Not so ‘Hot Gates’ of Thermopylae

 

by

 Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

 

Scholars have wondered about the incredible size of the Persian army.

“Almost all are agreed that Herodotus’ figure of 2,100,000, exclusive of followers, for the army (Bk VII. 184-85) is impossible” wrote F. Maurice in 1930.

 

 

 

Introductory

 

Professor Paul Cartledge’s well written book about the alleged Battle of Thermopylae between the Spartans and the Persians in 480 BC holds firmly to the familiar line of British writers and historians that our Western civilisation was based front and centre upon the Greeks.

 

Thus, for instance, he writes in his book, Thermopylae: The Battle That Changed the World (Macmillan, 2006, p. 4):

 

“The Greeks were second to none in embracing that contrary combination of the ghastly and the ennobling, which takes us straight back to the fount and origin of Western culture and ‘civilization’ - to Homer’s Iliad, the first masterpiece of all Western literature; to Aeschylus’s Persians, the first surviving masterpiece of Western drama; to the coruscating war epigrams of Simonides and, last but most relevantly of all, to Herodotus’s Histories, the first masterpiece of Western historiography”.

 

And this is not the only occasion in his book where professor Cartledge expresses such effusive sentiments.

 

The problem is, however, that - as it seems to me, at least - these very foundations, these so-called ‘founts and origins’ of ‘Western culture and civilization’, had for their very own bases some significant non-Greek influences and inspirations.

An important one of these non-Greek influences was the Book of Judith, traditionally thought to have been written substantially by the high-priest Joakim in c. 700 BC. See my article:

 

Author of the Book of Judith

 

https://www.academia.edu/32193754/Author_of_the_Book_of_Judith

 

Compare that to the uncertainty of authorship surrounding those major works labelled Homeric (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homer):

 

The Homeric Question—by whom, when, where and under what circumstances were the Iliad and Odyssey composed—continues to be debated. Broadly speaking, modern scholarly opinion falls into two groups. One holds that most of the Iliad and (according to some) the Odyssey are the works of a single poet of genius. The other considers the Homeric poems to be the result of a process of working and re-working by many contributors, and that "Homer" is best seen as a label for an entire tradition.^[

 

On previous occasions I have suggested that parts of The Iliad had appropriated key incidents to be found in the Book of Judith, with ‘Helen’ taking her cue from the Jewish heroine, Judith.

Accordingly, I have written:

 

“As for Judith, the Greeks appear to have substituted this beautiful Jewish heroine with their own legendary Helen, whose ‘face launched a thousand ships’. Compare for instance these striking similarities (Judith and The Iliad):

 

The beautiful woman praised by the elders at the city gates:

 

"When [the elders of Bethulia] saw [Judith] transformed in appearance and dressed differently, they were very greatly astounded at her beauty" (Judith 10:7).

 

"Now the elders of the people were sitting by the Skaian gates…. When they saw Helen coming … they spoke softly to each other with winged words: 'No shame that the Trojans and the well-greaved Achaians should suffer agonies for long years over a woman like this - she is fearfully like the immortal goddesses to look at'" [The Iliad., pp. 44-45].

 

This theme of incredible beauty - plus the related view that "no shame" should be attached to the enemy on account of it - is picked up again a few verses later in the Book of Judith (v.19) when the Assyrian soldiers who accompany Judith and her maid to Holofernes "marveled at [Judith's] beauty and admired the Israelites, judging them by her … 'Who can despise these people, who have women like this among them?'"

 

Nevertheless:

 

'It is not wise to leave one of their men alive, for if we let them go they will be able to beguile the whole world!' (Judith 10:19).

 

'But even so, for all her beauty, let her go back in the ships, and not be left here a curse to us and our children'.

 

The dependence of The Iliad upon the Book of Judith may go even deeper, though, to its very main theme. For, previously I had written:

 

“Achilles

 

Many similarities have been noted too between The Iliad and the Old Testament, including the earlier-mentioned likenesses between the young Bellerophon and Joseph. Again, Achilles' being pursued by the river Xanthos which eventually turns dry (Book 21) reminds one of Moses' drying up of the sea (Exodus 14:21).

 

Was there really a person by the name of Agamemnon? [See Is Homer Historical? in Archaeology Odyssey, May/Jun 2004, pp. 26-35]. The interview of Professor Nagy of Harvard says `no, there wasn't.'

 

Achilles’ fierce argument with Agamemnon, commander-in-chief of the Greeks, at Troy - Achilles' anger being the very theme of The Iliad [Introduction, p. xvi: "The Iliad announces its subject in the first line. The poem will tell of the anger of Achilleus and its consequences - consequences for the Achaians, the Trojans, and Achilleus himself"] - is merely a highly dramatized Greek version of the disagreement in the Book of Judith between Achior [a name not unlike the ‘Greek’ Achilles] and the furious Assyrian commander-in-chief, "Holofernes", at the siege of Bethulia, Judith's town”.

 

And the famous Trojan Horse?

I continued:

 

“If the very main theme of The Iliad may have been lifted by the Greeks from the Book of Judith, then might not even the Homeric idea of the Trojan Horse ruse to capture Troy have been inspired by Judith's own ruse to take the Assyrian camp? [According to R. Graves, The Greek Myths (Penguin Books, combined ed., 1992), p. 697 (1, 2. My emphasis):

 

"Classical commentators on Homer were dissatisfied with the story of the wooden horse. They suggested, variously, that the Greeks used a horse-like engine for breaking down the walls (Pausanias: i. 23. 10) … that Antenor admitted the Greeks into Troy by a postern which had a horse painted on it….Troy is quite likely to have been stormed by means of a wheeled wooden tower, faced with wet horse hides as a protection against incendiary darts…".

(Pausanius 2nd century AD: Wrote `Description of Greece'.)].

 

What may greatly serve to strengthen this suggestion is the uncannily 'Judith-like' trickery of a certain Sinon, a wily Greek, as narrated in the detailed description of the Trojan Horse in Book Two of Virgil's Aeneid. Sinon, whilst claiming to have become estranged from his own people, because of their treachery and sins, was in fact bent upon deceiving the Trojans about the purpose of the wooden horse, in order "to open Troy to the Greeks".

 

I shall set out here the main parallels that I find on this score between the Aeneid and the Book of Judith.

 

Firstly, the name Sinon may recall Judith's ancestor Simeon, son of Israel (Judith 8:1; 9:2).

