[Literature.—Fritzsche,Die Bücher Tobiä und Judith erklärt, in “Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen” (1853); Ball, in Wace, I, pp. 241-360; Schürer, II, iii. pp. 32-37, German ed., III, pp. 230-237; Löhr, in Kautzsch, I pp. 147-164; Gaster, in the “Proceedings of the Soc. of Biblical Archæology” for 1894, pp. 156-163; Scholz,Kommentar über das Buch Judith und über Bel und Drache(1896); Wünsche,Aus Israel’s Lehrhallen, II, pp. 164-185 (1908); Cowley, in Charles, I, pp. 242-267.]
[Literature.—Fritzsche,Die Bücher Tobiä und Judith erklärt, in “Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen” (1853); Ball, in Wace, I, pp. 241-360; Schürer, II, iii. pp. 32-37, German ed., III, pp. 230-237; Löhr, in Kautzsch, I pp. 147-164; Gaster, in the “Proceedings of the Soc. of Biblical Archæology” for 1894, pp. 156-163; Scholz,Kommentar über das Buch Judith und über Bel und Drache(1896); Wünsche,Aus Israel’s Lehrhallen, II, pp. 164-185 (1908); Cowley, in Charles, I, pp. 242-267.]
The book purports to tell of events which took place in the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, “who reigned over the Assyrians in Nineveh.” It tells of how this king in the twelfth year of his reign gathered together many nations to fight with him against the Medes; the collection of this host seems to have taken five years, for it was not until the seventeenth year of his reign that Nebuchadnezzar attacked and conquered Arphaxad, king of the Medes. Now among the peoples whom Nebuchadnezzar had summoned to join him in this war all those of the west had refused to respond, among them being those “that were in Carmel and Gilead, in the higher Galilee and the great plain of Esdraelon, all that were in Samaria and the cities thereof, and beyond Jordan unto Jerusalem” (i. 9); these and many others, therefore, Nebuchadnezzar determined to punish now that he had successfully dealt with the Medes. So he commandsHolofernes, the chief captain of his host, to go with an army of 132,000, and take vengeance on these disobedient lands of the west. Then follows the account of Holofernes’ victorious progress until he reaches the plain of Esdraelon; he pitches his camp between Geba and Scythopolis, and rests there for a month in order to “gather together all the baggage of his host” (ii. 21-iii. 10). The Jews are now filled with anxiety, and speedily set about taking measures of defence; above all, they fortify the villages on the mountain-tops. Joakim, the high-priest, takes the lead and commands the people of Bethulia to seize the ascents of the hill-country overlooking the plain of Esdraelon, “because by them was the entrance into Judæa, and it was easy to stop them from approaching, inasmuch as the approach was narrow, with space for two men at the most” (iv. 1-8). The people then give themselves to fasting and prayers, calling upon God to help them in this hour of danger (iv. 9-15). Holofernes, on hearing of the preparations made to resist his advance, is greatly incensed. Then Achior, the leader of the Ammonites who had joined the Assyrian army, warns Holofernes, by pointing to the past history of the Jews, that their God invariably helped these people so long as they remained faithful to Him; so that “if there is no lawlessness in their nation,” Achior concludes, “let my lord now pass by, lest their Lord defend them, and their God be with them, and we shall be a reproach before all the earth.” Holofernes, however, resents this warning, thinking that Achior’s intention is to protect the Jews by thus seeking to dissuade him from further advance. To punish Achior, Holofernes has him bound and taken to the foot of the hill on which the fortress of Bethulia is situated; he is left there in the hopes that he will be killed by the enemy. But the Israelites, on finding him, take him into the city and treat him kindly (v., vi.). Holofernes now makes a demonstration in the valley in the sight of thegarrison in Bethulia, his object being to inspire the Jews with dread and despair, and thus induce them to submit; the capture of this mountain fortress was essential for the further advance. But “the children of Esau” realize that it is no easy matter to reduce an almost impregnable fortress like this otherwise than through famine; above all, if the water supply is cut off, the garrison will speedily be forced to give in; “remain in thy camp,” they say to Holofernes, “and keep safe every man of thy host, and let thy servants get possession of the fountain of water which issueth forth from the foot of the mountain; for all the inhabitants of Bethulia have their water thence; and thirst will kill them, and they will give up their city.” Holofernes sees the wisdom of this advice, which is carried out. The result is that the people in Bethulia suffer terrible distress, and are reduced to despair; they come to Ozias, the elder of the city, and call upon him to surrender; Ozias implores them to hold out for another five days, firmly believing that God will have mercy upon them and not forsake them utterly. To this the people consent (vii.).
