Did the Greeks Appropriate Judith the Jewess, as Helen the Hellene, of Troy?

 

 

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'.

 

And did the prophet Isaiah perhaps have Judith in mind, when he wrote:

 

"How beautiful on the mountains are the feet of the messenger who brings good news, the good news of peace and salvation, the news that the God of Israel reigns!"?

 

Concerning this text, John Paul II wrote of the Virgin Mary:

 

VISITATION IS PRELUDE TO JESUS’ MISSION Pope John Paul II

---

Like Elizabeth, the Church rejoices that Mary is the Mother of the Lord who brought her Son into the world and constantly co-operates in his saving missionAt the General Audience of Wednesday, 2 October, the Holy Father returned to his series of reflections on the Blessed Virgin Mary. Speaking of the Visitation, the Pope said: "Mary's visit to Elizabeth, in fact, is a prelude to Jesus' mission and, in co-operating from the beginning of her motherhood in the Son's redeeming work, she becomes the model for those in the Church who set out to bring Christ's light and joy to the people of every time and place". Here is a translation of his catechesis, which was the 34th in the series on the Blessed Virgin and was given in Italian.1. In the Visitation episode, St Luke shows how the grace of the Incarnation, after filling Mary, brings salvation and joy to Elizabeth's house. The Saviour of men, carried in his Mother's womb, pours out the Holy Spirit, revealing himself from the very start of his coming into the world. In describing Mary's departure for Judea, the Evangelist uses the verb "anístemi", which means "to arise", "to start moving". Considering that this verb is used in the Gospels to indicate Jesus' Resurrection (Mk 8:31; 9:9,31; Lk 24:7, 46) or physical actions that imply a spiritual effort (Lk 5:27-28; 15:18,20), we can suppose that Luke wishes to stress with this expression the vigorous zeal which led Mary, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, to give the world its Saviour.Meeting with Elizabeth is a joyous saving event2. The Gospel text also reports that Mary made the journey "with haste" (Lk 1:39). Even the note "into the hill country" (Lk 1:39), in the Lucan context, appears to be much more than a simple topographical indication, since it calls to mind the messenger of good news described in the Book of Isaiah: "How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him who brings good tidings, who publishes peace, who brings good tidings of good, who publishes salvation, who says to Zion: 'Your God reigns'" (Is 52:7).

Like St Paul, who recognizes the fulfilment of this prophetic text in the preaching of the Gospel (Rom 10:15), St Luke also seems to invite us to see Mary as the first "evangelist", who spreads the "good news", initiating the missionary journeys of her divine Son.

Lastly, the direction of the Blessed Virgin's journey is particularly significant: it will be from Galilee to Judea, like Jesus' missionary journey (cf. 9:51).

Mary's visit to Elizabeth, in fact, is a prelude to Jesus' mission and, in cooperating from the beginning of her motherhood in the Son's redeeming work, she becomes the model for those in the Church who set out to bring Christ's light and joy to the people of every time and place.

3. The meeting with Elizabeth has the character of a joyous saving event that goes beyond the spontaneous feelings of family sentiment. Where the embarrassment of disbelief seems to be expressed in Zechariah's muteness, Mary bursts out with the joy of her quick and ready faith: "She entered the house of Zechariah and greeted Elizabeth" (Lk 1:40).

St Luke relates that "when Elizabeth heard the greeting of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb" (Lk 1:41). Mary's greeting caused Elizabeth's son to leap for joy: Jesus' entrance into Elizabeth's house, at Mary's doing, brought the unborn prophet that gladness which the Old Testament foretells as a sign of the Messiah's presence.

At Mary's greeting, messianic joy comes over Elizabeth too and "filled with the Holy Spirit ... she exclaimed with a loud cry, 'Blessed are you among women, and blessed is the fruit of your womb!'" (Lk 1:41-42).

By a higher light, she understands Mary's greatness: more than Jael and Judith, who prefigured her in the Old Testament, she is blessed among women because of the fruit of her womb, Jesus, the Messiah.

4. Elizabeth's exclamation, made "with a loud cry", shows a true religious enthusiasm, which continues to be echoed on the lips of believers in the prayer "Hail Mary", as the Church's song of praise for the great works accomplished by the Most High in the Mother of his Son.

In proclaiming her "blessed among women", Elizabeth points to Mary's faith as the reason for her blessedness: "And blessed is she who believed that there would be a fulfilment of what was spoken to her from the Lord" (Lk 1:45). Mary's greatness and joy arise from the fact the she is the one who believes.

In view of Mary's excellence, Elizabeth also understands what an honour her visit is for her: "And why is this granted me, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?" (Lk 1:43). With the expression "my Lord", Elizabeth recognizes the royal, indeed messianic, dignity of Mary's Son. In the Old Testament this expression was in fact used to address the king (cf. I Kgs 1:13,20,21 etc.) and to speak of the Messiah King (Ps I 10: 1). The angel had said of Jesus: "The Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David" (Lk 1:32). "Filled with the Holy Spirit", Elizabeth has the same insight. Later, the paschal glorification of Christ will reveal the sense in which this title is to be understood, that is, a transcendent sense (cf. Jn 20:28; Acts 2:34-36).

Mary is present in whole work of divine salvation

With her admiring exclamation, Elizabeth invites us to appreciate all that the Virgin's presence brings as a gift to the life of every believer.

In the Visitation, the Virgin brings Christ to the Baptist's mother, the Christ who pours out the Holy Spirit. This role of mediatrix is brought out by Elizabeth's very words: "For behold, when the voice of your greeting came to my cars, the babe in my womb leaped for joy" (Lk 1:44). By the gift of the Holy Spirit, Mary's presence serves as a prelude to Pentecost, confirming a co-operation which, having begun with the Incarnation, is destined to be expressed in the whole work of divine salvation.

---

Taken from:L'Osservatore RomanoWeekly Edition in English9 October 1996, page 11L'Osservatore Romano is the newspaper of the Holy See.

The Weekly Edition in English is published for the US by:

The Cathedral FoundationL'Osservatore Romano English Edition320 Cathedral St.Baltimore, MD 21201Subscriptions: (410) 547-5315Fax: (410) 332-1069

lormail@catholicreview.org

---

Provided Courtesy of:Eternal Word Television Network5817 Old Leeds RoadIrondale, AL 35210

www.ewtn.com

Canonicity of Judith

Book of Judith Part of Catholic, but not Jewish, Canon

Hebrew Canon

“The book of Judith is not a part of the Hebrew canon. It is an “outside book” …”.[1] Moore gives his reasons for why he thinks the book was not accepted as canonical by the Rabbis, contrasting it here with the fate of the Book of Esther:[2]

The book of Esther had a long and difficult time attaining Jewish canonicity, but it finally did so. … Yet the book of Judith, which in its Semitic form had all the essentials of Palestinian Judaism (i.e., God, prayer, dietary scrupulousness, sacrifice, Temple, Jerusalem – none of which are [sic] even so much as mentioned in the MT of Esther …), was never admitted to the Palestinian canon, nor is the book known to have been present at Qumran.