Whilst Sinon, when apprehended by the enemy, is "dishevelled" and "defenceless", Judith, also defenseless, is greatly admired for her appearance by the members of the Assyrian patrol who apprehend her (Judith 10:14). As Sinon is asked sympathetically by the Trojans 'what he had come to tell …' and 'why he had allowed himself to be taken prisoner', so does the Assyrian commander-in-chief, Holofernes, 'kindly' ask Judith: '… tell me why you have fled from [the Israelites] and have come over to us?'

Just as Sinon, when brought before the Trojan king Priam, promises that he 'will confess the whole truth' – though having no intention of doing that – so does Judith lie to Holofernes: 'I will say nothing false to my lord this night' (Judith 11:5).

Sinon then gives his own treacherous account of events, including the supposed sacrileges of the Greeks due to their tearing of the Palladium, image of the goddess Athene, from her own sacred Temple in Troy; slaying the guards on the heights of the citadel and then daring to touch the sacred bands on the head of the virgin goddess with blood on their hands. For these 'sacrileges' the Greeks were doomed.

Likewise Judith assures Holofernes of victory because of the supposed sacrilegious conduct that the Israelites have planned (e.g. to eat forbidden and consecrated food), even in Jerusalem (11:11-15).

Sinon concludes – in relation to the Trojan options regarding what to do with the enigmatic wooden horse – with an Achior-like statement: 'For if your hands violate this offering to Minerva, then total destruction shall fall upon the empire of Priam and the Trojans…. But if your hands raise it up into your city, Asia shall come unbidden in a mighty war to the walls of Pelops, and that is the fate in store for our descendants'. Whilst Sinon's words were full of cunning, Achior had been sincere when he had warned Holofernes – in words to which Judith will later allude deceitfully (11:9-10): 'So now, my master and my lord, if there is any oversight in this people [the Israelites] and they sin against their God and we find out their offense, then we can go up against them and defeat them. But if they are not a guilty nation, then let my lord pass them by; for their Lord and God will defend them, and we shall become the laughing-stock of the whole world' (Judith 5:20-21). [Similarly, Achilles fears to become 'a laughing-stock and a burden of the earth' (Plato's Apologia, Scene I, D. 5)]. These, Achior's words, were the very ones that had so enraged Holofernes and his soldiers (vv.22-24). And they would give the Greeks the theme for their greatest epic, The Iliad”.

 

But all of this is as nothing when compared to what I have found to be the multiple:

 

Similarities to The Odyssey of the Books of Job and Tobit

 

https://www.academia.edu/8914220/Similarities_to_The_Odyssey_of_the_Books_of_Job_and_Tobit

 

this Semitic literature presumably well pre-dating the fairy-tale Greek efforts.

 

Unsatisfactory Foundations

 

“It concerns a supposed night attack by loyalist Greeks on Xerxes’s camp in the very middle of the Thermopylae campaign with the aim of assassinating the Great King”.

 

Herodotus

 

So much concerning the truth of the supposed Battle of Thermopylae rests with Herodotus, whose Histories are thought to come closest of all to being a primary source for the account. “He and [the poet] Simonides” are, according to professor Paul Cartledge, the “principal contemporary Greek written source for Thermopylae”. And, on p. 224: “… Herodotus in my view remains as good as it gets: we either write a history of Thermopylae with him, or we do not write one at all”.

One problem with this is that Herodotus was known as (alongside his more favourable epithet, the “Father of History”) - as professor Cartledge has also noted - the “Father of Lies”.

 

Where does Greek history actually begin?

The history of Philosophy - of whose origins the Greeks are typically credited - begins with shadowy ‘Ionian Greeks’, such as Thales of Miletus, whose real substance I believe resides in the very wise Joseph of Egypt (the genius Imhotep of Egypt’s Third Dynasty).

Likewise the legendary Pythagoras.

For an overview of all of this, see my:

 

Re-Orienting to Zion the History of Ancient Philosophy

 

https://www.academia.edu/4105845/Re-Orienting_to_Zion_the_History_of_Ancient_Philosophy

 

Already I have de-Grecised such supposedly historical characters as Solon the Athenian statesman (who is but a Greek version of the Israelite King Solomon, and whose ‘laws’ appear to have been borrowed, at least in part, from the Jew, Nehemiah); Thales; Pythagoras; Empedocles, an apparent re-incarnation of Moses (Freud).

And I have shown that Greek classics such as The Iliad and the Odyssey were heavily dependent upon earlier Hebrew literature.

The ancient biblical scholar, Saint Jerome (c. 400 AD), had already noted, according to Orthodox pastor, Patrick H. Reardon (The Wide World of Tobit. Apocrypha’s Tobit and Literary Tradition), the resemblance of Tobit to Homer’s The Odyssey. The example that pastor Reardon gives, though, so typical of the biblical commentator’s tendency to infer pagan influence upon Hebrew literature, whilst demonstrating a definite similarity between Tobit and the Greek literature, imagines the author of Tobit to have appropriated a colourful episode from The Odyssey and inserted it into Tobit 11:9:

http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=12-02-036-f#ixzz2f1euwlrb

 

“The resemblance of Tobit to the Odyssey in particular was not lost on that great student of literature, Jerome, as is evident in a single detail of his Latin translation of Tobit in the Vulgate. Intrigued by the literary merit of Tobit, but rejecting its canonicity, the jocose and sometimes prankish Jerome felt free to insert into his version an item straight out of the Odyssey—namely, the wagging of the dog’s tail on arriving home with Tobias in 11:9—Tunc praecucurrit canis, qui simul fuerat in via, et quasi nuntius adveniens blandimento suae caudae gaudebat—“Then the dog, which had been with them in the way, ran before, and coming as if it had brought the news, showed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail.”16 No other ancient version of Tobit mentions either the tail or the wagging, but Jerome, ever the classicist, was confident his readers would remember the faithful but feeble old hound Argus, as the final act of his life, greeting the return of Odysseus to the home of his father: “he endeavored to wag his tail” (Odyssey 17.302). And to think that we owe this delightful gem to Jerome’s rejection of Tobit’s canonicity!”