These first seven chapters, which constitute nearly half the book, form in reality only the introduction to what follows; the heroine of the story has not yet even been mentioned. The writer has brought his narrative to a point where, humanly speaking, nothing can save the ill-fated people of Bethulia; but he leaves the impression upon his hearers that they are to expect something wonderful to happen during the five days of waiting for the end. And, in truth, the story that follows is extraordinarily dramatic; from chapter viii. onwards one is carried along in almost breathless excitement, it is a masterpiece of narrative; though the one thing that perhaps somewhat mars its perfection is the writer’s proneness to be diffuse.
With chapter viii. Judith is introduced; first her genealogy is given, she belongs to the tribe of Simeon; then other detailsare mentioned. She has been a widow for three years and four months; her husband, Manasses, died of sunstroke; he had left his widow “gold, and silver, and menservants, and maidservants, and cattle, and lands.” Judith is a devout woman, and strict in her religious observances; her great beauty is often insisted upon, and she is also endowed with much wisdom. On her hearing of what had happened, she sends her maid to the elders of the city, Ozias, Chabris, and Charmis, inviting them to her house; they come, and Judith addresses them at some length, the gist of her words being that they have been wrong in promising to deliver up the city in five days, because in doing so they have shown their want of faith in God; moreover, if Bethulia is taken it will mean the utter downfall of the people, and the profanation of the sanctuary. So she urges them to be an example to the people by showing unwavering trust in God. They commend her words, and beg her to pray to God for rain, that the cisterns may be filled and the people obtain refreshment. But Judith replies: “Hear me, and I will do a thing, which shall go down to all generations among the children of our race.” She does not tell them what she is going to do, but only says that God will use her as an instrument of deliverance before the five days are out (viii.). The whole of the next chapter is taken up with Judith’s prayer to God in preparation for what she is about to undertake. Judith now goes with her maid to the camp of Holofernes; everyone is struck with her beauty, and she is well received, Holofernes especially being very gracious to her. She then declares to him the purpose of her coming, which is for nothing less than the betrayal of her people. She skilfully uses the argument which Achior had used, namely that as long as her people are faithful to God it will not be possible to overcome them, but if they do anything to anger Him, then He will forsake them. This, she tells him, is true; but what Achior did notknow, that she has come to tell, and it is this: the Israelites are about to do something which will bring down upon them the wrath of God; being in dire straits they are going to eat sanctified food, which is contrary to the Law; they are merely waiting to receive licence to do this from the authorities in Jerusalem, where the same thing has already been done, and as soon as they receive the permission they will transgress the Law; then will be Holofernes’ chance. So Judith says she will go forth each night, and will pray to God Who will tell her as soon as the people have committed their sins; “and I will come and show it also unto thee; and thou shalt go forth with all thy host, and there shall be none of them that shall resist thee. And I will lead thee through the midst of Judæa, until thou comest over against Jerusalem; and I will set thy seat in the midst thereof.” Needless to say that Holofernes is greatly pleased with these words. For three days Judith and her maid remain in the camp within their own quarters; each night they go forth to pray, the guards being instructed to let them pass outside the camp (x.-xii. 9). But on the fourth day Holofernes gives a feast to which he invites Judith; she comes; the feast lasts long, and Holofernes becomes inflamed with wine and casts evil eyes upon Judith. Then all the servants go from the tent. Judith and Holofernes are left alone; but the latter is overcome with wine. Judith approaches the couch whereon he lies; then uttering a hasty prayer for strength, she seizes the warrior’s scimitar and hews his head from his body. She calls her maid, who puts the head of Holofernes into her bag of victuals, and they both pass out of the camp, and return to Bethulia (xii. 10-xiii. 10). There is immense joy in the city when they learn what Judith has done; the head of Holofernes is hung out on the battlements. The Assyrian army, on learning what has happened, are plunged into fear and confusion; the Israelites fall upon them and put themto flight. Judith is richly rewarded, and honoured by all the people (xiii. 11-xv. 13). Then follows Judith’s Song of Praise (xvi. 2-17); and the book closes with a short account of how Judith dedicated to God her share of the spoil of the Assyrian camp, of her prosperity, and finally of her death in Bethulia at a ripe old age (xvi. 18-25).