… Judith may have been excluded from the Hebrew canon because the Rabbis, who were responsible for fixing the canon in the last stages of the canonizing process, disapproved of the book’s universalism, i.e., its accepting attitude toward the towns of Samaria and its approval of an Ammonite’s admittance into the Jewish faith (so Steinmann ….).

… There is genuine merit to Craven’s view that Judith was simply too radical a woman for the rabbis who fixed the Jewish canon to memorialize:

To accept the Book of Judith as a canonical book would be to judge the story holy and authoritative. And to judge the story of the woman Judith holy and authoritative could indeed have been deemed a dangerous precedent by the ancient sages. … she is faithful to the letter of the law but not restricted to traditional modes of behavior. … she fears no one or thing other than Yahweh. Imagine what life would be like if women were free to chastise the leading men of their communities, if they dared to act independently in the face of traumas, if they refused to marry, and if they had money and servants of their own. Indeed if they, like Judith, hired women to manage their households what would become of all the Eliezers of the world?

I suspect that the sages would judge that their communities simply could not bear too many women like Judith. The special genius of this story is that it survived and grew in popularity despite its treatment at the hands of the establishment. ….

Craven again, citing several commentators in support, will refer to “the often made claim that the Book of Judith represents one of the best examples of Jewish story-telling …”.[3]

Moore, with a quote from Orlinsky, now gives what he considers to be the most likely reason amongst those he has already mentioned as to why BOJ was not accepted into the Hebrew canon. And I would agree with his estimation here, though I would note at least also the apparent historical and geographical anomalies in the book:[4]

However, the most likely reason for Judith’s omission from the Hebrew canon is, as H. M. Orlinsky (Essays in Biblical, pp. 279-81) has noted, that the rabbis could not accept it because the book ran counter to their halakah … that a Gentile convert to Judaism had to be circumcised and baptized in order to become a Jew. … In other words, not only did Judith have Achior, an Ammonite, accepted into Judaism, which in itself ran counter to Deut 23:3 … but he was not baptized.

To canonize a book – that is, to make it officially a source of doctrine – when the doctrine did not conform to that of the canonizers, was too much to ask. The Book of Esther, with all its “faults”, offered nothing specific that violated Pharisee halakah. (p. 218)

Enslin, too, has focussed primarily upon the apparently irregular Achior-as-an-Ammonite situation, as the reason for BOJ’s not having become a part of the Hebrew canon, comparing - and contrasting - it with the unusual situation of Ruth:[5]

The author of the book relates that after the triumph of Judith, an officer in the camp of Holofernes, Achior, an Ammonite, “joined into the house of Israel”. According to the Pentateuch, “An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of Yahweh, even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter into the assembly of Yahweh forever” [Deuteronomy 23:4] …. If the book of Judith should gain acceptance into the Holy Scriptures, it would contradict the Pentateuchal laws. It is true that Ruth was a Moabite and she converted to Judaism, nevertheless the book of Ruth became a part of the Holy Scriptures. The sages, in order to reconcile the contradictory and opposing view between the book of Ruth and the Pentateuch, declared that the Pentateuchal prohibition regarding the Ammonite and the Moabite referred only to the male but not to the female …. Thus the book of Ruth could be very well accepted in the Hebrew canon.

He goes on to tell which Jewish sage it was who was of sufficient authority to have prevented canonical acceptance of BOJ: namely, Gamaliel:[6]

It is also true that sages during the Second Commonwealth encouraged proselytism regardless of race and no obstacles were placed against the Ammonites. A Mishne relates: “On that day, came Judah, an Ammonite proselyte, and stood before them in the Beth Hamidrash, and said to them, ‘May I enter into the community?’ Rabban Gamaliel said to him: ‘You are not allowed.’ Rabbi Joshua said to him: ‘You are allowed’.” … Thus we have to conclude that in the academy of Javneh there was a division of opinion among the sages regarding the acceptance of Ammonite proselytes. The opinion of Rabbi Joshua became the established law. The opinion of Rabban Gamaliel, however, was enough to keep the book of Judith from inclusion in the Hebrew Bible.

Enslin, continuing on with his discussion of Achior, now turns to a consideration of circumcision and baptism:[7]

Again, it is stated in the book of Judith that when Achior converted to Judaism, he was circumcised; it does not say that he was baptized. During the Second Jewish Commonwealth, the ritual of immersion was not required for conversion to Judaism. At the conclave of the year 65 CE, it was decreed that a proselyte must go through the rites of baptism in order to enter the Jewish community. … The fact that in the book of Judith it is stated that Achior became a proselyte by circumcision alone without baptism was enough to keep the book out of the Hebrew canon. If this book should be included in the Hebrew Bible, it would mean that the book of Judith was holy and authoritative; thus there would be a contradiction between the statement in Judith and the decree of the sages who maintained that baptism is a sine qua non.

As his final reasons for BOJ’s non acceptance into the Hebrew canon, Enslin will argue that the book was written too late for it to have been an ‘inspired’ text, and, moreover, it was written in the ‘diaspora’:[8]

The book of Judith was written in a late period, after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes, as we shall subsequently show. According to the rabbinic tradition, books written after the Persian period were not “inspired” … thus they could not be a part of the Hebrew Bible. Esther’s story was placed in the time of Ahasuerus, while the story of Judith was placed after the time of Antiochus Epiphanes [sic], long after prophecy ceased in Israel. Again, the book of Esther was written in Judaea, while the book of Judith was compiled in the diaspora, and that is also a good reason for its not being included in the Hebrew canon.

No books written in the diaspora were included in the Hebrew Bible.

Damien F. Mackey has already though, in Chapter 7 of his post-graduate thesis, A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background, begun to pave the way for a resolution to the Achior problem, which is apparently the most serious obstacle to the Book of Judith’s canonical acceptance,[9] by hinting at an identification of Achior with Ahikar, a nephew of Tobit, and hence a Naphtalian Israelite, not an Ammonite. He then discusses this Achior in more detail later in this chapter (e.g. pp. 46-47), along with the other matters raised by Enslin, of late authorship, and, supposedly written in the diaspora (e.g. pp. 58-59).

Catholic Canon

“Although the book did not form part of the Hebrew Canon”, as Leahy explains:[10]

… the [Catholic] Church considered it from the beginning as divinely inspired, having received it together with the other sacred books contained in the LXX. It was quoted with approbation by Clement of Rome (I Cor 55) and cited on an equality with other Scripture by Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 2, 7), Origen (De Orat. 13, 29; Hom. 9 on Jg; Hom. 19 on Jer.) and Ambrose (De Off. Min. 3, 13). The Councils of Hippo (A.D. 393) and Carthage (A.D. 397 and 419) enumerated it among the canonical books. St Augustine (De Doctrina Christiana 2, 8) had it on his list of sacred books.