 

Reardon, continuing his theme of the dependence of Tobit, in part, upon, as he calls it here, “pagan themes”, finds further commonality with Greek literature, especially Antigone:

 

“Furthermore, some readers have found in Tobit similarities to still other pagan themes, such as the legend of Admetus. …. More convincing, I believe, however, are points of contact with classical Greek theater. Martin Luther observed similarities between Tobit and Greek comedy … but one is even more impressed by resemblances that the Book of Tobit bears to a work of Greek tragedy—the Antigone of Sophocles. In both stories the moral stature of the heroes is chiefly exemplified in their bravely burying the dead in the face of official prohibition and at the risk of official punishment. In both cases a venerable moral tradition is maintained against a political tyranny destructive of piety. That same Greek drama, moreover, provides a further parallel to the blindness of Tobit in the character of blind Teiresias, himself also a man of an inner moral vision important to the theme of the play”.

 

In light of all this - and what I have given above is very far from being exhaustive - and appreciating that those conventionally labelled as ‘Ionian Greeks’ may actually have been, in their origins, Hebrew biblical characters, then just how real is Herodotus of Ionian Greece (Halicarnassus)?

And, can we be sure that the Histories attributed to him have been (anywhere nearly) properly dated?

His name, Herod-, with a Greek ending (-otus), may actually bespeak a non-Greek ethnicity, and, indeed, a later period of time (say, closer to a Dionysius of Halicarnassus, C1st BC).

 

Xerxes

 

But, whatever may be the case with Herodotus, his classical version of “Xerxes” seems to have been based very heavily upon the Assyrian Great King, Sennacherib - another Book of Judith connection, given my view that Sennacherib was the actual Assyrian ruler of Nineveh named “Nebuchadnezzar” in Judith. E.g. 1:1: “In the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnez′zar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nin′eveh …”. Emmet Sweeney has marvellously shown this in the following comparisons (The Ramessides, Medes and Persians): 

SENNACHERIB	XERXES
Made war on Egypt in his third year, and fought a bitter war against the Greeks shortly thereafter.	Made war on Egypt in his second year, and fought a bitter war against the Greeks shortly thereafter.
Suppressed two major Babylonian rebellions. The first, in his second year, was led by Bel-Shimanni. The second, years later, was led by Shamash-eriba.	Suppressed two major Babylonian rebellions. The first, in his third year, was led by Bel-ibni. The second, years later, was led by Mushezib-Marduk.
The Babylonians were well-treated after the first rebellion, but savagely repressed after the second, when they captured and murdered Sennacherib’s viceroy, his own brother Ashur-nadin-shum.	The Babylonians were well-treated after the first rebellion, but savagely repressed after the second, when they captured and murdered Xerxes’ satrap.
After the second rebellion, Sennacherib massacred the inhabitants, razed the city walls and temples, and carried off the golden stature of Marduk. Thereafter the Babylonian gods were suppressed in favour of Ashur, who was made the supreme deity.	After the second rebellion, Xerxes massacred the inhabitants, razed the city walls and temples, and carried off the golden stature of Bel-Marduk. Thereafter the Babylonian gods were suppressed in favour of Ahura-Mazda, who was made the supreme deity.

 

Though I do not deny for a moment that Persia had a King Xerxes, a shortened version of Artaxerxes, the “Xerxes” of the Greeks is, however, purely fictitious.

Diodorus of Sicily, C1st BC (presuming he did actually write later than Herodotus), will contribute to the fiction by including a Judith element (not mentioned by Herodotus) to the tale of “Xerxes” at Thermopylae. It is, in my opinion, just a re-run version of the assassination of “Holofernes”, admixed, perhaps, with the regicide of Sennacherib.

Professor Cartledge has written of it (op. cit., p. 232): “It concerns a supposed night attack by loyalist Greeks on Xerxes’s camp in the very middle of the Thermopylae campaign with the aim of assassinating the Great King”.

 

Based on the Book of Judith Drama

 

 

Morton Scott Enslin has intuitively referred to the Book of Judith’s Bethulia incident as the “Judean Thermopylae” (The Book of Judith: Greek Text with an English Translation, p. 80).

 

 

 

Comparisons between Book of Judith

and the Battle of Thermopylae

 

In both dramas we are introduced to a Great King ruling in the East, who determines to conquer the West with a massive army.

Scholars have wondered about the incredible size of the Persian army.

“Almost all are agreed that Herodotus’ figure of 2,100,000, exclusive of followers, for the army (Bk VII. 184-85) is impossible” wrote F. Maurice in 1930 (“The Size of the Army of Xerxes in the Invasion of Greece 480 B. C.”, JHS, Vol. 50, Part 2 (1930), p. 211).

 

Sennacherib’s Assyrian army of 185,000 was likely - discounting, as an unrealistic translation, the one million-strong army of “Zerah the Ethiopian” - the largest army ever to that time (and possibly even much later) to have been assembled. Apart from Kings, Chronicles and Isaiah, the same figure is referred to again in Maccabees, and in Herodotus’ Histories. The figure is not unrealistic for the neo-Assyrians, given that King Shalmaneser III is known to have fielded an army of 120,000 men. (Fragments of the royal annals, from Calah, 3. lines 99–102: “In my fourteenth year, I mustered the people of the whole wide land, in countless numbers. I crossed the Euphrates at its flood with 120,000 of my soldiers”).

 

Invading from the East, the armies must of necessity approach, now Greece, now Judah, from the North.

 

Having successfully conquered everything in their path so far, the victors find that those peoples yet unconquered will speedily hand themselves over to their more powerful assailants. This process is known as ‘Medizing’ in the classical literature.

In the Book of Judith, the all-conquering commander-in-chief, “Holofernes”, will receive as allies those who had formerly been his foes. And these, like the treacherous ones in the Thermopylae drama, will prove to be a thorn in the flesh of the few who have determined to resist the foreign onslaught. 

 

The armies arrive at a narrow pass, with defenders blocking their way.

Thermopylae in the Herodotean account – Bethulia (best identified as Shechem) in the biblical Book of Judith.

 

Dethroned Spartan King Demaratus, now an exile in Persia, will answer all of Xerxes’s questions about the Greek opposition, promising the King “to tell the whole truth—the kind of truth that you will not be able to prove false at a later date”.

Most similarly Achior, probably born in Assyrian exile, will advise “Holofernes” about the Israelites, promising his superior (Judith 5:5): ‘I will tell you the truth about these people who live in the mountains near your camp. I will not lie to you’.

 

A traitorous Greek, Ephialtes, will betray his country by telling the Persians of another pass around the mountains.

Likewise, the turncoat local Edomites and Moabites will advise the Assyrians of a strategy better than the one that they had been intending.

 

Conclusion

 

The so-called Battle of Thermopylae never happened.

No band of 300 pederastic homosexuals ever held the line against a massive Persian army.

