by
Damien F. Mackey
“Nebuchadnezzar, the "wicked one" ("ha-rasha'"; Meg. 11a; Ḥag. 13b; Pes. 118a), was a … son-in-law of Sennacherib (Targ. to Isa. x. 32; Lam. R., Introduction, 23, says "a grandson"), with whom he took part in the expedition of the Assyrians against Hezekiah, being one of the few who were not destroyed by the angels before Jerusalem (Sanh. 95b)”.
According to the standard interpretation of history one would hardly expect the young Nebuchednezzar, who began to reign in 605 BC (conventional dating) to have been involved in the ill-fated final campaign of Sennacherib (d. 681 BC, conventional dating), when Israel’s heroine Judith brought the massive Assyrian army to a shuddering halt at ‘Bethulia’ (Shechem). See e.g. my article:
In the less standard interpretation of events (e.g. my revision) this situation, a Jewish tradition, becomes quite possible, however. For, according to my reinterpretation of how things were, Nebuchednezzar II was the same person as Esarhaddon, the successor of - and thought to have been the son of - Sennacherib. See e.g. my recent series:
Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar
Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar. Part Two: Another writer has picked up this possible connection
Turning now to the Jewish traditions, or legends, we learn two interesting things about Nebuchednezzar, the second of which is his alleged involvement in Sennacherib’s campaign. About the first, that Nebuchednezzar was a descendant of the Queen of Sheba, I have nothing further to add at present:
http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/11407-nebuchadnezzar
....
Nebuchadnezzar, the "wicked one" ("ha-rasha'"; Meg. 11a; Ḥag. 13b; Pes. 118a), was a son—or descendant?—of the Queen of Sheba by her marriage with Solomon ("Alphabet Ben Sira," ed. Venice, 21b; comp. Brüll's "Jahrb." ix. 9), and a son-in-law of Sennacherib (Targ. to Isa. x. 32; Lam. R., Introduction, 23, says "a grandson"), with whom he took part in the expedition of the Assyrians against Hezekiah, being one of the few who were not destroyed by the angels before Jerusalem (Sanh. 95b). He came to the throne in the fourth year of King Jehoiakim of Judah, whom he subjugated and, seven years later, killed after that king had rebelled. Nebuchadnezzar did not on this occasion go to Jerusalem, but received the Great Sanhedrin of Jerusalem at Daphne, a suburb of Antioch, informing that body that it was not his intention to destroy the Temple, but that the rebellious Jehoiakim must be delivered to him, which in fact was done (Seder 'Olam R. xxv.; Midr. 'Eser Galuyyot, ed. Grünhut, "Sefer ha-Liḳḳuṭim," iii.; Lev. R. xix.;
comp. Jehoiakim in Rabbinical Literature). ….
[End of quote]
That would mean that Esarhaddon was involved
“… Esarhaddon … attacked Egypt, when, as the Babylonian chronicle tells us,
‘the troops of Assyria went to Egypt: they fled before a great storm’.”
If the young Nebuchednezzar really had been involved in Sennacherib’s ill-fated campaign - as according to various Jewish traditions - then Esarhaddon, his alter ego as I have suggested:
Esarhaddon a tolerable fit for King Nebuchednezzar
must have been involved in that very campaign.
And that brings me right back to my university thesis:
A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
wherein I had presented Esarhaddon as a central figure in the Sennacherib drama, which I identified as the drama of the Book of Judith.
In that thesis I had identified Esarhaddon – wrongly as I now believe – as the “Holofernes” of the Book of Judith. In more recent times I have corrected this view, making Esarhaddon’s oldest brother, Ashur-nadin-shumi, the tragic “Holofernes”. See e.g. my article:
Part of my reason earlier for equating Esarhaddon with “Holofernes” had been the fact that Esarhaddon’s army had fled during a campaign to Egypt. Now the disastrous Assyrian campaign as narrated in the Book of Judith had as its ultimate goal Egypt. Thus (Judith 1:12): “[The King of Assyria] vowed that he would put to death the entire population of Cilicia, Damascus, Syria, Moab, Ammon, Judah, and Egypt—everyone from the Mediterranean Sea to the Persian Gulf”.