And Dumm tells:[11] “[Judith] never came into the Hebr. Canon, but it was adopted for reading for the feast of Hannukah, and even Jerome [who did not accept the book as canonical] admitted that the work was “read” in the Church. Final recognition of its canonicity came with the Council of Trent”. Consequently, as Leahy explains (regarding the early C20th view):[12]

The vast majority of Catholic critics regard the book as a record of fact and they endeavour to answer the difficulties urged in the name of history against its accuracy. The arguments which they advance are the following: (a) Jewish and Christian tradition and all commentators prior to the sixteenth century regarded the book as historical; (b) the minute historical, geographical, chronological and genealogical details indicate a straightforward narrative of real events; (c) the author speaks of descendants of Achior being alive in his time (14:6), and a festival celebrated annually up to his day in commemoration of Judith’s victory (16:31). Those who uphold the historicity (or, at least, a historical nucleus) of the narration take the view that ‘Nabuchodonosor’ and ‘Arphaxad’ are pseudonyms disguising historical persons whose identity cannot be ascertained with certainty.

---

[1] M. Enslin, The Book of Judith, p. 24. Cf. Leahy, op. cit, ibid.

[2] Op. cit, pp. 86-87.

[3] Op. cit, p. 6 and n. 20.

[4] Op. cit, p. 87. “Halakah”, Moore notes, “is that body of Jewish Law in the Talmud which interprets and supplements the laws of the O.T”, n. 75.

[5] Op. cit, pp. 24-25.

[6] Ibid, p. 25.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid, pp. 25-26.

[9] Moore has allowed for the possibility of “a number of considerations” rather than simply “the [one major] reason why Judith was not included in the Jewish canon”. Ibid. His emphasis.

[10] Op. cit, ibid.

[11] Op. cit, ibid.

[12] Op. cit, ibid.

Hezekiah's Assyrian King Foe

Taken from: http://creationwiki.org/Hezekiah

....

Identity of the Assyrian King

The name of the king of Assyria with whom Hezekiah ultimately fought a war is in dispute. James Ussher^[1] states that Shalmaneser V, the conqueror of the Kingdom of Israel, died in 717 BC, four years after his successful conquest. His authority for this appears to be the Apocryphal book of Tobit. Secular scholars, using modern archaeological evidence, state that Shalmaneser died in 723 BC, which is why Thiele insists that the Fall of Samaria took place in that year). Sargon II succeeded him, and he completed the conquest of Samaria. He died in 705 BC and Sennacherib acceded to the throne in that year, and this is why Thiele insists that Hezekiah's suspension of the annual tribute took place in that year, and the siege of Jerusalem then took place in 701 BC.

Mackey^[21] presents an excellent analysis providing independent support of Ussher's claim^[1] that Sargon was the same man as Sennacherib, the immediate successor to Shalmaneser. Mackey's basis is the appearance of identical sequences of six different wars in both men's inscriptions. Although Mackey still assumes that Shalmaneser died before completing the capture of Samaria, Mackey's most important and relevant contribution in this context is showing that Sargon and Sennacherib are one and the same man.

Jones^[2] finds no grounds to dispute the placement of Sargon between Shalmaneser and Sennacherib, or the traditional dates of accession of Sargon and Sennacherib. He cites Isaiah (Isaiah 20:1 ) for proof that Sargon existed independently of Shalmaneser. Then he suggests that Sennacherib was Sargon's chief-of-staff, or "Tartan," when he first invaded Judah, (2_Kings 18:13 ) and had become viceroy of Assyria under his father Sargon when he besieged Jerusalem five years later. (Isaiah 36-37 )

....

New Bible Study Bases Itself on AMAIC's Judith Commentary

The Evangelical Catholic Study Bible®

The Bible for the restoration of the faith and unity of all Christians
revealing the most powerful new evidence ever for the absolute historical integrity and supernatural nature of the Bible,
and for the older traditions of Biblical interpretation and a complete refutation of the multitude of serious errors
in the NAB Catholic Study Bible.
The New Amplified Douay/Rheims Version© Illuminated
and in current English
© 2005 by David J. Webster, M. Div.


THE
BOOK OF JUDITH
The 2nd Defeat of Sennacherib’s Assyrian Army in 15-Hezekiah
The Temple in Jerusalem is still standing (9:11).

2 Kings 19:34; 2 Ch. 32:19 678 BC / 700(S)

The Book of Judith is the account of a major victory of Israel over an Assyrian army at the hands of the daring Israelite heroin Judith. The book was originally written in Hebrew soon after the events by Eliakim (Joakim), the high priest of the story. The additions about Arioch and Judith’s death were made somewhat later (16:28-30)
The Historical Setting Established: Unfortunately, several serious editing changes made later by those who thought they were correcting errors have frustrated biblical scholars in placing this very significant account of this great Israeli heroine. The California Institute for Ancient Studies, correcting these errors, allows the placing of this event a year after the invasion of Sennacherib and in the 15th year of King Hezekiah. The most significant detail of this story alone (a significant defeat of a massive Assyrian army, of which Judith’s triumph was the final phase), makes this placement the only logical one. New research also shows that this timing aligns with other details of the story and significant tie-ins to the prophets Joel, Micah, Amos, Hosea, and Isaiah, and to the life of Tobit. Further, Isaiah’s prophecy to Hezekiah of a further disturbance of the land within a year of the Jerusalem deliverance (2 Kings 19:29) and a promise of yet a further deliverance for Hezekiah and Judah (2 Kings 20:6) make any other historical setting completely out of the question. The significant evidence in Isaiah that Judith’s triumph over the Assyrian king followed shortly after Sennacherib’s defeat at Jerusalem is found in 14:25; 28:5-6; 30:29-33; 33:1, 3; 37:30 and 38:6. These are all predictive promises that only fit the Judith triumph. See also 2 Chronicles 32:26. The Song of Judith also speaks of the Medes and Persians as separate outside witnesses to this triumph, which means that it was impossible that the assaulting army was Medo-Persian (See also the note at 4:2). The Douay Version actually identifies this army camp as Assyrian (16:10). Finally, in establishing Judith’s triumph as an actual historical event, Our Lord Himself made numerous references to the heroism and faith of Judith in His day according to the revelation in The Poem (I, 485; II, 63, 186; III, 812; IV, 138, 485; V, 165, 509, 511, 876).
The California Institute for Ancient Studies, following the reading of an obscure manuscript, reveals that the errors that have so confused scholars for centuries were the very same editor’s errors that have thrown confusion and doubt on the Book of Tobit. Jerome translated his Latin edition from an Aramaic text in great haste and did not help to restore confidence in the historical authenticity of this story.
The Story: This story tells how it came to be that the massive Assyrian army, which was attempting to subdue a much weakened nation of Judah in the time of Hezekiah, was utterly defeated by the faith and courage of one woman. Assyria had obliterated the ten tribes of Israel to the north of Judea nine years before, and now they had come to obliterate Judah and finish what it failed to do a year before under Sennacherib. In a daring and brave move, Judith goes out into the enemy camp in Samaria near Dothan to meet the ruthless Assyrian general herself, which, by an elaborate deception, provides her with an occasion to kill him. The amazing and courageous feat delivers the Israelites from the Assyrian threat in an utterly humiliating defeat unknown in the annals of human warfare.
Textual notations and corrections have been based on the extensive research done by Damien Mackey of the California Institute for Ancient Studies in the document: A Historical Commentary on the Book of Judith, found on their web site: http://www.specialtyinterests.net/judith.html. It should be noted that the obscured and scrambled chronology of the Assyrian kings is far from being properly understood and interpreted.