The first question as to the character of the book that naturally arises is whether, or how far, it is historical. The opening words of the book are in themselves sufficient to show that the writer is not to be looked upon as a historian. He says, “In the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned over the Assyrians in Nineveh ...”; and again in ii. 1 ff. it is narrated how in his eighteenth year he sent Holofernes to undertake the campaign in the west. But further, in iv. 2, 3 it says that the people were exceedingly afraid at the approach of Holofernes, and were troubled for Jerusalem, and for the temple of the Lord their God; “because they were newly come up from the Captivity, and all the people of Judæa were lately gathered together; and the vessels, and the altar, and the house, were sanctified after the profanation.” How utterly unhistorical all this is can be seen at once by referring to 2 Kings xxiv., xxv., and Jeremiah xxxix., xl. Nebuchadnezzar was king ofBabylon(Nineveh fell inB.C.608), and it was in the eighteenth year of his reign (B.C.586) that Jerusalem was besieged and captured for the second time, the first time being in 597; and so far from the people having newly come up from the Captivity, it was just in this year that a further exportation of Jews took place. The return from the Captivity was, at the earliest, inB.C.536, the rebuilding of the Temple took place some twenty years later. Then, again, in iv. 6-8 Joakim the high-priest is represented as supreme ruler; but as a matter of fact Gedaliah had been appointed by Nebuchadnezzar as governor over the cities of Judah (2 Kings xxv. 22, Jer. xl. 5).
On the face of it, therefore, the book is not to be regarded as historical. Yet the writer is well acquainted with the Old Testament, and so far as the geography of Palestine is concerned he is thoroughlyau fait. We must conclude that he simply chose the historical names and times as the framework in which to place his story in order that he might thereby render it more dramatic; he purposely commits gross historical blunders in order to make it clear to his readers at the outset that the historical period chosen is merely for literary effect; “they are to understand that this is fiction, not history; it did not take place in this or that definite period of Jewish history, but simply ‘once upon a time,’ the real vagueness of the date being transparently disguised in the manner which has become familiar in the folk-tales of other parts of the world.”[393]There is, of course, always the possibility that some historical basis may exist for the actual story of Judith as distinct from its framework, and this is held to be the case by some scholars; Zunz, for example, says: “It is quite possible that in some Palestinian town a popular festival might have been celebrated in memory of the heroic deed of some woman, and that when the real occasion of it had been forgotten and had given place to a legend with manifold embellishment, a story was composed in honour of Judith, presumably before the destruction of the Temple.”[394]The fact that several forms of the story exist supports this idea (see the next section). But the majority of scholars are disposed to regard the book as pure fiction (with a special object in view as we shall see presently), and without any basis of fact.