The classical Xerxes is a complete fiction.

“Thermopylae: the Battle that changed the word”, in fact “changed” nothing.

 

Now, the Battle of the Valley of Salem at “Bethulia” (Shechem), on the other hand, changed a heck of a lot. For (Judith 16:25):

 

“As long as Judith lived, and for many years after her death,

no one dared to threaten the people of Israel”.

 

Where Sennacherib’s army was conquered

 

 

by

 

Damien F. Mackey

 

 

 

 

Setting the Campaign Scene

 

 

The massive, all-conquering Assyrian army, led by “Holofernes”, having brought into subjection the coastal Mediterranean cities, now turns its sights upon Israel.

 

 

 

Early in my university thesis:

 

A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah

and its Background

 

AMAIC_Final_Thesis_2009.pdf

 

I had anticipated that (Volume One, p. 8): “Some important geographical revisions will also be proposed in this thesis”.

One of these pertained to Bethulia”:

 

“The most significant of these will be:

 

‘ASHDOD’, featuring prominently in Sargon II’s records as a fort leading a western rebellion against him, usually identified with the coastal Philistine city of that name (the latter now to be now identified with the ‘Ashdudimmu’, or maritime Ashdod, of the neo-Assyrian records), will be re-identified with the mighty Judaean fortress of LACHISH.

 

‘CONDUIT OF THE UPPER POOL, WHICH IS ON THE HIGHWAY TO THE FULLER’S FIELD’ (cf. 2 Kings 18:17 & Isaiah 7:3; 36:2), now to be identified as a location situated close to the Mount of olives, rather than right at the walls of Jerusalem itself.

 

‘BETHULIA’: Judith’s home town, to be identified with the northern BETHEL, that Jeroboam II of Israel had formerly turned into a pagan cult centre (e.g. Amos 7:10-13)”.

 

Then in Volume Two (“Identification of Bethulia”, pp. 69-71), I would embrace C. Conder’s identification of Bethulia with the village of Mithilia (or Mesilieh).

Whilst I am still holding to the first two of these, I have lately had cause to re-think the location and identification of Bethulia, about which identification I had written (Volume Two, p. 71): “I find quite satisfying this site (Mithilia/Meselieh), which appears to fit Bethulia in regard to its location, description, name (approximately) and apparent strategic importance”.

 

The Book of Judith is, in its present form, replete with personal and geographical name difficulties, a situation that has led scholars - particularly in more recent times - to relegate the book to the level of “pious” or “historical fiction”. As I noted in my Preface (p. x), I would try to sort things out by locating the drama to a very precise historical period:

 

The full resolution of this complicated matter though, as I see it, will not be found until Part II, with my merging of the Book of Judith with the Books of Kings, Chronicles and Isaiah for the era of Hezekiah (Chapter 2 and Chapter 3). I have nowhere read where this particular historical scenario for Judith has been attempted; though, in retrospect, the C8th BC Hezekian era for the Judith drama, with Sennacherib ruling in Assyria, now seems to me to be rather obvious.

Be that as it may, I know of virtually no current historians who even consider the Book of Judith to be anything other than a ‘pious fiction’, or perhaps ‘historical fiction’, with the emphasis generally on the ‘fiction’ aspect of this. Thus I feel a strong empathy for the solitary Judith in the midst of those differently-minded Assyrians (Judith 10:11-13:10).

 

Earlier in Volume Two (p. 27), I had quoted C. Moore regarding difficulties that commentators have encountered concerning the geographical account of the Assyrian campaign:

 

Moore tells of some of the problems associated with this particular campaign account: ….

Chaps. 2 and 3 of Judith continue to offer serious errors in fact but of a different kind, namely, geographical. Holofernes’ entire army marched from Nineveh to northern Cilicia, a distance of about three hundred miles, in just three days (2:21), after which they cut their way through Put and Lud (usually identified by scholars with Libya in Africa, and Lydia in Asia Minor, respectively …), only to find themselves crossing the Euphrates River and proceeding west through Mesopotamia (2:24) before arriving at Cilicia and Japheth, facing Arabia (2:25)!

Either something is now missing from the itinerary, or the author knew nothing about Mesopotamian geography ….

Once Holofernes reached the eastern coastline of the Mediterranean, his itinerary becomes more believable even though a number of cities and peoples mentioned are unknown, e.g. Sur and Okina (2:28) and Geba (3:10). Just exactly what route Holofernes’ army took to get from the coastal cities of Azotus and Ascalon (2:28) to the place where they could encamp and besiege Bethulia is unknown. The LXX seems to suggest that Holofernes’ attack on Bethulia came from the north (cf. 4:6; 8:21; 11:14, 19). …

 

According to verse 4:4: “So [the Israelites living in Judaea] sent word to every district of Samaria, and to Kona, Beth-horon, Belmain, and Jericho, and to Choba and Aesora, and

the valley of Salem”. Moore finds this highly problematical also:….

 

Starting with chap. 4, the problem shifts from the author’s errors and confusion over geographical names and locations to the reader’s ignorance and confusion as to the geographical locations of sites near Bethulia. For instance, of the eight Israelite places named in 4:4, five are totally unknown, namely, Kona, Belmain, Choba, Aesora, and the valley of Salem. …

 

Craven though, whose purpose will be rather a literary assessment of [the Book of Judith], has no qualms therefore in dismissing as insignificant the historical and geographical problems of [the Book of Judith] with which other commentators of the book have tried to grapple: …. “The Book of Judith simply does not yield literal or even allegorical data. Instead, its opening details seem to be a playful manipulation of both historical and geographical facts and inventions”.

 

Charles C. Torrey will, on the other hand, in his article back in 1899, “The Site of 'Bethulia'” (JAOS 20, pp. 160-172), take far more seriously the geographical details. It is this particular article that actually prompted my re-think of Bethulia. Thus Torrey wrote, for example (p. 161):

 

“But in the frequent descriptions with which the writer gives of the region where the principal action of the story take place, the geographical and topographical details are introduced in such number and with such consistency as to show that he is describing localities with which he was personally familiar. Nor is it difficult to determine, in general, what region he had in mind. Beyond question, the discomfiture of the ‘Assyrian’ army is represented as having taken place in the hill country of Samaria, on the direct road from Jezreel to Jerusalem”.