[In the Book of Judith, alternate numberings are for the RSV and NAB]
Chapter 1
Sargon/Sennacherib the last great Assyrian monarch, and Merodach-baladan, king of old Babylonia.
[1:1] IN THE twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar [I - Sargon / Sennacherib]* who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh in the days of Arphaxad [Merodach-baladan], who ruled over the Medes[Chaldeans] in Ecbatana[Babylon for 12 years]. [The RSV]
*Nebuchadnezzar here has been shown to be Sargon/Sennacherib (also one in the same person!) who actually began to rule in Babylon (as Nebuchadnezzar) a year before he began to rule in Assyria. This would mean that Arphaxad is Merodach-baladan. See Sargon is Sennacherib at: www.specialtyinterests.net/sargon.html and Historical Commentary on the Book of Judith by Damien Mackey on the California Institute for Ancient Studies’ web site:
www.specialtyinterests.net/judith.html.
1:1[2] NOW Arphaxad [Merodach-baladan]* king of the Medes [Chaldeans] had brought many nations under his dominions, and he built a very strong city, which he called Ecbatana [Babylon], 2[2b] of stones squared and hewed. He made its walls seventy cubits broad and thirty cubits high, and its towers he made a hundred cubits high. But on the square of them, each side was extended the space of twenty feet. 3[3,4] And he made its gates according to the height of the towers. 4[4b] And he gloried as a mighty one in the force of his army and in the glory of his chariots. *Merodach-baladan ruled in Babylon at the time that Sargon/Sennacherib ruled over the Assyrians in Nineveh (2 Kings 20:12; Isa. 39:1).
Merodach-baladan, king of old Babylonia, is overcome by Sargon after 12 years.
12-Sargon/Sennacherib. 10-Hezekiah. 683 BC
“Merodach-baladan seems to have seized Babylon immediately after the death of Shalmaneser … and it was not until the 12th year of his reign that Sargon succeeded in ousting him.” ISBE
1:5[1] Now in the twelfth year of his reign [supported in the Assyrian records], Nebuchadnezzar[I, or Sargon / Sennacherib] king of the Assyrians, who reigned in Nineveh the great city, fought against Arphaxad [Merodach-baladan] and overcame him, 6[5b] in the great plain which is called Ragae [Esdraelon - (RSV, NAB)]. He was joined by those about the Euphrates, and the Tigris, and the Hydaspes, in the plain (where Erioch [Achior (5:5) ]* [later] ruled the Elamites [Elymoeans]). 7[6,7] Then was the kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar [I / Sargon / Sennacherib] exalted [and despite his “mysterious” defeat at Jerusalem by an act of providence], and his heart was elevated and he sent to all who dwelt in Cilicia and Damascus, Lebanon, 8[8] and to the nations that are in Carmelus, Cedar, to the inhabitants of Galilee in the great plain of Esdraelon, 9[9,10] to all that were in Samaria and beyond the river Jordan even to Jerusalem, and all the land of Jesse until you come to the borders of Ethiopia. 10[0] To all these Nebuchadnezzar[I / Sargon / Sennacherib] king of the Assyrians sent messengers, 11 but they all with one mind refused and sent them back empty, rejecting them without honor. [If, as we assert Sennacherib’s massive defeat and retreat from Jerusalem in 14-Hezekiah (2 Kings 19-20) took place a year before when they were struck by the hand of God, it certainly would explain this sudden widespread resistance to Assyrian authority. The fact that the coming victory through Judith would take place in Samaria would also explain why this was not included by Jeremiah in Kings or by Ezra in the Chronicles. We must remember that it was extremely important that the focus of the Jews be continually brought to the prominence of Jerusalem and Judah.]
*Achior as we discover from 5:5 ff., is a prominent personage in this story. The Book of Tobit explains that some time after the destruction of Sennacherib’s armies, the person who had been Sennacherib’s Rabshakeh (or Cupbearer) was appointed as king over Elymais (Elam) (Tobit 1:18, 21; 2:10). He is none other than Tobit’s nephew, of the tribe of Naphtali (Tobit 1:1), and at this later time he is chief administrator and royal adviser (“keeper of the seal”) under “Esarhaddon” (Ashurbanipal), who succeeded his grandfather Sennacherib (Tobit 1:21-22; 2:10). Here in 12-Sennacherib, however, Achior is only a high officer in the army. It is certainly Achior who supplies the eyewitness account of this story to Eliakim (Joakim), the high priest.
1:12 Then King Nebuchadnezzar[I / Sargon / Sennacherib] being angry against all that land, swore by his throne and kingdom that he would revenge himself of all those countries.
Chapter 2
The council of war against the west. 18-Sargon/Sennacherib. 15-Hezekiah, the year after Sennacherib was defeated at Jerusalem (See 2 Kings 20). Map 211
2:1 IN THE thirteenth year [18th year - RSV] (678 BC / 700 BC(S) of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar[I / Sargon / Sennacherib], the twenty-second day of the first month [springtime, Mch-Apr], the word was given out in the house of Nebuchadnezzar[I / Sargon / Sennacherib] king of the Assyrians, that he would revenge himself. 2 And he called all the ruling elders, all the governors, and his officers of war, and communicated to them the secret of his counsel. 3 And he said that his thoughts were to bring all the earth under his empire. 4 And when this saying pleased them all, Nebuchadnezzar[I / Sargon / Sennacherib], the king, called Holofernes* the general of his armies.
*Holofernes: There has been much talk of this name being Persian. The origin of this name is not Persian but it was given by the Jews in derision of the Assyrian goddess of war, the Morning Star and the star of Ishtar. It has three Hebrew components. Hol is from the Hebrew word “Day Star” (Heylel). Fer (the verbal component) is from the Latin name for Day Star, Lucifer (“Light Bearer”), from the verb ferre, which means to “bring” or “to bear;” and from the Greek version of the Star’s name, Hespherus, Nes is a typical ending. The name fits perfectly with Isaiah’s oracle of the fall of the future Babylonian king in Isaiah 14:12-20. “How are you fallen from Heaven, O Day Star, son of the Dawn! (From Damien Mackey’s A Historical Commentary on the Book of Judith. See www.specialtyinterests.net/judith.html, a California Institute for Ancient Studies web site.) Mackey also effectively demonstrates that “Holofernes” was indeed Esarhaddon, son of Sennacherib and heir to the throne, and that his incredibly disgraceful death on the mountains of Israel was historically obscured in the Assyrian records. Sennacherib was thus succeeded by his grandson Ashurbanipal.
2:5[5-10] And said to him: Go out against all the kingdoms of the west, and against those especially that despised my commandment. 6[11-13] Your eye shall not spare any kingdom and all the strong cities you shall bring under my yoke.

