by
Damien F. Mackey
“Achior is not simply a foil for the other characters
in the book,
but acts as a double or alter ego of the character of
Judith”.
A. Roitman
P. M. Venter begins with the understandable –
but I think, wrong – presumption that Achior is an Ammonite, titling his
article:
The function of the Ammonite Achior in the book of Judith
Whilst
this is quite a reasonable conclusion to make, considering the fact that the
text of the Book of Judith, as we currently have it, will refer to him as “Achior,
the leader of all the Ammonites” (Judith 5:5) and ‘Achior, you Ammonite
mercenary’ (words of Holofernes) (6:5).
Confusingly
though, a mere 3 verses before this (6:2), Holofernes will differently describe
him as ‘Achior and you mercenaries of Ephraim’.
And
that, I believe, is the right designation for Achior, “Ephraim”, given my
identification of Achior with Ahikar, the nephew of Tobit, who was indeed a
northern Israelite (Tobit 1:22): “Ahikar was my nephew and one of my family”.
Is
Ahikar not even called, in the Douay version of Tobit, Achior?
P.
M. Venter writes:
The
character of Achior is depicted in several places in the narrative of Judith.
We meet him the first time when Holofernes, the ranking commander of
Nebucadnezzar [sic], king of the Assyrian, prepares for war against the
Israelites of Judah. He is advised by Achior, the leader of the Ammonites, that
these people living in the hill country worship the God of Heaven11. Achior suggests to
Holofernes to abstain from attacking them (Jud 5:24) because their lord and god
will defend them (Jud 5:1–21).
Holofernes
interprets this advice as an insult and bans Achior to the Israelite town of
Bethulia where he would finally be killed along with the inhabitants when
Holofernes’ army ravage the city (Jud 6:1–10).
Achior
is next tied up and left at the foot of the hill at Bethulia. Having been
untied again and brought into the town, he reports on Holofernes’ offensive
against the Israelites and his effort to discourage the Assyrians to fight
against God’s people. He is then taken to the house of the magistrate Uzziah
where a banquet is held and the inhabitants pray all through the night for
God’s help (Jud 6:11–21).
The
first time we hear of him again is after Judith decapitates Holofernes and
returns to Bethulia with his head in a food sack. Judith summons Achior the
Ammonite to see and recognise the one who despised Israel. Either identifying
the face of Holofernes12 or witnessing
the result of his former warning to the deceased, Achior faints, is picked up
and throws himself at Judith’s feet and does obeisance to her. He requests her
to report on what she did at [Holofernes’] … camp. He understands these events
as God’s beneficial deeds to Israel. It moves him to believe in God completely.
He is then circumcised and admitted to the community of Israel (Jud 14:5–10).
The
narrator depicts the character of Achior by setting him in relationship to the
other characters of the story13. In the
conflict with Holofernes he witnesses to the God of heaven and thereby provokes
his ordeal to die along with the people whom he defends. The narrator uses his
character here to introduce the plot of the story and to indicate his viewpoint
that nobody, not even the mighty Assyrians, are able to withstand the God of
Israel. In the incident where he informs the inhabitants of Bethulia of
Holofernes’ offensive, Achior acts as agent not only to prepare them for the
onslaught, but he also directs them to their God for help. Again he functions
as an expression of the narrator’s theological viewpoint. He gives a leading
role in the events to a former pagan character [sic].
Comparing
the role of secondary male characters in the stories of Judith and Jael, White
(1992:10) indicates that Achior ‘is loosely modelled on the character of Barak
in Judges 4 and 5’. Achior’s function in the story is the same as that of
Barak. He acts as a foil for the leading female character, Judith. In both
cases the male ‘characters leave the stage, only to return after the heroine
has completed her action’ (White 1992:10). This technique focuses on the women
as the heroin [sic], confirming ‘Yahweh’s use of a weak, marginalised member of
the society in order to save it’ (White 1992:10). Although being a foil Achior
plays a similar role as Judith in the narrative, both indicate persona non
grata who are the heroes of the story. White (1992:14) indeed remarks that
the parallels between the Judith and the Jael stories (Barak and Achior) go
beyond correspondence in structure, plot and character.
In
his study of the role and significance of Achior in the book of Judith, Roitman
(1992:32) indicates ‘an especially intriguing structural relationship and a
subtle complementarity between Achior and Judith’14. Achior is not
simply a foil for the other characters in the book, but acts as a double or
alter ego of the character of Judith. Thematically as well as functionally he
is used in the narrative as the mirror image of Judith (cf. Roitman 1992:38)15. To study
Achior and Judith’s respective functions in the narrative, Roitman (1992:33–38)
divides the story into five stages. Initially Achior the Ammonite is the pagan [sic]
soldier whilst Judith is the timid Judaean widow living a secluded life.
Undergoing a change in their respective fundamental traits, the story ends
where Achior becomes a mere citizen (as opposed to a leader) in Bethulia. He is
circumcised and accepted in the society as a co-believer in God, whilst Judith
changes into a military hero and commander in Israel and is hailed for her
piety and role as the saviour of her people. Although coming from different
walks of life both belong to the same community of faith, in the end having
both contributed to the solution of the intrigue in their different ways.