 

 

Two key places for defence were, apparently, “Bethulia and Betomesthaim” facing Esdraelon (or Jezreel). For it was to these two towns that the high priest Joakim wrote from Jerusalem (thesis, Volume Two, p. 53):

The High-Priest, Joakim

 

Instead of a king to stir up the people, as Hezekiah had done at the commencement of Sennacherib’s invasion (2 Chronicles 32:2-8), for his Third Campaign, [Judith] 4:6-7 introduces us to: “The high priest, Joakim, who was in Jerusalem at the time [who] wrote

to the people of Bethulia and Betomesthaim, which faces Esdraelon opposite the plain near Dothan, ordering them to seize the mountain passes, since by them Judaea could be invaded …”.

 

For more on the high priest, Joakim, see my:

 

Hezekiah's Chief Official Eliakim was High Priest

 

https://www.academia.edu/31701765/Hezekiahs_Chief_Official_Eliakim_was_High_Priest

 

and:

 

https://www.academia.edu/31701911/Hezekiahs_Chief_Official_Eliakim_was_High_Priest._Part_Two_Eliakim_points_to_Saint_Peter

 

Continuing on now with the “Assyrian Advance on Bethulia” (Volume Two, p. 61), I wrote:

 

[Judith] 7:1: “The next day Holofernes ordered his whole army, and all the allies who had joined him, to break camp and to move against Bethulia, and to seize the passes up into the hill country and make war on the Israelites”. The Assyrian fighting forces, “170,000 infantry and 12,000 cavalry, not counting the baggage and the foot soldiers handling it” (v. 2), now numbered that fateful figure of 180,000 plus. …. “When the Israelites saw their vast numbers, they were greatly terrified and said to one another, ‘They will now strip clean the whole land; neither the high mountains nor the valleys nor the hills will bear their weight’.” (v. 4). One can now fully appreciate the appropriateness of Joel’s ‘locust’ imagery.

[The Book of Judith] provides the reader with a precise location for the Assyrian army prior to its assault of the fortified towns of Israel facing Dothan.

 

• I give firstly the Douay version of it (7:3):

 

All these [Assyrian footmen and cavalry] prepared themselves together to fight against the children of Israel. And they came by the hillside to the top, which looketh toward Dothain [Dothan], from the place which is called Belma, unto Chelmon, which is over against Esdraelon.

 

• Next the Greek version, which importantly mentions Bethulia (v. 3):

 

They encamped in the valley near Bethulia, beside the spring, and they spread out in breadth over Dothan as far as Balbaim and in length from Bethulia to Cyamon, which faces Esdraelon.

 

The combination of the well-known Dothan (var. Dothain) and Esdraelon in both versions presents no problem, and fixes the area where the Assyrian army massed. The identification of Bethulia will be discussed separately, in the next chapter (section: “Identification of Bethulia”, beginning on p. 69). The only other geographical elements named are ‘Belma’ (Douay)/ ‘Balbaim’ (Greek); and ‘Chelmon’ (Douay)/ ‘Cyamon’ (Greek). Charles has, not illogically, linked the first of these names, which he gives as ‘Belmaim’ (var. Abelmain) … with the ‘Belmaim’ listed in 4:4. …. And he tells that, in the Syrian version, this appears as ‘Abelmeholah’. …. But both this location, and “Cyamon, Syr Kadmûn, VL Chelmona”, he claims to be “unknown”. ….

Leahy and Simons, on the other hand, have both ventured identifications for these two locations. And they have each in fact arrived at the same conclusion for ‘Belbaim’ (‘Belma’) … though Simons will reject the identification of ‘Cyamon’ (‘Chelmon’) that we shall now see that Leahy has favoured. Here firstly, then, is Leahy’s account of it, in which he also connects ‘Belbaim’ with the ‘Balamon’ of 8:3 (pertaining to the burial place of Judith’s husband, Manasseh): ….

 

Holofernes had given orders to break up camp and march against Bethulia. Then, according to the Gk, the army camped in the valley near Bethulia, and spread itself in breadth in the direction over against Dothan and on to Belbaim (Balamon of Gk 8:3, Belma of Vg, Jible´am of Jos 17:11, the modern Khirbet Bel´ame), and in length from Bethulia to Kyamon (Chelmon of Vg, Jokne´am of Jos 12:22, the modern Tell Qaimun).

 

Simons will instead prefer for ‘Cyamon’, modern el-jâmûn. …. Here is his geographical

assessment of the final location of the Assyrian army as given in the Greek version: ….

 

Judith vii 3b describes the location of BETHULIA more closely. The clause is easily understandable on the condition that two changes are made, viz. “breadthwise ‘from’ … DOTHAIM unto BELBAIM and lengthwise from ‘BELBAIM’ (LXX reads “BETHULIA”. However, the besieged city itself cannot have been at the extremity of the besieging army) unto CYAMON which is opposite (the plain of) Esdrelon” or in terms of modern geography; from tell dôtân unto hirbet bel’ameh and from hirbet bel’ameh unto el-jâmûn. The disposition of Holofernes’ army thus described is perfectly comprehensible, if BETHULIA was situated between the upright sides of a triangle, the top of which was the twice mentioned site of hirbet bel’ameh, while its base was a line from tell dôtân to el-jâmûn.

 

According to Moore (above), “… of the eight Israelite places named in [Judith] 4:4, five are totally unknown, namely, Kona, Belmain, Choba, Aesora, and the valley of Salem”.

 

But we have just found that “Belmain”, for instance, may not be “totally unknown”.

 

Moreover, there was apparently a northern “Salem” in the region of Shechem (Genesis 33:18 KJV): “And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padanaram; and pitched his tent before the city.”

“It is certainly a remarkable fact, supporting the King James Version, that about 4 miles East of Shechem (Nablus), there is a village bearing the name Salem”.

http://biblehub.com/topical/s/shalem.htm

 

The Valley of Salem deserves far closer attention (see next section, ii), because there is a Psalm, purportedly pertaining to the time of King Hezekiah and the defeat of the Assyrians, in which there occurs a reference to “Salem”. Even, according to M. D. Goulder, “a battle at Salem”: “Selah Psalm 76 is widely seen as a companion to Psalm 75. ... victory in war, and celebrates the divine deliverance of Israel in a battle at Salem near Shechem” (The Psalms of Asaph and the Pentateuch: Studies in the Psalter, III, p. 86).

 

 

Salem Important

 

 

“So they sent a warning to the whole region of Samaria and to the towns of Kona, Beth Horon, Belmain, Jericho, Choba, and Aesora, and to Salem Valley. They immediately occupied the mountaintops, fortified the villages on the mountains, and stored up food in preparation for war”.