This is how I had attempted to interweave Esarhaddon into the disastrous Sennacherib campaign (= Judith drama) in my thesis (Volume One, pp. 168-170):
….
With Esarhaddon generally considered to have been a younger son of Sennacherib, the eldest being Ashur-nadin-shumi whom Sennacherib made Viceroy of Babylon during his Twelfth Year (Fourth Campaign) (711 BC, revised), the chronology I am trying to develop here would be extremely tight indeed. But Esarhaddon in fact calls himself “the oldest son of [Sennacherib ...”.396 And, whilst this would appear to be contradicted by another statement of his, that Marduk had called him “from among my older brothers”,397 it may indicate that he had become the oldest of Sennacherib’s sons in line for the throne; with his previously older brothers either dead or no longer in contention because of their revolt.
This primary piece of evidence of Esarhaddon as “the oldest son” not only assists my reconstruction, but now makes highly attractive also an identification of Esarhaddon (i.e. Ashur-akhi-iddina) with Ashur-nadin-shumi, Sennacherib’s eldest. The latter’s supposed six years of reign over Babylon (c. 700-694 BC, conventional dating) would thus correspond with Esarhaddon’s reign over that city. And I suggest it was during this early period that Esarhaddon rebuilt, probably magnified, Babylon; but while his father Sennacherib was still alive, and indeed as a servant of the latter. They would have been co-regents of Babylon, given that Sargon’s Year 16 was also his 4th year as king of Babylon (the second time around).
My comment on this: From the “Esarhaddon a tolerable fit” article above, with Esarhaddon therein identified as Nebuchednezzar II, the building of Babylon would actually have occurred only after the father’s death.
My thesis continues:
….
According to this new scenario, Esarhaddon would have served for six years as ruler of Babylon, from Sennacherib’s Year 12 to Year 18, and his reign would have terminated prior to the end of his father’s own reign.
My proposed identification of Esarhaddon with Ashur-nadin-shumi (and I am not of course claiming a precise name identification here) would not stand up though if the
latter had really suffered the fate that Roux has attributed to this Ashur-nadin-shumi:398 “… disappeared, probably murdered” in Iran after the Babylonians had handed him over to the Elamites. However, I have not yet read anywhere that Ashur-nadin-shumi’s death at this stage was more than ‘probable’. There is no certainty attached to it.
….
And, if Ashur-nadin-shumi were Esarhaddon as seems very likely - and I hope to strengthen this case further on - then his death did not occur in Elam; though the circumstances of it may have been equally unfortunate as those given by Roux for Ashurnadin-shumi (“disappeared, probably murdered”).
….
If Sennacherib, soon to be ensconced in his glorious new palace at Khorsabad, had
virtually abdicated in favour of his son Esarhaddon, whom as heir he re-named Ashuretil-ilani-mukin-aplu (‘Ashur, the lord of the gods, has established an heir’), this would go a long way towards explaining historians’ puzzlement over the fact that there are no official annals for the last decade of Sennacherib’s reign. The annals are in fact available, I suggest, but they need to be looked for under the name of Esarhaddon, and even partly, as we shall see, under the name of Ashurbanipal.
My comment on this: I have since identified Esarhaddon with Ashurbanipal, as alter egos of Nebuchednezzar II.
My thesis continues:
Unfortunately, Esarhaddon’s annals are, as noted earlier, fragmentary and carelessly arranged, making the editor’s job extremely difficult.
Perfectly in accordance with the new chronology of co-regency that is being developed here is this comment, in regard to Isaiah’s reference to the conquest of Egypt in his tauntsong response to Sennacherib’s letter:399 “Moreover, it is not Sennacherib who is being taunted, but Esarhaddon, who invaded Egypt in 671”. (Cf. Isaiah 37:9-14 & 37:21-35).
Thus an unconventional coincidence of Sennacherib’s reign with Esarhaddon’s conquest of northern Egypt!
Along similar lines, Hall has made the suggestion in regard to the famous loss of Sennacherib’s army - at Pelusium in Egypt according to Herodotus - that:400 “… the disaster really happened, not to Sennacherib, but to Esarhaddon, who in 675 attacked Egypt, when, as the Babylonian chronicle tells us, ‘the troops of Assyria went to Egypt: they fled before a great storm’.”