[AMAIC comment: dates still need revision]

Book of Judith and a Revision of Mesopotamian Chronology

Damien F. Mackey

In 1985, Lester J. Mitcham had attempted to identify the point of fold in the Assyrian King List [AKL], necessary for accommodating the downward revision of history.[1] He looked to bridge a gap of 170 years by bringing the formerly C12th BC Assyrian king, Ninurta-apil-Ekur, to within closer range of his known C14th BC ancestor, Eriba-Adad I.
In the same publication, Dean Hickman had argued even more radically for a lowering, by virtually a millennium, of formerly C19th BC king Shamsi-Adad I, now to be recognised as the biblical king, Hadadezer, a Syrian foe of king David of Israel.[2] [We ourselves have accepted this adjustment].
Prior to all that, Dr. Immanuel Velikovsky had of course urged for a folding of the C14th BC Kassite king {and el-Amarna correspondent}, Burnaburiash II, with the C9th BC Assyrian king, Shalmaneser III, who had conquered Babylon.[3] [We have also accepted this adjustment].
And there have been other attempts as well to bring order to Mesopotamian history and chronology; for example, Phillip Clapham’s attempt to identify the C13th Assyrian king, Tukulti-Ninurta I, with the C8th BC king, Sennacherib.[4] Clapham soon realised that, despite some initially promising similarities, these two kings could not realistically be merged.[5]
Whilst all of these attempts have some merit, other efforts were doomed right from the start because they infringed against established archaeological sequences. Thus Mitcham, again, exposed Emmet Sweeney’s defence of Professor Heinsohn’s radical revision, because of its blatant disregard, in part, for archaeological fact.[6]

Here I want briefly to propose what I think can be a most compelling fold; one that (a) does not infringe against archaeology, and that (b) harmonises approximately with previous art-historical observations of likenesses between 13th-12th centuries BC and 9th-8th centuries BC art and architecture.[7] And it also has the advantage - unlike Mitcham’s and Clapham’s efforts - of (c) folding kings with the same name.
I begin by connecting Merodach-baladan I & II (also equated by Heinsohn[8]), each of 12-13 years of reign, about whose kudurrus J. Brinkman remarked:[9]

Four kudurrus ..., taken together with evidence of his building activity in Borsippa ... show Merodach-baladan I still master in his own domain. The bricks recording the building of the temple of Eanna in Uruk ..., assigned to Merodach-baladan I by the British Museum’s A Guide to the Babylonian and Assyrian Antiquities ... cannot now be readily located in the Museum for consultation; it is highly probable, however, that these bricks belong to Merodach-baladan II (see Studies Oppenheim, p. 42 ...).

My proposal here involves a C12th to C8th BC fold.
But, more strikingly, I draw attention to the succession of Shutrukid rulers of Elam of the era of Merodach-baladan I who can be equated, as a full succession, with those of the era of Merodach-baladan II. Compare:

C12th BC Shutruk-Nahhunte; Kudur-Nahhunte; and Hulteludish (or Hultelutush-Insushinak)

with

C8th BC Shutur-Nakhkhunte; Kutir-Nakhkhunte; and Hallushu (or Halutush-Insushinak).

This is already too striking, I think, to be accidental, and it, coupled with the Merodach-baladan pairing, may offer far more obvious promise than have previous efforts of revision.
There is also lurking within close range a powerful king Tiglath-pileser, variously I & III. Common to Tiglath-pileser I/III were a love of building (especially in honour of Assur) and hunting, and many conquests, for example: the Aramaeans, with frequent raids across the Euphrates; the Hittites (with the possibility of a common foe, Ini-Tešub); Palestine; to the Mediterranean; the central Zagros tribes; Lake Van, Nairi and Armenia (Urartu); the conquest of Babylon. Just to name a few of the many similarities. I think that historians really repeat themselves when discussing these presumably ‘two’ Assyrian ‘kings’. Consider this amazing case of repetition, as I see it, from S. Lloyd:[10]

The earliest Assyrian references to the Mushki [Phrygians] suggest that their eastward thrust into the Taurus and towards the Euphrates had already become a menace. In about 1100 BC Tiglath-Pileser I defeats a coalition of ‘five Mushkian kings’ and brings back six thousand prisoners. In the ninth century the Mushki are again defeated by Ashurnasirpal II, while Shalmaneser III finds himself in conflict with Tabal …. But when, in the following century, Tiglath-pileser III once more records a confrontation with ‘five Tabalian kings’, the spelling of their names reveals the fact that these are no sort of Phrygians [sic], but a semiindigenous Luwian-speaking people, who must have survived the fall of the Hittite Empire.

I think that we should now be on safe grounds in presuming that the ‘five Mushkian kings’ and the ‘five Tabalian kings’ referred to above by Lloyd as having been defeated
by Tiglath-pileser I/III – but presumably separated in time by more than 3 centuries - were in fact the very same five kings.

If this revised scenario is acceptable, then it would absolutely demand that the C10th BC’s two-decade plus ruler of Babylon, Nebuchednezzar I, be identified with the neo-Assyrian king of similar reign-length, Sennacherib, conqueror of Babylon, whom C. Jonsson claims was actually king of Babylon a year before his becoming king of Assyria.[11] Nebuchednezzar was a noted devotee of the Assyrian god, Adad[12]. It is thought that both Sargon II and Sennacherib (whom I have previously identified as one) had, somewhat modestly, unlike Tiglath-pileser III, not adopted the title, ‘King of Babylon’, but only shakkanaku (‘viceroy’). We well know, however, that modesty was not an Assyrian characteristic. And so lacking in this virtue was Sargon II/Sennacherib, 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’.

Finally, this reconstructed scenario now explains (to my satisfaction at least), why the Book of Judith (1:1) can call an Assyrian king, a ruler of Nineveh, “Nebuchadnezzar”.


[1] ‘A New Interpretation of the Assyrian King List’, Proc. 3rd Seminar of C&AH, pp. 51-56.
[2] ‘The Dating of Hammurabi’, pp. 13-28.
[3] Ages in Chaos, Vol. I, 1952.
[4] ‘Hittites and Phrygians’, C&AH, Vol. IV, pt. 2, July, 1982, p. 111.
[5] Ibid., Addenda, p. 113.
[6] ‘Support for Heinsohn’s Chronology is Misplaced’, C&CW, 1988, 1, pp. 7-12.
[7] E.g. Lewis M. Greenberg, ‘The Lion Gate at Mycenae’, Pensee, IVR III, 1973, p. 28. Peter James, Centuries of Darkness, p. 273. E. Sweeney, Ramessides, Medes and Persians, p. 24.
[8] As noted by Mitcham, ‘Support …’. Heinsohn then goes way too far and equates Merodach-baladan with Lugalzagesi of the time of Sargon of Akkad.
[9] A Political History of Post-Kassite Babylonia, p. 87, footnote 456.
[10] Ancient Turkey, pp. 68-69.
[11] ‘The Foundations of Assyro-Babylonian Chronology’, C&CR, vol. ix, 1987, p. 23, n. 24.
[12] Brinkman, op. cit,, p.113.

