correctly noted as being located in a plain …”. Now this, the only occasion when the 3rd examiner has credited me with being ‘correct’, in fact mis-states what I had actually written. I discussed all this in Volume Two, Chapter 2, pp. 38-40, where I had specifically claimed that “Rages”, a city in the mountains, must be the city of Damascus that dominated the province of Batanaea” (p. 39). Damascus, almost 700 m above sea level, is actually situated on a plateau. Secondly, I gave there very specific geographical details in order to identify this “Rages” in relation to “Ecbatana” (Tobit 5:6), which I had in turn identified (following the Heb. Londinii, or HL, fragment version of Tobit) with “Bathania”, or Bashan (possibly Herodotus’ Syrian Ecbatana as opposed to the better known Median Ecbatana). According to Tobit, “Rages is situated in the mountains, two days’ walk from Ecbatana which is in the plain”. Now Damascus is precisely two days’ walk from Bashan in the Hauran plain, as according to Jâkût el-Hamawi who says of Batanaea’s most central town of Nawâ …: “Between Nawa and Damascus is two days’ journey” (as quoted on p. 39). What further consolidates the fact that Tobit’s ‘Ecbatana’ was in a westerly direction, rather than an easterly one, is that his son Tobias, leaving Nineveh, arrived at the Tigris river in the evening; an impossibility were he heading for Median Ecbatana in the east. And, according to the Vulgate version of Tobit, Charan, that is, Haran, is situated “in the halfway” between Nineveh and Ecbatana. The traveller is clearly journeying towards the west. Whilst Bible scholars today tend to dismiss the whole geography of the Book of Tobit as nonsensical, a simple adjustment based on a genuine version (Heb. Londinii), makes perfect - even very precise (“two days walk”) - sense of it. Thirdly, “vague similarities” 3rd examiner: “Vague similarities were used as a means of drawing identical equations. Thus, for example, the use of kohl was found to be a similarity between Jezebel (conventionally dated to 9th century BC) and Nefertiti (conventionally dated to 14th century BC), which was subsequently used to suggest that they were probably the same person. This appeared to make the evidence fit the desired outcome”. My comment: I hardly hung my reconstruction on this small point of the kohl. As part of my primary foundations, 1-3, I had re-located the el-Amarna period (Nefertiti’s age) from the C14th BC to the C9th BC. The 1st examiner, according to whom: “pp. 210-222 – While the equation of Nefertiti with Jezebel is intriguing, I don’t buy it”, had conceded that: “It is a better argument for their contemporaneity rather than identity”. Note here that the 1st examiner was fully aware that my reconstruction of Nefertiti far exceeds (“pp. 210-222”) the mere mention of “kohl” (p. 221). “Kohl” is an element that the seemingly “eye witness” (P. Ellis quote, p. 221) account of Jezebel’s death has included, and it is certainly a notable feature of Nefertiti’s cosmetic make-up. But I intended it merely as just one small piece in a large jigsaw puzzle, or possible Identikit. Now this is a typical ploy of the 3rd examiner, to minimize the evidence I used for a particular reconstruction. Indeed the very same procedure can be found in the following two instances of criticism: (3rd examiner): “Thus, for example, to propose that two Assyrian monarchs, Sargon II and Sennacherib … were not only one and the same person, but also identical with the Babylonian monarch Nebuchadnezzar I, is a simply stunning claim. One needs far more than chronological concurrence (which itself was not convincingly argued for) to make this claim, yet no further convincing grounds were given”. My comments: Apart from the fact that I had previously addressed the ‘dark age’ problem in ‘Middle Assyrian’ history Chapter 6, pp. 130-131, then applying this to Babylonia, Chapter 7, pp. 174-176, I had then begun to bridge the gap between ‘Middle’ and ‘Neo’ Assyrian history. I did this particularly by synchronizing the circumstances of Tukulti-Ninurta I and III, and then making a detailed comparison between Tiglath-pileser I and III, Chapter 7, pp. 181-184, accompanied also by comparisons between the Babylonian Merodach-baladan I and II (whose building works even archaeologists cannot clearly distinguish, p. 179). I also showed that a succession of supposedly C12th BC Elamite kings (known as the ‘Shutrukids’), encountered by Nebuchednezzar I, had virtually the same names as a succession of Elamite kings encountered by Sennacherib. Thus (my Table 1, p. 180): Table 1: Comparison of the C12th BC (conventional) and C8th BC C12th BC · Some time before Nebuchednezzar I, there reigned in Babylon a Merodach-baladan [I]. · The Elamite kings of this era carried names such as Shutruk-Nahhunte and his son, Kudur-Nahhunte. · Nebuchednezzar I fought a hard battle with a ‘Hulteludish’ (Hultelutush-Inshushinak). C8th BC · The Babylonian ruler for king Sargon II’s first twelve years was a Merodach-baladan [II]. · SargonII/Sennacherib fought against the Elamites, Shutur-Nakhkhunte & Kutir-Nakhkhunte. · Sennacherib