….
Esarhaddon soon became a potent force in the land, as commander-in-chief of Assyria’s armies. His military prowess became legendary; not least in his own mind:401 “... My equal did not exist, [my power] being unrivaled; and among the princes who went before me, none ...”.
Esarhaddon would now also greatly augment the Assyrian army:402 ….
In addition (?) ......... the charioteers (?) of the bodyguard (?), cavalry of the bodyguard(?), governors, many of them (?), chiefs (captains) (of?) the bowmen
(kitkittu), the workmen, the sappers, the shield-(bearers), the “killers”, the farmers, the shepherds, the gardeners, to the masses of Assur’s host and to the (military) establishment of the former kings, my fathers, in large numbers, I added and Assyria, to its farthest border, I filled up like a quiver.
[End of thesis quotes]
Dr. I. Velikovsky and others have suggested that the fleeing of Esarhaddon’s army supposedly from a great storm was at least reminiscent of the Sennacherib event.
“In the sixth year the troops of Assyria went to Egypt; they fled before a storm.” This laconic item in the short “Esarhaddon Chronicle” (7) was written more than one hundred years after his death; if it does not refer to the debacle of Sennacherib, one may conjecture that at certain ominous signs in the sky the persistent recollection of the disaster which only a few years earlier had overtaken Sennacherib’s army, threw the army of his son into a panic”.
Emmet Sweeney is more emphatic (The Ramessides, Medes, and Persians, p. 185, n. 263):
The Esarhaddon Chronicle mentions how in the king's second year, “the army of Assyria went to Egypt. It fled before a storm.” In view of the highly unusual nature of this entry — armies do normally flee before storms — it has often been supposed that this is a reference to the events of Sennacherib's second and unsuccessful expedition to Egypt, where his soldiers too were defeated by some natural event. Since Sennacherib's records do not mention the disaster, it is difficult to ascertain exactly when it occurred. Nevertheless, the silence of Assyrian records for the final nine or ten years of Sennacherib's reign suggest that it probably took place then.
Now, if the entry in the Esarhaddon Chronicle really does refer to the disaster of Sennacherib's reign, this implies a profound confusion on the part of the chroniclers. However, an even more probable explanation is that the writers of the document (working it should be said, long after Esarhaddon's death) themselves believed it to refer to Sennacherib's defeat, and so lopped off several years of Esarhaddon’s reign to make it “right”.
[End of quote]
The revision being presented in this series has an overlap of the disastrous military phase of Sennacherib with a co-regency of his oldest son, Ashur-nadin-shumi, the “Holofernes” of the Book of Judith, and with Esarhaddon/Ashurbanipal (also as the soon-to-be Nebuchednezzar II) as well being involved in this drama in some capacity.
For more on this, see next section.
“Bagoas” only possible candidate for Nebuchednezzar if latter figures in Book of Judith
“So Bagoas left the presence of Holofernes, and approached [Judith] and said,
‘Let this pretty girl not hesitate to come to my lord to be honored in his presence,
and to enjoy drinking wine with us, and to become today like one of the Assyrian women
who serve in the palace of Nebuchadnezzar’.”
Judith 12:13
So far in this series we have determined that he who later became king Nebuchednezzar II - and who had participated in, and survived, Sennacherib’s disastrous campaign according to some Jewish traditions - could chronologically have (according to my neo-Assyrian revisions) been present as a young prince during this catastrophic event.
We have also learned that Esarhaddon, one of my alter egos for Nebuchednezzar II, is recorded as having been involved in a military campaign to Egypt in which the Assyrian army is said to have “fled before a great storm”. [This is recorded in British Museum chronological tablet 25091. See E. A. Wallis Budge, The Mummy: A Handbook of Egyptian Funerary Archaeology - Revised …, p. 75].
This incident some consider to be most reminiscent of the Sennacherib disaster.
Emmet Sweeney, as we previously read, had noted that armies do not flee before storms.
I certainly think that the flight of the Assyrian army, as described in the Book of Judith, must have been the same incident as that described in the Esarhaddon Chronicle tablet.
If the young Nebuchednezzar really had been involved in Sennacherib’s ill-fated campaign, then there is at least some chance that he would make an appearance also in the Book of Judith, in close relationship with “Holofernes”, who, as Ashur-nadin-shumi (as previously determined) would have been Nebuchednezzar’s oldest brother.