Easy Access to Damien Mackey's Thesis

See below

Society for Interdisciplinary Studies
The oldest and most up to date society for catastrophist information and research
http://www.sis-group.org.uk/

Ancient History (revised and orthodox)
Velikovsky Revisited (vol. I) and Velikovsky Revised (vol. II) is an e-book by J. Eric Aitchison available from Mikamar Publishing (http://mikamar.biz/thunderbolts-product.htm) for downloading on your computer. This 2-vol. e-book (at US$12.00 each volume) is 'a long and in-depth study' and the author's way of reconciling 'the conventional model of ancient history with the Ages in Chaos series of Velikovsky.' Although several of Immanuel Velikovsky's synchronisms are refuted by the author, at the same time he appears to remain on board 'the Velikovsky experience'. He also acknowledges the work of several other revisionists that have contributed to his own work.

'A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah and its Background', by Damien Mackey. This is Mackey's University thesis, deposited by the University of Sydney. PDF version.
CAIS (the Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies) - Many articles, including 'Cyaxares: Media's Great King in Egypt, Assyria and Iran' by Gunnar Heinsohn
Empires Lost and Found - Stratigraphy and the Search for the Great Powers of the Past - article by Gunnar Heinsohn on CAIS website
Centuries of Darkness, Peter James' website on revised chronology.
Ages ln Alignment series. A 4-volume book by Emmet Sweeney. Vol. 1: 'The Genesis of Israel and Egypt', Vol. 2: ''The Pyramid Age'; Vol. 3: 'Empire of Thebes', and Vol. 4: 'The Ramessides, Medes and Persians' (an earlier version of the latter was published as a special edition of The Velikovskian, Vol. V, no. 2). Also available from Amazon.
Lisa (Aaronson) Liel's Ancient History Pages (revision). Essays and papers on ancient biblical history - and a link to the CHRONO e-mail list.
ISIS Archive - Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum (JACF). Revised chronology (of David Rohl et al).
The Revision of Ancient History - A Perspective, an introduction by John Crowe.
Chronology at the Crossroads - The Late Bronze Age in Western Asia. Book by Dr. Bernard Newgrosh. An answer to the orthodox view that Assyrian history is fixed and cannot be downdated. Supports the 'New Chronology' model in most details.
A Test of Time - by David Rohl. One of several books containing comprehensive and far-ranging evidence for redating Egyptian and biblical history (the 'New Chronology'). See the New Chronology discussion group (membership required) for details of this and Rohl's other books: The Lost Testament; Pharaohs and Kings; From Eden to Exile; and Lords of Avaris.
....

Taken from:

http://www.sis-group.org.uk/resource.htm


Thesis ABSTRACT:

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973

Title:	A revised history of the era of king hezekiah of judah and its background
Authors:	Mackey, Damien
Keywords:	revised history chronology
Issue Date:	2007
Publisher:	University of Sydney. Department of Hebrew, Biblical and Jewish Studies
Abstract:	Abstract The reason why I have called this thesis a revised history for the era of king Hezekiah, and for the background to that era, is because my reconstruction of this particular period of the history of ancient Israel and of the nations associated with it will depart quite significantly from the standard text-book versions of it. My justification for blazing this unique historical trail stems from the comments made by examiners of my 1993 MA thesis, The Sothic Star Theory of the Egyptian Calendar, to the effect that: (a) I had shown the conventional chronology of ancient Egypt - to which that of the other nations (such as Assyria, Babylonia, Israel, Ethiopia and Greece) is largely tied - to be quite unsound, and that therefore, (b) the way lies open for ‘a more acceptable alternative’. Basically, this thesis is that ‘alternative’ as I see it for the era of king Hezekiah of Judah (late C8th BC), and for the background to that era (largely commencing early C9th BC). This new thesis will be 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. Though Hezekiah’s era is generally quite a well-documented one, I expect to show in this thesis that it nevertheless stands in need of a substantial renovation, due especially to the over-extended Egyptian Sothic chronology and its effect upon the current version of neo-Assyrian history with which biblical historians have attempted to align the reign of king Hezekiah. The renovation to be undertaken in this thesis will reveal the era of Hezekiah to be in fact a most complex one; a meeting place for some extremely significant events in the history of Egypt/Ethiopia, Anatolia, Syro-Palestine, Greece and Mesopotamia. Introductory Section I review in Chapter 1, in a general way, the problems associated with the faulty chronology of Egypt, after having, in the Introduction, set the historical scene for Hezekiah, identifying the major nations at his time, and hinting at where the problems may lie and what sort of solutions will be proposed. A new set of chronological ‘anchors’ for the reign of king Hezekiah will be suggested. VOLUME ONE: A CHRONOLOGICAL REALIGNMENT OF KING HEZEKIAH AND HIS CONTEMPORARIES Part I: In Search of ‘A More Acceptable Alternative’ to the Conventional Background for the Era of Hezekiah In Chapter 2 I take an initial step back in time, in order to introduce a conglomerate of new peoples who appeared in the ancient Near East - ‘Indo-Europeans’ as I shall be generally calling them - amongst whom, as I shall argue, were the ancestors of some of the most important kings of Hezekiah’s day. Following on from this will be the introduction, in Chapter 3, of an early C9th BC king - arising from these immigrant peoples - whom I shall proceed to identify as a great ancestor-king, affecting major kingships contemporaneous with Hezekiah. This background analysis will continue on into Chapter 4, into the mid-late C9th BC, with the introduction of a second significant king, generally thought to have been a descendant of the first, who will be of crucial dynastic importance affecting Hezekiah’s time, especially in regard to Egypt. Part II: King Hezekiah and His Mesopotamian Contemporaries Revised In this section I consider the problems that specifically relate to the era of king Hezekiah and his connections primarily with Mesopotamia (mainly Assyria and Babylonia). In the first chapter, on Judah/Israel (Chapter 5), I examine the chronology of Hezekiah’s reign in its relation to the kingdom of Israel and the major events associated with the latter. Of special interest here will be the incident of the fall of Samaria. I shall, in regard to this incident, reconsider, and alter, the current dates for king Hezekiah himself; these, I shall argue, being based upon a faulty chronology of Assyria. Related to all of this will be Chapter 6, my lengthy revision of neo-Assyrian history, in which I shall arrive at some quite startling conclusions that will serve to shave off thirty years or more from the conventional estimate. Only as a result of these reduced dates though, shall I argue, can there be attained a proper correspondence between king Hezekiah and his Mesopotamian contemporaries, with the resulting chronological realignment becoming the very foundation stone for a new chronology of Judah/Israel. This revision will continue on into Chapter 7, with Babylonia. There I shall examine the major problems and propose solutions that I think will serve to bring a chronologico-historical harmony and alignment right across the board. Part III: King Hezekiah and His Egyptian Contemporaries Revised An even more complex task than attempting to bring into proper alignment the history of Mesopotamia for the Hezekian era will be that of grounding king Hezekiah’s Egypto-Ethiopian contemporaries. My discussion here will be dependent upon the conclusions already reached in Part I, in relation to the two seminal kings of foreign origin discussed there in detail. In Chapter 8, I shall set out in summary form all of the major Egypto-Ethiopian activity - and its agents - thought to have been concurrent with the reign of king Hezekiah. Then, in Chapter 9 and Chapter 10, respectively, I shall focus upon the influence, on the nation of Egypt, of those two seminal kings already discussed, with a view later to identifying in the fullest possible way all of Hezekiah’s major Egypto-Ethiopian contemporaries. Chapter 11 will afford me with the opportunity of bringing the revised history right to the dawn of the era of Hezekiah; whilst in Chapter 12, now fully within the Hezekian era, I shall finally be able to propose specific answers - based on my lengthy (of necessity) revision of the background Egyptian history - to what will have turned out to be two extremely difficult questions to answer: namely, Who were king Hezekiah’s main Egypto-Ethiopian contemporaries (and what were their origins)? and: To which dynasties did these particular pharaohs belong? VOLUME TWO: SENNACHERIB’S INVASIONS OF HEZEKIAH’S KINGDOM AND HIS DEFEAT Part I: Sennacherib’s Invasions of King Hezekiah’s Kingdom Having attempted to establish, in VOLUME ONE, a most comprehensive, revised alignment of king Hezekiah with all of his major contemporaries, from Egypt/Ethiopia to Mesopotamia, I now proceed to tackle vexed problems associated with the king’s reign in regard to the incursions of Assyria into the Judaean kingdom. For example: Did Sennacherib king of Assyria launch a major attack on Jerusalem once or twice? and: What actually happened to Sennacherib’s army of 185,000? My revision of neo-Assyrian history has now hopefully made it possible for me to provide a firm answer to the first question, to which I shall dedicate Chapter 1. Part II: Demise of the Assyrian Army and of Sennacherib To answer the second question, I shall be drawing also upon the pseudepigraphal Book of Judith in Chapter 2 and Chapter 3. This action-packed book holds, I believe, the very key to what happened to the ill-fated Assyrian army. But I must at the same time fully integrate the Book of Judith with Kings, Chronicles and Isaiah for the era of Hezekiah so that there can be no doubt about the former’s relevance. This detailed work will simply be an extension of VOLUME ONE, in which I had sought to confirm who were king Hezekiah’s contemporaries. But it will also add a fascinating new dimension to it. The Epilogue will provide me with an opportunity to discuss the aftermath of the Assyrian defeat and what befell some of the leading characters whom we shall have encountered. It will also serve as a lead-in to my Excursus on Isaiah, whose primary purpose will be to highlight the prophet’s celebrated rôle - according to this revision - in Assyria, subsequent to Israel’s victory. A reconstructed history (chronology) needs a revised stratigraphy to underpin it all. Throughout this thesis I shall also be endeavouring to lay down a sound, basic stratigraphy for king Hezekiah and his contemporaries and for the background to Hezekiah’s era.
Description:	Master of Arts
URI:	http://hdl.handle.net/2123/5973
Appears in Collections:	Sydney Digital Theses