 

Judith 4:4-5

 

 

Introduction

 

Previously we noted that “… there was apparently a northern “Salem” in the region of Shechem (Genesis 33:18 KJV): “And Jacob came to Shalem, a city of Shechem …” …. It is certainly a remarkable fact … that about 4 miles East of Shechem (Nablus), there is a village bearing the name Salem”.

One really needs to take seriously what may seem at first like insignificant geographical clues.

Doing that very thing was what had enabled Dr. Eva Danelius to re-orient the First Campaign of pharaoh Thutmose III away from the conventional geographical interpretation of it, in the north, in the Megiddo region, to a more apt geography and topography for it in the region of Jerusalem (“ Did Thutmose III Despoil the Temple in Jerusalem?”):

 

“Breasted identified this defile, the road called "Aruna" in Egyptian records, with the Wadi 'Ara which connects the Palestine maritime plain with the Valley of Esdraelon (4). It was this identification which aroused my curiosity, and my doubt.

If it is true that "the geography of a country determines the course of its wars" (44), the frightful defile, and attempts at its crossing by conquering armies, should have been reported in books of Biblical and/or post-Biblical history. There is no mention of either. Nor has the Wadi 'Ara pass ever been considered to be secret, or dangerous”.

 

This led Dr. Danelius to a reconstruction of this famous First Campaign of the pharaoh’s in favour of Dr. I. Velikovsky’s view that it was the actual biblical event of Shishak king of Egypt’s assault on Jerusalem and its holy Temple in the 5^th year of King Rehoboam of Judah (I Kings 14:25) – but with a far more satisfactory geography for it than Velikovsky’s awkward attempt to combine the biblical details with the conventional Megiddo element.

Dr. Danelius would be able to show that the Aruna road taken by the Egyptian army fitted the conventional view neither etymologically, geographically, topologically, nor strategically.

 

Now I, in my continuous efforts over the years to make historical and geographical sense of the Book of Judith, may have taken too casually the reference in Judith 4:4 to “Salem (Valley)”. 

It may turn out to be just as crucial as was Dr. Danelius’s “Aruna” moment for the re-interpretation of Thutmose III’s First Campaign.  

 

Salem or Shalem

 

The mysterious “Salem” in the Bible inevitably gets connected with Jerusalem.

For example (https://www.biblicaltraining.org/library/valley-shaveh):

 

SHAVEH, VALLEY OF (shā'vĕ, Heb. shāwēh, a plain). Also called “the king’s dale”; a place near Salem (i.e., Jerusalem, Ps.76.2), where, after rescuing his nephew Lot, Abraham met the king of Sodom (Gen.14.17). It is identified by some as the same place where Absalom erected a memorial to himself (2Sam.18.18).

 

In the Psalm referred to here, 76 (Hebrew), or 75 (Douay), the word Shalem (שָׁלֵם) seems to be - in typical Hebrew parallelistic fashion - juxtaposed with Zion (צִיּוֹן), as if identifying the two (76:3): “In Salem also is set His tabernacle, and His dwelling-place in Zion”.

 

But, as we have gleaned from the OT books of Genesis and Judith, there was apparently also a northern Salem. And indeed some, for example “… the list of earlier scholars … identified Melchizedek’s Salem with Shechem …” (Studies in the Pentateuch, Volume 41, edited by John Adney Emerton, p. 53).

 

The NT also refers to a place named “Salim”, which some think may have been partly in the vicinity of Shechem (http://biblehub.com/topical/a/aenon.htm): “[Aenon] Springs, a place near Salim where John baptized (John 3:23). It was probably near the upper source of the Wady Far'ah, an open valley extending from Mount Ebal to the Jordan. It is full of springs. A place has been found called `Ainun, four miles north of the springs”.

 

 

M. D. Goulder had, as noted in Part One (i), referred to “a battle at Salem” near Shechem, in the north, in relation to: “Selah Psalm 76 is widely seen as a companion to Psalm 75. ... victory in war, and celebrates the divine deliverance of Israel in a battle at Salem near Shechem”.

This - whilst not according entirely with my previous acceptance of Judith’s “Bethulia” as Mithilia (much closer to Dothan) - does accord very well, however, with my firm conviction that the Battle of the Book of Judith had occurred in the north, and not in the south at Jerusalem.

The Douay version of the Psalm (there numbered as 75) connects it explicitly to King Hezekiah (“Ezechias”) and “the Assyrians”, which is precisely where I have located it historically. Thus:

 

…. God is known in his church: and exerts his power in protecting it. It alludes to the slaughter of the Assyrians, in the days of king Ezechias.

 

[1] Unto the end, in praises, a psalm for Asaph: a canticle to the Assyrians. [2] In Judea God is known: his name is great in Israel. [3] And his place is in peace: and his abode in Sion: [4] There hath he broken the powers of bows, the shield, the sword, and the battle. [5] Thou enlightenest wonderfully from the everlasting hills.

[6] All the foolish of heart were troubled. They have slept their sleep; and all the men of riches have found nothing in their hands. [7] At thy rebuke, O God of Jacob, they have all slumbered that mounted on horseback. [8] Thou art terrible, and who shall resist thee? from that time thy wrath. [9] Thou hast caused judgment to be heard from heaven: the earth trembled and was still, [10] When God arose in judgment, to save all the meek of the earth.

[8] "From that time": From the time that thy wrath shall break out.

[11] For the thought of man shall give praise to thee: and the remainders of the thought shall keep holiday to thee. [12] Vow ye, and pay to the Lord your God: all you that are round about him bring presents. To him that is terrible, [13] Even to him who taketh away the spirit of princes: to the terrible with the kings of the earth.

 

Blown into oblivion

 

 

Blown away like autumn leaves, as Lord Byron had poetically written -

so have the winds of time erased even the memory of the Assyrian rout.

 

 

 

Introduction

 

I have often marvelled at how thoroughly has the memory of the destruction of the Assyrian king Sennacherib’s massive army disappeared from the records of history. “Like the leaves of the forest when Autumn hath blown”, as Lord Byron wrote: “And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill”. And: “Hath melted like snow”.

Apart from the occasional general, only, references to the fact of the incident, say in Sirach (48:21): “The Lord struck down the camp of the Assyrians, and his angel wiped them out”, or I Maccabees 7:41: “There Judas prayed, ^‘Lord, the Scriptures tell us that when a king sent messengers to insult you, your angel went out and killed 185,000 of his soldiers’” (cf. 2 Maccabees 15:22), we have to turn to the classical sources for any glimpse of the drama.