Now, the only Assyrian of importance (besides “Holofernes”) referred to in the Book of Judith as participating in the ill-fated western campaign is (e.g. Judith 12:11) one “Bagoas the eunuch” (Βαγώᾳ τῷ εὐνούχῳ), not immediately the type of person that one might look to equate with a brother of the mighty, all-conquering Assyrian Commander-in-chief.
However, we might have a somewhat wrong idea about Assyrian (and other ancient) eunuchs.
Dr. Don C. Benjamin has asked the question: “Eunuchs: Physical or Political?”:
In ordinary speech eunuchs are castrated males. In the world of the Bible and in the Bible itself, eunuchs (Heb: saris) were trusted members of rulers’ inner circles of advisors. In exchange for this position of trust, eunuchs have waived their right to challenge the rulers they serve and take over their authority. They were a ruler’s defenders. For example, in Persia the eunuchs who defended Xerxes and other officials who wanted to overthrow him feuded. Ultimately, the eunuchs lost, and Xerxes was assassinated in 465 B.C.E.[1] Most rulers tried to maintain a balance of power between these two groups.[2]
Eunuchs were a special group of administrators in Assyria. Originally, they were entrusted with protecting the harem, but as early as 2,000 B.C.E. they held various high offices, and during the Neo-Assyrian period (934-608 B.C.E.) eunuchs were an essential part of royal government. In fact, a collective term in Akkadian for royal officers was eunuchs and bearded ones.[3]
Assyrian reliefs, frescoes and seals typically portray eunuchs surrounding the Great King without beards, and other royal advisors with beards.[4] This artistic convention has led to the conclusion that eunuchs were castrated.[5]
Eunuchs were not castrated to prevent them from having intercourse with their rulers’ women in the harem. They were entrusted with these diplomatic wives because they had sworn unconditional allegiance to their rulers, and would not compete with their rulers for the covenants their marriages to their women had ratified.
Since they did not seem to have direct contact with the harem, most likely the term eunuch (Heb sārı̂s) should not be taken literally. It would be better translated as royal official. Near Eastern traditions refer to various royal officials and military officers as eunuchs.[6] Assyrian art depicts eunuchs carrying the bow, arrows and spear of their rulers, holding umbrellas over the heads of their rulers and waving fly-whisks or fans to protect their rulers from insects. Eunuchs also accompany their rulers on lion hunts where they carry their rulers weapons, drive their chariots and dress their kills. Eunuchs are also depicted as musicians playing lyres and harps; as scribes writing letters for their rulers, recording plunder and prisoners from battle, drafting the annals of their rulers on the battlefield.
The Akkadian root for the word eunuch (Akkadian: saris) is not sar meaning ruler, but sa resi meaning he who is chief. Assyrian art depicts eunuchs leading or directing others to their royal audiences. In the books of Samuel-Kings (1 Kgs 22:1-99) the saris is officer of the court who arrests and escorts defendants into the presence of a ruler. Likewise, in the book of Esther, seven eunuchs are sent to bring Vashti from her banquet to Xerxes. They may also have been sent to summon Haman to both of Esther’s banquets with Xerxes (Esth 5:5; 6:14). This access to rulers gave eunuchs significant authority.[7]
|
[End of quote]
The closeness of Bagoas to “Holofernes” would indicate that Bagoas was a most trusted member of the commander’s retinue. According to Robin Gallaher Branch, “Joakim, Uzziah, and Bagoas: A Literary Analysis of Selected Secondary Characters in the Book of Judith”, “Bagoas, the eunuch in charge of the belongings of Holofernes, is a most significant secondary character in the book of Judith”. And Branch’s description below, “Bagoas displays the following characteristics: arrogance, pride, power, condescension, and anger”, would definitely fit what we know of king Nebuchednezzar II.
Bagoas, the eunuch in charge of the belongings of Holofernes, is a most significant secondary character in the book of Judith. Arguably, his status, power,
and influence depend on that of Holofernes, and the worldwide status of Holofernes is quite high.78 The text introduces Holofernes as the general in command of the armies of Nebuchadnezzar and second in command to Nebuchadnezzar in Assyria (2:4).79 Both are portrayed as villainous men full of
pride. First by association with Holofernes, Bagoas likewise is Israel’s enemy; later Bagoas’ own deeds and words establish that the text considers him as such.