Pope St. Pius X Likened Joan of Arc to Judith

Beatification of Joan of Arc

Celebrate the 100^th Anniversary of Joan of Arc's Beatification!

The official Beatification of Joan of Arc took place in April of 1909 when the Roman Catholic Church declared her to be Blessed. This was the second step on her path to being declared a Saint by the Church having been declared Venerable in 1904. The official pronouncement by Pope Pius X was issued on April 11, 1909, and a ceremony was held in St. Peter's Basilica at the Vatican on April 18, 1909. Below is a translation by Dylan Schrader of the pronouncement from the official Vatican record, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, for 1909.

For everlasting memory. The name of a young maiden of Orleans, noble for all time, that has already been given over to immortality and that will be inscribed officially among the blessed in Heaven, is a witness to divine power, which "has chosen what is weak in the world to confound what is strong" (1 Cor 1:27). For when in the year of our salvation 1428, civil upheavals and internal conflicts, not briefer nor less serious than a war with the English, pointed to the widespread and swift destruction of France, and no refuge or hope of rescue for the defeated seemed possible, God, who with a unique love constantly attended to this most noble of nations, called forth a woman "to free her people and gain for herself an everlasting name" (1 Macc 4:44). The whole life of the magnanimous and most patriotic Joan of Arc, called the maid of Orleans, seems to have been a fortuitous sign. Born in the town of Domremy, within the boundaries of the diocese of Toul, Joan would tend the sheep of her father near a shady grove that was once a sanctuary for the superstition of Druidism, but in that place, this uneducated and poor farm girl who had not yet completed her fifteenth year, beholding the wide view of the valley below, used to lift up her mind to him who furnished the mountains and the forests, the fields and the thickets, with such splendid adornment that they by far surpass any luxurious pomp and any lavishness of the royal purple. The only care of this girl, ignorant of the world, was to decorate the plain altar of the Virgin with flowers that she had picked, and the uproar of so terrible a war had barely reached her ears. But, when the siege of Orleans at its overthrow sapped both the town itself and the fortune of King Charles VII - for the nobles of the province of France had already yielded to the English invasion - it was, in these dire straits, to Joan attending to her usual duties in the family orchard, that the voice of Michael, the prince of the heavenly host, was heard, even as it once sounded to Judas Machabbeus, "Take up the holy sword, which is a task given by God, with which you will slay the adversaries of my people Israel" (2 Macc 15:16). This daughter of peace was roused to the things of war. At first, the maiden was astounded and afraid, but after the voices from Heaven continued, as if the divine spirit had been breathed into her, she did not at all doubt that she ought exchange the spinning wheel for the sword, and the shepherds' pipes for the sounding of trumpets.