Herodotus, for instance, pitted the event at “Pelusium” (the eastern extremity of the Nile Delta), at the time of a pharaoh “Sethos”. And he attributed the disaster to a plague of mice (2:141):

 

“

when Sanacharib, king of the Arabians and Assyrians, marched his vast army into Egypt, the warriors one and all refused to come to his [i.e., the Pharaoh Sethos'] aid. On this the monarch, greatly distressed, entered into the inner sanctuary, and, before the image of the god, bewailed the fate which impended over him. As he wept he fell asleep, and dreamed that the god came and stood at his side, bidding him be of good cheer, and go boldly forth to meet the Arabian host, which would do him no hurt, as he himself would send those who should help him. Sethos, then, relying on the dream, collected such of the Egyptians as were willing to follow him, who were none of them warriors, but traders, artisans, and market people; and with these marched to Pelusium, which commands the entrance into Egypt, and there pitched his camp. As the two armies lay here opposite one another, there came in the night, a multitude of field-mice, which devoured all the quivers and bowstrings of the enemy, and ate the thongs by which they managed their shields. Next morning they commenced their fight, and great multitudes fell, as they had no arms with which to defend themselves. There stands to this day in the temple of Vulcan, a stone statue of Sethos, with a mouse in his hand, and an inscription to this effect - "Look on me, and learn to reverence the gods."[2]

 

The only detailed account of the incident (including the all-important geographical data) that I had ever been able to find, and it is a most substantial one, is that set out in the Book of Judith.

Here we are provided with the why, the when, and the whereabouts of the disaster – all of it  encompassed within a magnificently readable drama which has rightly become famous.

 

But there are Judith echoes to be found everywhere, from BC time through to supposed AD time, as I pointed out in my article:

 

World Renowned Judith of Bethulia

 

https://www.academia.edu/12785080/World_Renowned_Judith_of_Bethulia

 

in the “Lindian Chronicle”; in parts of Homer’s The Iliad; Tomyris and Cyrus; Beta Israel’s Gudit the Semienite, c. 1000 AD (matching Judith the Simeonite).

 

Whilst I was already aware that Douay Psalm 75 was considered to refer to King Hezekiah and the Assyrian defeat, I had not picked up on – until now – that crucial “Salem” (or Shalem) connection between the Psalm and the “Salem Valley” of Judith 4:4.

‘Salem’ in the Psalm (76, Hebrew) I had considered to be a parallelism with ‘Zion’ (Jerusalem).

King Sennacherib had, of course, successfully attacked Jerusalem and its environs during his Third Campaign, which could not, however, have been the ill-fated Assyrian one that had resulted in the complete rout of the Gentile army. This is quite apparent from the sequence in Isaiah 37. According to the prophecy (v. 33): ‘Therefore this is what the Lord says concerning the king of Assyria …’, all the things that Isaiah said the “king of Assyria” would not do, he had already managed to do during his highly successful Third Campaign (vv., 33-35):

 

‘He will not enter this city

or shoot an arrow here.

He will not come before it with shield

or build a siege ramp against it.

By the way that he came he will return;

he will not enter this city’,

declares the Lord.

‘I will defend this city and save it,
    for my sake and for the sake of David my servant!’ [,]

 

this followed immediately by (v. 36): “Then the angel of the Lord went out and put to death a hundred and eighty-five thousand in the Assyrian camp. When the people got up the next morning—there were all the dead bodies!”

 

Psalm 76 (Hebrew) may finally be that missing connection for which I had been searching, providing that all-important detail of the location of the battle and rout: viz., “Salem Valley”.

 

In Byron’s poem there is, happily, no mention of a disaster in the vicinity of Jerusalem, with only “Galilee” (north) being referred to:

 

The Destruction of Sennacherib (1815)

George Gordon Byron

 

The Assyrian came down like the wolf on the fold,
And his cohorts were gleaming in purple and gold;
And the sheen of their spears was like stars on the sea,
When the blue wave rolls nightly on deep Galilee.

 

Like the leaves of the forest when Summer is green,
That host with their banners at sunset were seen:
Like the leaves of the forest when Autumn hath blown,
That host on the morrow lay withered and strown.

 

For the Angel of Death spread his wings on the blast,
And breathed in the face of the foe as he passed;
And the eyes of the sleepers waxed deadly and chill,
And their hearts but once heaved, and for ever grew still.

 

And there lay the steed with his nostril all wide,
But through it there rolled not the breath of his pride:
And the foam of his gasping lay white on the turf,
And cold as the spray of the rock-beating surf.

 

And there lay the rider distorted and pale,
With the dew on his brow and the rust on his mail;
And the tents were all silent, the banners alone,
The lances unlifted, the trumpet unblown.

 

And the widows of Ashur are loud in their wail,
And the idols are broke in the temple of Baal;
And the might of the Gentile, unsmote by the sword,
Hath melted like snow in the glance of the Lord!

 

 

Probably not Mithilia (Mesilieh)

 

 

 

Modern Mithilia, formerly my choice for the site of Judith’s “Bethulia”,

may not actually be significant - or strategically important - enough.

 

 

 

 

In retrospect, I may have been swayed to some extent in my former choice of Mithilia (or Mesilieh) by the fact that Claude Reignier Conder, who had thus identified Judith’s site of Bethulia, had appeared to believe in the reality of the whole thing. For he had written:

 

“In imagination one might see the stately Judith walking through the down-trodden corn-fields and shady olive-groves, while on the rugged hillside above the men of the city “looked after her until she was gone down the mountain, and till she had passed the valley, and could see her no more” (Judith x 10)” – C. R. C., ‘Quarterly Statement’, July, 1881.

 

Those, on the other hand, who had opted for different sites for “Bethulia”, such as the strong fort of Sanur, for instance, or for Shechem, did not appear to give the impression of believing that the Book of Judith was describing a real historical incident.

For instance Charles C. Torrey, who favoured Shechem for “Bethulia”, would brush off the overall story of Judith in the following dismissive fashion (“The Site of 'Bethulia'”, JAOS 20, 1899, p. 160):

 

“The author of the story brings into it an unusual number of geographical and topographical details; names of countries, cities, and towns, of valleys and brooks. With regard to a part of these details, especially those having to do with countries or places outside of Palestine, it can be said at once that they are merely literary adornment, and are not to be taken seriously”.