Bagoas’ textual introduction is probably intended for humour and emphasis. His name in Persian means eunuch.80 So a translation would be “He said to Eunuch the eunuch in charge of his personal affairs, ‘Go…’” (12:11).
Bagoas’ livelihood and life depend on Holofernes’ success.81 As Holofernes’ aide de camp, Bagoas holds a gatekeeper position; he controls access to the great general. The status, fortunes, and lives of the two entwine throughout the narrative and military campaign.82 The text recounts Holofernes’ death specifically (12:8) and possibly indicates Bagoas’ death as among those of the scattered army (14:5).
Bagoas displays the following characteristics: arrogance, pride, power, condescension, and anger. Like Holofernes, he is beguiled by Judith.83 Bagoas
is a villain,84 trickster,85 and traitor.86 As a secondary character, he not only speaks (12:13; 14:18) but also proves pivotal in significant plot twists.87 For example, he arranges the banquet in which Holofernes entertains Judith; he creates a secluded enclave where his master’s seduction can succeed; he finds
the headless corpse of Holofernes; and he sets the tone for mourning the fallen leader by yelling, wailing, groaning, and ripping his clothes.
1 Bagoas as Foil to Holefernes
Bagoas proves a foil for two characters: his master Holofernes and Judith’s silent, unnamed maid. Let us consider Holofernes first. Perhaps around the camp Bagoas mirrored Holofernes’ swagger and misplaced self-confidence. After all, Holofernes successfully “cut his way through Put and Lud and plundered all the Rassisites and Ishmaelites living on the edge of the desert south of Cheleon” (2:23). Holofernes’ other victories include setting fire to the tents of the Midianites and plundering their sheepfolds (2:26). The plain of Damascus likewise suffered, and fear and dread of Holofernes swept through the seacoast towns of Sidon and Tyre as well as among those living in Jamnia, Azotus, and Ascalon (2:27-28). By the time Holofernes neared Judea, he was in no mood to hear the warning of Achior the Ammonite against fighting the Israelites (5:5-21) and indeed considered it irrelevant and even treasonous (6:1-10). Arguably, his army and a personal servant like Bagoas follow his tone or even egg him on to more bravado and braggadocios talk (see 5:22-24).88 Arguably, the string of victories proved the authenticity of Nebuchadnezzar’s claim for world kingship and the invicibility of his general.
Next, taking his cue from Holofernes, Bagoas copies the general in his dealings with the people. He mirrors Holofernes’ reaction to Judith: delight in her words and in her defection to the camp of the Assyrians (11:20-21).89 Bagoas and Holofernes are part of the male acclaim united in responding to Judith’s long speech: “In terms of beauty and brains, there is not another woman like this from one end of the earth to another!” (11:21). As males, they agree on Judith’s beauty, wisdom, eloquence (11:23). As males they also see immediately what the text refrains from mentioning specifically: Judith’s desirability, availability, vulnerability, and her lack of male protection. As a general, Holofernes likes her promise of Assyrian victory without Assyrian deaths (9:13; 11:18-19).
