by
Damien F. Mackey
“Perhaps the most popular hypothesis among scholars has
been what might be called the two-accounts theory: that is, the book of Judith
consists of two parts of unequal length: (1) a “historical” account of a
pagan’s war in the East and/or his subsequent invasion of the West (chaps.
1-3); and (2) the story of Judith’s deliverance of her people (chaps. 4-16).
While these two sections of the Judith-story are sometimes thought to reflect
the same historical period, more often scholars have thought otherwise, especially
those scholars who view the story of Judith itself as being essentially fictitious”.
Carey
Moore
Matters
such as these I discussed at length in my university thesis:
A Revised History
of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
For instance, I introduced Chapter 2 of Volume Two (beginning on p. 17) as follows:
[BOJ
below stands for Book of Judith]
HISTORY AND CRITICAL
EVALUATION OF BOJ
A. Versions, Genre (Historicity), Canonicity,
Problems
The Ancient Versions
The title of
the book, according to Charles, is based upon a personal name:1183
The title of
the book in Greek is simply ᾿Ιουδείθ …. The name,
of course, simply means ‘Jewess’, and hence Grotius, explaining the story
allegorically, makes it represent the Jewish people. But apart from the fact
that this method of interpretation is forced and unconvincing, there is no need
to suppose that the name suggested this meaning. It is used personally in Gen. XXVI.
34 as belonging to the Hittite wife of Esau, where at any rate it cannot mean
‘Jewess’.
It is widely
agreed that the book was originally written in Hebrew.1184
What seems at
least certain,
anyway, is that the Greek version was based on an earlier Hebrew version:1185
“Owing to the fact that the Greek text which we possess contains
so many Hebraisms, modern critics generally maintain that the original text of
Judith, of which no manuscripts survive, was written in Hebrew”. Of the Greek
translation, “the earliest form in which we have the book … the only primary
version existing”, according to Charles, “there are three recensions”.
Charles has
listed these as follows, with his explanation included:1186
(1) the usual
and no doubt the most original form, represented by the MSS. x,
A and B (Swete’s text); (2) that contained in codd. 19, 108; (3) that of cod.
58, with which the Old Latin version (VL) and the Syriac (Syr) agree in a
remarkable
manner. All
three recensions, however, represent the same version and go back to the same
original. Their differences are due to corrections made not on a fresh comparison
with the Hebrew, but subjectively by editors of the version, and though
considerable, they concern the form rather than the matter. … The Greek
version, at least as contained in x,
A B, is as a rule easily intelligible and probably a correct rendering of the
original, but it is very hebraistic. From it were made the Syriac and the Old
Latin, both of them fairly close and agreeing in general with cod. 58 …. VL is
rough, often merely latinized hebraistic Greek, and sometimes misunderstands
the Greek which it translates …
Dumm, in his
brief account of the BOJ text, corroborates Charles, though naming the
three
recensions differently from him:1187
The Book of
Judith is presently extant in Gk and later versions only. Scholars agree,
however, that the Gk edition is a translation of an original Semitic (probably
Hebr) text. The best of three divergent forms of the Gk version is represented
by codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and Sinaiticus. (For details cf. Dubarle [Judith:
formes et sens des diverses traditions, 2 vols, Rome, 1966],
and the review by P. Skehan in CBQ 28
[1966] 347-49).
Regarding Jerome’s
version of BOJ (the Vulgate), Charles considered it to be “of less value for
textual purposes”:1188
Jerome’s own
account of it, in his preface, is not altogether clear. He says that he found
great variations in the MSS. (‘multorum codicum varietatem vitiosissimam amputavi’)
and implies that he endeavoured to produce a consistent text by embodying in
his work only what he found in the ‘Chaldee’. The questions which naturally
present themselves are, What were these divergent MSS. and what was the ‘Chaldee’
text? The MSS. cannot have been Greek, because the Vulgate differs from that
version in important particulars: e.g. xiv. 5-7 comes at the end of xiii; i. 12b-16
and iv. 3 are omitted; iv. 13-15 is altered; additions are made after xiv. 12
and elsewhere; names and numbers often differ. In fact, if compared with the
Greek, the Vulgate presents the appearance of a paraphrastic recension.
Charles will
go on to conclude, from a brief consideration of Jerome’s ‘Chaldee’ text:1189
“Thus the Vulgate of Judith is a hurried version of an Aramaic
midrash containing a free presentation of the story, rather than a translation
of any given text. It omits about one fifth of the book”.