 

And, a bit further on, Torrey will continue in the same vein: “These are all just such details as we expect to see employed by a story-teller who, without being very well informed, wishes to make his tale sound like a chapter of history …”.

 

But could the village of Mithilia, Conder’s choice, be significant enough for the original site?

Admittedly, it seemed to fit some of the details of the Book of Judith.

Thus Conder wrote:

 

“?Meselieh? A small village, with a detached portion to the north, and placed on a slope, with a hill to the south, and surrounded by good olive-groves, with an open valley called W鈊y el Melek (“the King’s Valley’) on the north. The water-supply is from wells, some of which have an ancient appearance. They are mainly supplied with rain-water. In 1876 I proposed to identify the village of Meselieh, or Mithilia, south of Jenin, with the Bethulia of the Book of Judith, supposing the substitution of M for B, of which there are occasional instances in Syrian nomenclature. The indications of the site given in the Apocrypha are tolerably distinct. Bethulia stood on a hill, but not apparently on the top, which is mentioned separately (Judith vi. 12) There were springs or wells beneath the town (verse 11), and the houses were above these (verse 13). The city stood in the hill-country not far from the plain (verse 11), and apparently near Dothan (Judith iv. 6). The army of Holofernes was visible when encamped near Dothan (Judith vii. 3, 4), by the spring in the valley near Bethulia (verses 3-7).’The site usually supposed to represent Bethulia – namely, the strong village of Sanur – does not fulfill these various requisites; but the topography of the Book of Judith, as a whole, is so consistent and easily understood, that it seems that Bethulia was an actual site. Visiting Mithilia on our way to Shechem? we found a small ruinous village on the slope of the hill. Beneath it are ancient wells, and above it a rounded hill-top, commanding a tolerably extensive view. The north-east part of the great plain, Gilboa, Tabor … and Nazareth, are clearly seen. West of these are neighbouring hillsides Jenin and Wady Bel’ameh (the Belmaim, probably of the narrative); but further west Carmel appears behind the ridge of Sheikh Iskander … and part of the plain of ‘Arrabeh, close to Dothan, is seen.

A broad corn-vale, called “The King’s Valley”, extends north-west from Meselieh toward Dothan, a distance of only 3 miles. There is a low shed formed by rising ground between two hills, separating this valley from the Dothain plain; and at the latter site is the spring beside which, probably, the Assyrian army is supposed by the old Jewish novelist [sic] to have encamped. …”.

 

But, against the choice of both Mithilia (“Mithilīyeh”) and Sanur (“Ṣānūr”), C. Torrey would write rather convincingly (op. cit., pp. 162-163):

 

“… the city which the writer of this story [Judith] had in mind lay directly in the path of Holofernes, at the head of the most important pass in the region, through which he must necessarily lead his army. There is no escape from this conclusion.

This absolutely excludes the two places which have been most frequently thought of as possible sites of the city, Ṣānūr and Mithilīyeh, both midway between Geba and Genin [presumably Jenin]. Ṣānūr, though a natural fortress, is perched on a hill west of the road, and “guards no pass whatsoever” (Robinson, Biblical Researches … iii. 152f.). As for Mithilīyeh, first suggested by Conder in 1876 (see Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs, ii. 156f.), it is even less entitled to consideration, for it lies nearly two miles east of the caravan track, guarding no pass, and of little or no strategic importance. Evidently, the attitude, hostile or friendly, of this remote village would be a matter of indifference to a great invading army on its way to attack Jerusalem. Its inhabitants, while simply defending themselves at home, certainly could not have held the fate of Judea in their hands; nor could it have ever occurred to a writer of such a story as this to represent them as doing so”.  

 

 

Shechem

 

 

The author reconsiders his former choice for “Bethulia”, of Mithilia,

now in favour of the more well-known and strategic city of Shechem.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Jewish Encyclopedia (”Judith, Book Of”) tells of the appropriateness of Shechem for Judith city of “Bethulia”: http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9073-judith-book-of

 

“…

Identity of Bethulia.

 

As Torrey first pointed out, in the "Journal of the American Oriental Society," xx. 160-172, there is one city, and only one, which perfectly satisfies all the above-mentioned requirements, namely, Shechem. A great army, with its baggage-trains, breaking camp at Geba in the morning (vii. 1), would arrive in the afternoon at the springs in the broad valley (ib. 3) just under Shechem. This, moreover, is the city which occupies the all-important pass on this route, the pass by which "was the entrance into Judea" (iv. 7). Furthermore, each one of the details of topography, which the writer introduces in great number, finds its unmistakable counterpart in the surroundings of Shechem. The valley below the city is on the west side (vii. 18; comp. ib. verses 13, 20). The "fountain of water in the camp" (xii. 7) is the modern Bait al-Ma, fifteen minutes from Shechem. The ascent to the city was through a narrowing valley (xiii. 10; comp. x. 10). Whether the words "for two men at the most" (iv. 7) are an exaggeration for the sake of the story, or whether they truly describe the old fortifications of the city, it is impossible to say with certainty. At the head of this ascent, a short distance back from the brow of the hill, stood the city (xiv. 11). Rising above it and overlooking it were mountains (vii. 13, 18; xv. 3). The "fountain" from which came the water-supply of the city (vii. 12 et seq.) is the great spring Ras el-'Ain, in the valley (ἐν τῷ αὐλῶνι, ib. 17) just above Shechem, "at the foot" of Mount Gerizim. The abundant water-supply of the modern city is probably due to a system of ancient underground conduits from this one spring; see Robinson, "Physical Geography of the Holy Land," p. 247, and Guérin, "Samarie," i. 401 et seq. Further corroborative evidence is given by the account of the blockade of Bethulia in vii. 13-20. "Ekrebel" is 'Aḳrabah, three hours southeast of Shechem, on the road to the Jordan; "Chusi" is Ḳuza (so G. A. Smith and others), two hours south, on the road to Jerusalem. The identity of Bethulia with Shechem is thus beyond all question. …”.

 

Against this, we read in The Book of Judith: Greek Text with an English Translation, ed. Morton Scott Enslin, p. 80): “Shechem may well have been known to the author, but if he utilized it as the site of his Judean Thermopylae, he has allowed himself full liberty in his description. Bethulia is high on the mountain; Shechem was not”.

 

Though, on the other hand, we read in Joshua 21:21: “… they gave them Shechem with her suburbs in mount Ephraim …”.   

 

And I Kings 12:25: “Then Jeroboam built Shechem in mount Ephraim …”.