As a piece of literary work the book must command sincere admiration; the author is a master in the art of story-telling, and the way in which he intertwines thepurposes for which the book was written with the narrative itself is very skilfully done. Striking, too, is the dramatic power which the writer exhibits; the reader becomes fascinated as step by step he is drawn nearer and nearer to the climax, wondering what it is going to be; he is impelled to read on in order to see what is really going to happen, for the writer cleverly conceals this right up to the very moment that the climax is reached. Judith’s object in coming to Holofernes seems to be represented at first as the act of a traitress, and something worse; and yet her deep piety convinces the reader that this cannot be; so that he must read on; he cannot stop. Torrey is certainly right in saying that “what gained for the book its high esteem in early times, in both the Jewish and the Christian world, was its intrinsic merit as a story, rather than its religious teaching or its patriotism.”[395]
Mention must be made of the fact that our book has come down to us in more than one form. We have, firstly, the Greek form preserved in the Septuagint; our Apocrypha follows this, and it is the one of which some account has been given in the preceding section. This Greek form of the story is much longer than the other, to be spoken of presently; but it exists in three recensions, and the differences between these are considerable. Of these three, one is preserved in the principal uncial manuscripts, A, B, and to some extent in ℵ; this, as just said, is the recension adopted in our Apocrypha. The second is found in two cursive manuscripts, numbered 19 and 108; while the third occurs in a cursive numbered 58[396]; it was from a manuscript belonging to the type of text representing this latter that the Old Latin and Syriac Versions were made.[397]It is probable that all these recensions go back to a single archetype.[398]But, in the second place, there exists, in Hebrew, quite a different and much shorter form of the story; this form is preserved in a Hebrew manuscript, found by Gaster,[399]belonging approximately to the yearA.D.1000; its home was, according to Gaster, “somewhere in Babylon,” and he believes that it “must have belonged originally to the old Megillath Taanith,” a Rabbinical tractate belonging to the Haggadic literature. In this shorter form some of the essential features of the story differ from the longer form; thus, Seleucus takes the place of Nebuchadnezzar; Judith appears not as a widow, but as a maiden, the daughter of Ahitob; the scene of the story, moreover, is not placed in Bethulia, but in Jerusalem; and the relations between Judith and her victim are given in somewhat unblushing detail. This form of the story occurs also in the Megillath Taanith (chap, vi.), as we now have it; here there are again some variations, for, according to Zunz, “Judith is represented as the daughter of Jochanan, or of Mattathiah, and as a heroine belonging to the Hasmonæan period.”[400]
The question naturally arises here as to which of these forms most nearly represents the original story. The rather intricate details which would have to be given in order to answer this would be wearisome; we must content ourselves, therefore, with saying that there can be little doubt that the shorter, Hebrew, form must be regarded as coming closest to the original form of the story. In comparing the contents of each form, as given respectively in the Greek MSS. and in the magazine in which Gaster’s manuscript has been published, it will be seen that a variety of indications lead to the conviction that the shorter form is the older.
These two subjects go together; for the answer to the one is the answer to the other. The teaching is that of the rigidly orthodox Pharisaic type; observance of the Law is the one thing needful. This is vividly brought out whenever Judith’s piety is extolled; her strictness with regard to the dietary laws is described in xii. 1-9 (see also x. 5, xi. 12-15); when at last she sits down at the banquet of Holofernes it is said: “She took and ate and drank before him what her servant had prepared” (xii. 19). Her fasting and observance of the feast-days is mentioned in viii. 6: “And she fasted all the days of her widowhood, save the eves of the sabbaths, and the sabbaths, and the eves of the new moons, and the new moons, and the feasts and joyful days of the house of Israel” (cp. iv. 13). Ritual ablutions are referred to in x. 3, xii. 7, 9, her devotion to prayer in the whole of chapter ix., and incidentally in viii. 31, xi. 17, xii. 6, xiii. 3, 4, 7, 10. It is strange that there is no reference to almsgiving. Further, zeal for the Temple is shown in iv. 2, 3, iv. 11-15, v. 19, viii. 21, 24, ix. 1, 8, 13, xvi. 20; and the duty of mourning in viii. 5, 6, xvi. 24. The sin of withholding their dues from the priests is emphasized in xi. 13. Pharisaic particularism is to be discerned in viii. 20, ix. 14, xvi. 17; proselytism in xiv. 10; and eternal punishment on the Gentiles in xvi. 17. The worship of the One God of Israel, and the teaching concerning Him, is of course insisted upon throughout.