So difficult
have commentators found it to secure an historical locus
for the events described in BOJ that the almost universal tendency
today - for those who give the book at least some sort of credence as a recording
of historical events - is to relegate the book to the category, or genre,
of ‘historical fiction’, as, for instance, some kind of literary fusion
of all the enemies (Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, Syrian, etc.) with
whom ancient Israel had ever had to contend. Charles, for one, has proposed the
likelihood of this particular genre to
account for BOJ:1190 “But if the book is
historical fiction, as it seems to
be, we need not expect to explain all its statements. The writer selected such incidents
as suited his purpose, without troubling about historical accuracy … The
details are not meant to be historical”.
Such a view is
perhaps not entirely surprising, considering that whoever might aspire to show
the historicity of the book tends to stumble right at the very start, with
verse 1:1:
“It was the
twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar [Nebuchednezzar], who
ruled over the
Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh. In those days Arphaxad ruled over the
Medes in Ecbatana”.
At first
appearance, we have here:
(i) A great Babylonian
king, ‘Nebuchadnezzar’, ruling over
(ii) an Assyrian
capital city, ‘Nineveh’ [that had ceased to exist several years
before Nebuchednezzar II the Great’s rule] and whose contemporary rival,
‘Arphaxad’ [a historical unknown], was apparently
(iii) a Mede.
For, as we learn a bit further on, in verse 5, the ruler of ‘Nineveh’
will make war on the Medes [who were in fact the allies of Nebuchednezzar II
the Great]. And, to complete this potpourri, Nebuchadnezzar’s
commander-in-chief, introduced into the narrative in chapter 2, will be found
to have a name that is considered to be
(iv) Persian,
‘Holofernes’, as will be thought to be the case also with his chief
eunuch, ‘Bagoas’.
No wonder then
that earlier commentators had sought for the book’s historical locus
in periods ranging over hundreds of years. Thus, according to
Charles:1191 “Attempts have been made to identify the
Nebuchadnezzar of the story with Assurbanipal, Xerxes I, Artaxerxes Ochus,
Antiochus Epiphanes: Arphaxad with Deioces or Phraortes”.
Moore gives a
similar list of candidates for BOJ’s ‘Nebuchadnezzar’:1192
Although a
large number of Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, and Syrian kings have been
suggested by scholars as the particular pagan king in question …. Several rulers
have had a goodly number of scholars supporting their identification with Judith’s
“Nebuchadnezzar”, notably, Ashurbanipal of Assyria; Artaxerxes III, Ochus, of
Persia; Antiochus IV, Epiphanes, of Syria; and Demetrius I, Soter, also of
Syria.
To which Moore
adds this intriguing point: “Ironically, the two Babylonian kings with the
actual name “Nebuchadnezzar” (i.e., Nebuchadnezzar II and “Nebuchadnezzar IV”) have
won virtually no supporters …”.
Apparently
Nebuchednezzar I, whom I have identified in Chapter 7 (section:
“Identifying Nebuchednezzar I in a Revised Context”, beginning on p. 184) with
Sargon II/Sennacherib, is chronologically – in conventional terms – much too
far out of range to be seriously considered as a candidate for the
‘Nebuchadnezzar’ of BOJ.
Leahy has
pointed to the following seeming “Historical Inaccuracies” in the book:1193
… (i)
Nabuchodonosor [Nebuchadnezzar] bears the title ‘king of the Assyrians’ and is
said to reign in Nineveh. But the historical Nabuchodonosor was king of the
Neo-babylonian empire from 604 to 562 B.C. The Assyrian empire had then ceased
to exist and so also had Nineveh which was destroyed in 612 B.C. (ii) The Assyrian
monarchy is assumed to be still in existence, yet the following passages seem
to assign the events narrated to the period following the Babylonian captivity
– 4:3 (LXX) reads, ‘For they were lately come up from captivity … and the
vessels, the altar and the house were sanctified after their profanation’; 5:18
f. (LXX) reads, “they were led captive into a land that was not theirs, and the
temple of their God was cast to the ground (ἐγενήθη εις ἔδαφος) … and now they are returned
to their God, and are come up from the dispersion where they were dispersed,
and have possessed Jerusalem where their sanctuary is’; 5:22 f. (Vg) reads,
‘many of them were led away captive into a strange land. But of late returning
… they are come together … and possess Jerusalem again, where their sanctuary
is’. Moreover other passages (e.g. 4:5)
imply that there was no king reigning, for the supreme authority, even over the
Northern Kingdom, was vested in the high-priest assisted by the Sanhedrin (ἡ γερουσία cf. LXX
4:8; 15:8). (iii) None of the known Median kings was named Arphaxad. (iv)
Holofernes was a Persian as his name implies, and we should not expect a
Persian in command of the Assyrian armies.
