The following, at the bottom, is from Jenkins, missing my point as usual. My comments are in blue.
Jenkins misunderstands my question. My question is: what additional qualities would he want from a piece of ancient evidence [in this case Nahom] in order to have it acceptable as evidence for the BOM. Having the right name, in the right place, and at the right time seems insufficient for you. So, as a general principle, in order to correlate an ancient inscriptional toponym with a textual toponym, what evidence is necessary? In biblical studies the right name, right place, and right time is sufficient to make a correlation–in fact it’s more than we usually have. Why is this type of toponymic correlation insufficient in BOM studies?
[quoting me] “My question for Philip is: “If NHM can not be accepted an authentic ancient sixth century South Arabian place name, and therefor an authentic match with the BOM Nahom–and hence evidence for (though not proof of) the historicity of the BOM–what additional qualities of evidence of place, personal or ethnic names would make it acceptable? “
You are starting from the wrong end of the question, as there is no coincidence that needs explaining. I have suggested that Smith took the name off a map in his own day, one of many he could have chosen. Most or all of those names were ancient, and archaeological work in the general region (within a couple of hundred miles, as in the Nahom case) would produce evidence of Iron Age occupation. There is nothing that needs explaining, by coincidence or any other means.