His
analysis brings Roitman (1992:39) to the question why the author portrayed
Achior as the soldier and Ammonite as the thematic and functional
counterbalance of Judith? It could have been done for more than purely literary
reasons. It is possible that the story is the result of an underlying ideology
of proselytism in this nationalistic book. Presumably the author wanted:
to
teach us through this very sophisticated technique that a righteous pagan [sic],
even one who belongs to the hateful people of Ammon, is, essentially, the
parallel and complement to a complete Jew by birth, and that he is able to
perfect his condition by believing in God and joining the people of Israel
through conversion. (Roitman 1992:39)
Roitman
(1992:39) is of the opinion that this ‘subtle ideology of proselytism’
substantiates his thesis that the traditions about Abraham were used by the
author to depict the characters of both Judith and Achior. Referring to the
witness of Achior in Judith 5:6–9 as ‘the Abraham section’, Roitman (1992:45,
n. 51) comes to the conclusion that the book of Judith advances the doctrine
that ‘the righteous pagan who converts to Judaism would also have, as the
native Jew has, Abraham as his model or “father”‘ (Roitman 1992:40).
Judith
5:6–9 refers to the Israelites as the descendants of the Chaldeans who did not
want to worship the gods of their ancestors in Chaldea. Abandoning the way of
their ancestors they worshiped the ‘God of Heaven’. They were driven out by the
Chaldeans from the presence of their gods and fled to Mesopotamia where they
settled for a long time before moving to the land of Canaan. This description
agrees only with the second item of the patriarchs in the Gattung of
‘historical review’ as indicated earlier in the article. As Israel is presented
as a collective unit in Judith 5:6–9, Roitman’s acceptance of Abraham can be
questioned. Other possibilities for the modelling of Achior should also be
considered.
Moore
(1985:163–164) indicates that Achior was a wise man, also in the technical
sense of the word. He is depicted as an Ammonite form of Ahikar. Ahikar was a:
famous
pagan wise man who was an advisor to the Assyrian kings Sennacherib and
Esarhaddon and the reputed author of a wisdom book containing a number of
proverbs and fables. (Moore 1985:163)
Mackey’s comment: Achior was
indeed the wise sage Ahikar, but he was not
an Ammonite.
I think that
“Elamite” ought perhaps to be substituted for “Ammonite” wherever the latter
occurs in the text, considering that Elam (“Elymaïs”) was where Ahikar had ruled on
behalf of the neo-Assyrian kings. Cf. Tobit 2:10: “Ahikar took care
of me for two years until he went to Elymais” and Judith 1:6: “Arioch, king of
the Elymeans” (read “Achior governor of the Elamites”).
Venter continues:
The
profile of this Ahikar as a good and just pagan fits the Achior of Judith. In
the contemporary book of Tobit the Assyrian Ahikar has been Judaised. Moore
agrees with Cazelles’ argument that Achior is an ethnic transformation [sic] of
Ahikar. Roitman (1992:42) refers to this ‘Ahikar theory’ proposed by Moore and
Haag, but strongly rejected by Steinman. Otzen (2002:108) doubts the theory
that Achior and Ahikar can be identified with each other. His argument is based
on the difference in status between the two: Ahikar is a Jew by birth, whilst
Achior is a ‘genuine pagan’. Roitman (1992:32) criticises the aforementioned
scholars for failing to see Achior’s ‘overall complex function and to integrate
it into the structural framework of the story’16. Although it is
probable that the tradition of Ahikar served as model for characterising
Achior, it is necessary to rather study the narrator’s transformation of this
figure in his story.
Moore
(1985:167) calls Achior an ‘Ammonite “Balaam,” a Gentile who must speak only
good about Israel’. The Ammonite Achior17 may have been
based upon the tradition of Balaam son of Be’or (Nm 22–24)18. In the Deir
Allah inscriptions he played an important role in the Ammonite literary
tradition from at least 700 BCE.
Moore
(1985) explains:
[J]ust
as Balaam of Deir Allah brought to his people a communication from the gods, so
later on another Ammonite, Achior, tried to enlighten his people about the
nature and will of Israel’s God. (Moore 1985:167)
Moore
correctly identifies Achior as a messenger of the gods, but does not ask the
question of the role Achior plays in the Judith narrative and how his message
fits into a totally different situation.
This
brings us back to the question of intertextuality. Not only the probable source
of the Achior character, but also the ‘stance’ and ‘filter’ (Stahlberg)
is to be studied to identify the ideological purpose of the author in using the
character of Achior.
Mackey’s comment: Achior does
not compare at all well with Balaam.
Balaam was an
inveterate pagan prognosticator who receives a very bad press in both the Old
and New Testaments, and who comes to a sticky end.
Deir 'Alla inscription and the historical Balaam son of Beor
Achior was a
wise Israelite, an almsgiver, who admittedly had to undergo a conversion (who
doesn’t?), but who was exonerated and came out into the light.
See e.g. my
article:
"Nadin" (Nadab) of Tobit is the "Holofernes" of Judith
No comments:
Post a Comment