Another proponent
of the historical fiction genre for
BOJ is Montague, whose explanation Moore has quoted in the context of whom he
calls “present-day scholars who regard Judith as having “a certain
historicity””:1194
The author,
writing resistance literature under the rule of a foreign power, has used the
Assyrians as types of the Greeks and used Nebuchadnezzar as a coded symbol for
Antiochus the Illustrious, the Greek Seleucid king who persecuted the Jews. … the
author reworked for this purpose a story whose historical nucleus went back two
centuries, to the Persian period. … Thus, we can conclude
that the book of Judith is historical in two senses: one, there is a historical
nucleus which gave rise to the Judith tradition, though
this nucleus is now difficult to recover; the other, the
story witnesses to the way believing Jews of the post-exilic period understood
the challenge of their existence when pressured by tyrants to abandon their
sacred traditions. [italics added] (Books of Esther and
Judith, p. 8).
“Once scholars
stopped regarding Judith as a purely historical account, they started
looking for a
more accurate characterization of its literary genre”, writes Moore, who
adds:1195
Starting with
Martin Luther, who characterized Judith as a poem, “a kind of allegorical …
passion play,” … scholars have had continued difficulty in establishing the
precise genre of the story. To say that the book is a fictional account where
historical and geographical details serve a literary purpose, while somewhat
helpful, is not precise enough. In other words, exactly what kind of fiction is
it?”
“Perhaps the
most popular hypothesis among scholars”, according to Moore, “has been what
might be called the two-accounts theory”:1196
… that is, the
book of Judith consists of two parts of unequal length: (1) a “historical”
account of a pagan’s war in the East and/or his subsequent invasion of the West
(chaps. 1-3); and (2) the story of Judith’s deliverance of her people
(chaps. 4-16).
While these two sections of the Judith-story are sometimes thought to reflect
the same historical period, more often scholars have thought otherwise, especially
those scholars who view the story of Judith itself as being essentially fictitious.
According to
Leahy, on the other hand, there is a very long tradition of historicity associated
with BOJ:1197
(a) Jewish and
Christian tradition and all commentaries 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 of a
festival celebrated annually up to his day in commemoration of Judith’s
victory
(16:31).
And Pope
thinks that the variants in the present text indicate a most ancient original:1198
“With regard to the state of the text it should be noted that the
extraordinary variants presented in the various versions are themselves a proof
that the versions were derived from a copy dating from a period long
antecedent to the time of its translators”.
Johan
Weststeijn, whom we met in Part One of this series, muses on the possibility
that the Book of Judith may have been “based on pre-existing tales about [Judith’s]
struggle with Holofernes” (“Zenobia of Palmyra and the Book of Judith: Common
Motifs in Greek, Jewish, and Arabic Historiography”):
The book of Judith has been labelled as
one of the most beautiful and at the same time most controversial works of
apocryphal literature. …. One of the debated points is whether Judith was
influenced by texts outside the biblical tradition. Classicists and biblical
scholars have searched for parallels between the book of Judith and works from Greek
historiography. …. Another point of debate is the question whether the
biblical book is the oldest account of Judith’s life, or whether this book
was based on pre-existing tales about her struggle with Holofernes. Might
traces of such earlier tales be found in the Hebrew and Judeo-Arabic variants
of Judith’s story that were written down during the Middle Ages?
In this light it has also been asked
whether the two halves of the book of Judith originally belonged together.
The first half, chs. 1–7, deals with Holofernes’ preparations for war, his
vassal Achior warning him against attacking the Jews, and Achior’s consequent
expulsion to the Israelites. Judith herself only appears in the second half of
the story, which deals with her decapitation of Holofernes. Some have found
this structurally imbalanced, and have wondered whether the Judith story
originally consisted only of the last half, chs. 8–16, to which the author
of the biblical version added chs. 1–7 as a rather long-winded and
unnecessary introduction.
The character Achior, finally, has been labelled as ‘one of the greatest
mysteries’ of the book of Judith. …. Not only does he seem superfluous to the
development of the story, but his actions appear inexplicable in a wider
biblical context. As a pagan Ammonite and a traditional enemy of the Jews,
Achior joins the Israelites, converts to their religion and circumcises
himself, despite the prohibition in Deut.23.3 that ‘no Ammonite is to be
admitted to the assembly of Yahweh…for all time’. Up to now, biblical
scholars have not been able to find a satisfactory explanation for such a
character, neither from a narrative nor a theological point of view. ….
On the contrary, I
think that we have already - and shall continue to do so - ‘satisfactorily
explained’ Achior of BOJ.
Weststeijn’s own
hopeful solution to the problems of BOJ is previewed by him as follows:
Here I argue that all the above questions can be answered if we take a
third tradition into account, and not only look at the Bible and
Greek historiography, but also at Arabic literature: in particular the
Arabic version of the life of Zenobia, queen of Palmyra. ….
No comments:
Post a Comment