had trouble also with a ‘Hallushu’ (Halutush-Inshushinak). “Too spectacular I think to be mere coincidence!”, I had remarked. The 1st examiner, as we read, appreciated this. [I also gave art-historical support for this ‘folding’ of eras (p. 181). And I identified, as the same person, a legendary Vizier common to both eras (p. 185-187). On pp. 184-186, I entered into a discussion of Sennacherib as Nebuchednezzar I]. Moreover, my explanation (Sennacherib = Nebuchednezzar I, pp. 184-186) solved the conundrum for the conventional history as to why the proud Sargon II, or Sennacherib, did not - like previous Assyrian conquerors of Babylon - adopt the title: “King of Babylon”, “preferring to use the older shakkanaku (‘viceroy’)” (p. 185). “That modesty however was not an Assyrian characteristic we have already seen abundantly”, I wrote. “And so lacking in this virtue was Sargon in fact, I believe, that historians have had to create a complete Babylonian king, namely, Nebuchednezzar I, to accommodate the Assyrian’s rôle as ‘King of Babylon’.” My point here is again that this construction was built on far more than, according to the 3rd examiner, “chronological concurrence”. Moreover, I was not averse to pointing to certain defects in my own reconstruction (e.g. p. 185, a major problem). And for the actual equation, Sargon II = Sennacherib, a matter of extreme controversy, no doubt, and one therefore requiring detailed attention, I had painstakingly throughout Chapter 6 (1st examiner used the word, “comprehensive”) gone through the successive regnal year events of Sargon II, comparing these with the successive campaign records of Sennacherib, showing that they compared remarkably well: too well, indeed, I thought, to have been mere coincidence. Here is my summary and comment on this (from p. 166): A Question By Way of Summary What are the chances of two successive kings having, in such perfect chronological sequence - over a span of some two decades - the same campaigns against the same enemies? Merodach-baladan (Sargon). Merodach-baladan (Sennacherib). 2. Ellipi, Medes and Tumunu (Sargon). Ellipi, Medes and Tumunu (Sennacherib). 3. Egypt-backed Judah/Philistia (Sargon). Egypt-backed Judah/Philistia (Sennacherib) 4. Merodach-baladan and Elam (Sargon). Merodach-baladan and Elam (Sennacherib). 5. (Not fully preserved) (Sargon). (Not fully preserved) (Sennacherib). 6. Babylon, Elam and Bit-Iakin (Sargon). Babylon, Elam and Bit-Iakin (Sennacherib). 7. Elam (Sargon). Elam (Sennacherib). [End of quote]. (iv) ‘Dark Age’ (paragraph 13); At the beginning of Chapter 6, I resorted to the testimony of Assyriologists re some crucial phases of Dark Age in Assyrian history. I drew some of this information from the book, Centuries of Darkness, by Peter James and other scholars from different fields. Though James is a revisionist, this book (which has a Foreword by Professor/Lord Colin Renshaw, archaeologist) is now being quoted favourably in text books, e.g. by N. Grimal, A History of Ancient Egypt (Blackwell, 1992), p. 440. I continued this discussion of Dark Age into Chapter 7, as noted above, and also returned to it in detail when analyzing the TIP in Chapter 11 and Chapter 12. Here I would like just to take a section out of my Chapter 7, p. 175, re the Kassite archaeology, or lack thereof, to show clearly that there is something seriously wrong with the present structure: It is not I think too much to say that the Kassites are an enigma for the over-extended conventional scheme. Roux has given the standard estimate for the duration of Kassite rule of Babylonia: “… a long line of Kassite monarchs was to govern Mesopotamia or, as they called it, Kar-Duniash for no less than four hundred and thirty-eight years (1595-1157 B.C.)”. This is a substantial period of time; yet archaeology has surprisingly little to show for it. Roux again: Unfortunately, we are not much better off as regards the period of Kassite domination in Iraq … all we have at present is about two hundred royal inscriptions – most of them short and of little historical value – sixty kudurru … and approximately 12,000 tablets (letters and economic texts), less than 10 per cent of which has been published. This is very little indeed for four hundred years – the length of time separating us from Elizabeth 1. [Seton] Lloyd, in his book dedicated to the study of Mesopotamian archaeology [The Archaeology of Mesopotamia] can give only a mere 4 pages [i.e., pp. 172-175] (including pictures) to the Kassites, without even bothering to list them in the book’s Index at the back. [End of quote]. (v) footnotes/aesthetics (paragraphs 14-15) 3rd examiner: “… consistently incorrect use of such terms as ibid. and op. cit.” [para 14], and “consistently redundant use of ellipsis (…) in quotations” [para 15]. My comment: These are matters that can easily be tidied up before the thesis is bound. All three examiners had some comment to make regarding footnotes. Though I can see no other alternative than to using ellipsis - as I have continued to do in this Appendix – when employing only selected parts of a quote.