It will thus be seen that, although much of the teaching is that of traditional Judaism, certain specifically Pharisaic doctrinal points stand out conspicuously; this, it may be said in passing, makes our book important for the study of pre-Christian Judaism.
The main purpose of the book is, therefore, clearly to inculcate and to forward Pharisaic Judaism; and at the time when this book was written (see the next section)this was extremely needful; for although there were some things in the Pharisaic presentation of Judaism which were not conducive to spiritual religion, it cannot be too strongly insisted upon that Pharisaism was the one and only bulwark against heathenism in those days, and the upholder of a true monotheistic faith. It has been truly pointed out by Elbogen[401]that “the Pharisees are usually described as the party of narrow legalistic tendencies, and it is forgotten how strenuously they laboured against the Hellenizing movement for the maintenance of Monotheism; it is forgotten that they built up religious individualism and purely spiritual worship; that it was through them more especially that belief in a future life was deepened; and that they carried on a powerful mission (propaganda).”
Teaching of a different kind in our book, and of subsidiary importance, is that where God’s honour is concerned His people must fight, no matter how great the odds against them may be. A warlike spirit breathes throughout the book; but it is against the enemies of God, the heathen nations, that this spirit is directed; so that it is the need and duty and glory of religious warfare that is inculcated.
The historical details given in the book are, as we have seen, wholly unreliable; they cannot, therefore, be of any use in seeking to fix a date. In the absence of other indications there is only one way in which this can be approximately ascertained, and that is by the teaching and contents of the book. But as has already been pointed out, the form in which the story is given in the Apocrypha is not the earliest; so that we must seek to establish dates both for the form that we have here followed, namely, that of the Apocrypha, and for the story as it appeared in its originalform. We have shown that the teaching is that of the Pharisaic type; now it is, as has been pointed out in an earlier chapter,[402]from theMaccabæan conflictwith surrounding heathenism that Pharisaism emerges as an active movement, and it only becomes quiescent after the annihilation of the Jewish national life in the reign of Hadrian[403]; this gives two outside dates within which the book in either form must have been composed, viz. roughly speaking betweenB.C.150-A.D.135. The book is first quoted in the first epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians,[404]which was written inA.D.95 or 96; this presupposes the existence of our book for some time previously. But a further consideration is this: the pseudepigraphic book called “The Assumption of Moses,”[405]was written at the beginning of the first centuryA.D.by a Pharisee whose purpose in writing it was to urge upon the Jews quietude and patience instead of a warlike spirit and national assertion; the writer of this book belonged to the same party as the writer of the Book of Judith in its later form; had both writers lived at the same time it is highly improbable that they would have taken up such entirely opposed attitudes on the question of religious warfare; as there is no period during the first centuryA.D.the historical conditions of which would suit the warlike spirit of our book, it is obvious that it must have been written before the beginning of the Christian era. Gaster[406]has shown that there is only one period with which all the elements of our book coincide so far as warfare is concerned, and that is the approach of Pompey to Jerusalem inB.C.63. So that we may safely assign the middle of the first centuryB.C.as the date for thelaterform of our book, As regards the earlier form of the book, it is to be noted that itcontains no references to ceremonial observances, a fact which proves that it must have been written before Pharisaism had had time to develop; this is of itself sufficient to show that the book in its original form was written beforeB.C.100; so that we shall not be far wrong in fixing the date of this about the middle of the second centuryB.C.
There can be no two opinions as to what the original language of the book was, namely Hebrew; in numerous instances the Greek proves itself to have been translated from Hebrew, the idioms being those of classical Hebrew; so that this was the original language of both the longer and shorter forms. St. Jerome, in the preface to his translation, says that he had the book before him in Aramaic; this cannot, however, have been the original, for neither Origen nor the Jews with whom he was in communication knew either of a Hebrew or an Aramaic form of the book.[407]The Hebrew original was lost altogether in the West, but must have been preserved in some form or other in the East.