Neither the concern of her parents nor the danger of the long journey kept her from working for God. Wherefore with simple but sublime speech, she stood in the sight of potentates and asked to be led to the king, and despite the opposing customs, rejections, and doubts, revealed to king Charles the mandate which she regarded as divinely given to her, and, relying on heavenly signs, she promised that she would free Orleans from the siege. Then God, "who gives strength to the weak, and multiplies fortitude and power for those who are not," (Is 40:29) graced this poor farm girl, who did not even know her letters, with such wisdom, teaching, military expertise, and even knowledge of the hidden things of God, that no one could deny that in her lay the salvation of the people. A following of people of various sorts from every place broke out. Soldiers well-versed in wars, rulers, and leaders, overjoyed at their newfound hope, followed the girl with praise and rejoicing. She, bearing her maiden's body upon a horse, laden with the arms of men, girded with a sword and waving in her hand a white banner interwoven with golden lilies, charged at the English, who took pride at their repeated victories. In that noble battle, not without the present assistance of God, the enemy forces were driven back and overthrown by fear, and this victorious maiden, on May 7, 1429, recovered for the people of Orleans the walls that had previously been taken. But, before she launched an assault against the invading English, Joan urged the soldiers to hope in God, to love their country, and to keep the precepts of the holy Church. Gentle, just as she had been in the care of the flock, and heroically brave, she was fearful to the enemy, but she could scarcely hold back her tears when she saw men dying. She went into battle as a leader but slew no one with the sword, remaining pure and unstained by blood, even amid the slaughter and the licentiousness of camp. Thus, it became quite clear what faith can do! The people soon took heart anew from an unexpected source, and love for their country and restored piety toward God gave added strength in the face of egregious crimes. The girl, unconquered in such great endeavors, challenged the English in many battles and finally scattered and drove back their army near the town of Patay in that most celebrated battle. She then led her king, Charles VII, in splendid triumph to Rheims to be anointed in his solemn consecration as king in that temple where Clovis I king of the Franks was washed in the purifying waters by the holy Remigius and laid the foundation of the nation of France. Thus were the enemies of the name of France fought against by Heaven. Thus, having saved her country by divine aid, the maiden of Arc fulfilled her mission. She, who was humble of heart, wanted only to return to her sheepfold and her poor dwelling, but, already fit for Heaven, she could not possess her own will. Only a short time later, while fighting, she was captured by some enemies, who could not bear that they had been defeated by a girl, and, bound in chains, she was led after various trials to be harshly imprisoned within the enemy camp, until at last in Rouen after six months, like an expiatory victim for the redemption of France, she was condemned to fire. Yet splendidly brave and merciful even in her last trial, she beseeched God to forgive those who put her to death and to keep her country and her king safe. Put on a stake and enveloped in the consuming flames, she kept her gaze fixed on Heaven, and the venerable and sweet names of Jesus and Mary were the dying girl's last words. And so, the renowned maiden achieved immortal glory, but the tale of her sanctity and the memory of her deeds has lived on in the mouths of men, especially in the city of Orleans, even up to the secular honors that have recently been given to her, and it will live on for future generations always fresh with new praise. Indeed, the praise first given to Judith seems to fall appropriately to her also, "In every nation that hears your name, the God of Israel will be magnified on your account" (Judith 13:31).

Only in more recent times has her cause begun to be pursued under the supervision of the Sacred Congregation of Rites to declare that the honors of the blessed in Heaven belong also to the Maiden of Arc, and this indeed has come to pass by divine confirmation. For in the present time, in which the Catholic world sees and is saddened by so many great evils and in which so many who hate the name of Christian feign love for their homeland because of the ruin both of state and religion, it pleases Us to celebrate the glorious example of that most courageous Maiden, so that these might remember that "to do and to undergo powerful things is characteristically Christian." We therefore have the sure hope that this venerable servant of God, now counted among the blessed in Heaven, will pray for her homeland, for which she has excellently merited the strengthening of the ancient faith, and that she will pray for the Catholic Church, for which she was most zealous, to be comforted by the return of so many of her sons who go astray. For this reason, in the year after the decree issued 6 January, 1904, after careful examination correctly undertaken according to the law, we declared by a solemn decree that the virtues of the venerable servant of God Joan of Arc, called the Maid of Orleans, reached the heights of heroism. Investigation then began regarding the miracles, which were accomplished through her intercession and at God's command, and when everything had been carried out according to the law, We, by a decree given in the vernacular on 13 December, 1908, declared the authenticity of the three miracles with supreme apostolic authority. Once a judgment had been made regarding her virtues and the three miracles, it remained to be determined whether the venerable servant of God should rightly be counted among the blessed in Heaven. Our beloved Son Ferrata, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, the secretary for her cause, presented this in a general meeting held before Us at the Vatican on 13 January last year, and all those cardinals who oversee the regulation of the sacred Rites and all those who were present as fathers consultors responded with unanimous agreement in the affirmative. But, in a matter of such serious importance, We refrained from making known Our mind, and We deferred the final judgment to another day, so that we could first pray most fervently for heavenly light. Once we had done this without hesitation, at last on 24 January of this year, on the most joyful day of the celebration of the Holy Family of Jesus, Mary, and Joseph, after solemnly offering the eucharistic sacrifice, with Cardinal Seraphino Cretoni, Prefect of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, Our beloved Son Ferrata, Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, the secretary for her cause, and also our venerable Brother Diomede Panici, titular Archbishop of Laodicia and secretary of the same Congregation of Rites, and the Most Reverend Father Alexandro Verde, Promoter of the holy faith, in attendance We solemnly pronounced that We could rightly proceed to the solemn beatification of the venerable servant of God Joan of Arc.

Such as things are, and moved by the opinions and votes of the Sacred Bishops of all of France and of other regions, with Our apostolic authority, by force of this letter, We grant the faculty that the venerable servant of God Joan of Arc, called the Maiden of Orleans, shall henceforth be called blessed, and that images of her should be decorated with halos. Therefore by Our same authority we grant that in her honor the Office may be recited and the Mass celebrated every year from the common of Virgins with proper prayers approved by Us. We also grant that the celebration of the Mass and the recitation of the Office may take this form in the diocese of Orleans by all the faithful, whether secular or regular, who are bound to recite the canonical hours, and, as far as the Mass is concerned, by all priests coming to churches in which the same feast occurs, in accordance with the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites (3862, Urbis et Orbis), given on 9 December, 1895. And finally, we grant the faculty to celebrate the rites for the beatification of the venerable servant of God Joan of Arc in the diocese and the aforementioned churches according to the norm of the decree and instruction of the Sacred Congregation of Rites of 16 December, 1902, concerning solemn celebrations on three days within a year of the beatification, which We establish may be done on days to be designated by the Ordinary within the year, once the same rites have been celebrated in the patriarchal Vatican basilica.

Notwithstanding the constitutions and apostolic ordinances and decrees given on non-veneration, and whatever else is to the contrary.

We will that altogether the same faith should be given to the printed copies of the present letter in judicial determinations as is given to this letter as a manifestation of Our will, as long as they are undersigned by the hand of the Secretary of the Sacred Congregation of Rites and stamped with the seal of the Prefect.

Given in Rome at St Peter beneath the ring of the Fisherman, on 11 April 1909. The sixth year of Our pontificate. Pope Pius X

¹The Latin modo albo is a reference to the Roman practice of issuing official decrees, lists of names, etc. on white tablets.
²The Latin tertium aetatis suae lustrum = the third set of five years.
³The Latin domestico pomasio should be domestico pomario.
⁴The Latin is de non cultu.

Taken from:
http://www.maidofheaven.com/joanofarc_beatification.asp