But all too sadly Bagoas mirrors Holofernes in his stupidity. A good subordinate—whether a slave, servant, or paid employee—must at times question the one in charge. This is for the good of the one in charge and for all concerned. 90 Tragically for his army and himself, Holofernes asks no questions of Judith. He believes her gracious words, a speech filled with double meanings and word plays (11:5-19). Thoroughly taken in by her beauty, brains, wisdom, and eloquence, Holofernes welcomes her into the camp, promising that if things work out as she has promised, then she “shall live in King Nebuchadnezzar’s palace and be famous throughout the world” (11:23). If Bagoas really had had his master’s best interests at heart, he would have asked questions. He would have been exceedingly suspicious of a beautiful woman in a tiara and her beautiful maid coming so surprisingly to the camp of the enemy at night.91 Judith, truly a femme fatale, soon reduces the conqueror of the world to drunken stupor, and in his vulnerable unconsciousness, beheads him.92 Finally, Bagoas mirrors Holofernes’ sloppiness. Losing self-control, Holofernes acts without discretion (or suspicion!) toward one who is an enemy Israelite, the beautiful Judith.93 Consequently, the text portrays the general, his army, and his eunuch as ridiculously and fatally blind to their peril from the enemy in their midst.94
2 Bagoas as a Foil to Judith’s Maid
Bagoas’ counterpart is the unnamed, silent maid of Judith. Much can be learned about her from the various Hebrew words associated with her. She is called abran, meaning graceful one or favorite slave in Jdt 8:10, 33; 10:2, 5, 17; 13:9; 16:23. She is called paidiske, maid, in 10:10 and doule, servant, in 12:15, 19; 13:3.95 As mentioned in our earlier article, in every way except verbosity she is Judith’s counterpart, taking part with her mistress in a life-or-death adventure.96
The text introduces the maid as someone Judith trusts and has placed “in charge
of all her property” (8:10). Granted, Bagoas likewise is a slave and in charge of Holofernes’ property. But Judith and her maid share a closeness the men lack: the text indicates the women are covenant believers in Israel’s God and arguably
pray together, or at least Judith lets her maid observe her and serve her in her chosen lifestyle of prayer, celibacy, fasting, and devotion to God (8:5-8; 10:1-6).97
The comparison/contrast between Bagoas and the maid bears more study. Bagoas knows Holofernes likes to party (12:19-20; 13:1). The maid knows Judith enjoys a quiet life of prayer, fasting, seclusion, and restricted eating. Each prepares food.98 Bagoas knows Holofernes likes wine and rich food; the maid knows that Judith eats selected food only once a day in the evening (12:19; 12:9). Each is a slave; but the maid receives manumission from Judith (16:23). Significantly, both know the sexual cycles and preferences of their masters. Judith prefers to stay a widow and remain celibate. Bagoas knows Holofernes is off his sexual cycle and needs sex—and enjoys a fresh conquest (8:4-8; 13:16; 16:21-22). Judith and her maid embark together on a daring, high-stakes quest; in this sense they are bonded together in a life-risking enterprise; conversely, the relationship between Holofernes and Bagoas evidences no such dependence or life-or-death commitment.99
3 Bagoas and His Duties as Chamberlain
As the chamberlain in charge of Holofernes’ military household, Bagoas is used to private conversations with his master. The text recounts one. As host to visitors and the leader of an army of 120,000 infantry and 12,000 mounted bowmen (2:15),100 Holofernes has multiple duties that include battle strategy sessions, leading an army, and entertaining his highest staff. It also would be appropriate to entertain the beautiful defector who promises to lead his army through the heart of Judea to Jerusalem and assures victory without risking the life or limb of his men (11:19; 10:13).
Holofernes reveals to Bagoas his intention to seduce Judith.101 Holofernes wants her to come to an intimate banquet without his army commanders; he charges Bagoas to arrange all the details and to “persuade” Judith to attend (12:10-12). Holofernes indicates to Bagoas his view that Judith expects to be seduced and indeed will laugh with mockery if Holofernes fails to perform. Holofernes indicates his honour as a warrior in front of his thousands of men will be disgraced if the camp talk the following morning does not include evidence that the beautiful visitor welcomed his embrace. Holofernes is quite blunt in his instructions to Bagoas: “Go ‘persuade’ the Hebrew woman who is in your care to join us, and to eat and drink with us. For we will be disgraced if we let such a woman go without having her, because if we do not make her, she will laugh at us” (12:11).
Bagoas goes as commanded to Judith to invite her to dine with the general. He displays a silver tongue. His condescending speech reveals his arrogance. First, Bagoas mirrors his master’s intimate chattiness when he says to Judith, “May this lovely maid not hesitate to come before my lord to be honoured in his presence and to enjoy drinking wine with us and act today like one of the Assyrian women who serve in Nebuchadnezzar’s palace” (12:13). Judith replies, “Who am I that I should refuse my lord? I will do whatever he desires right away, and it will be something to boast of until my dying day” (12:14) (italics added). Containing a word play on my lord and he, her response contains much irony, a noted folktale feature.102 Judith’s response, because of her choices of physical chastity and celibacy and of spiritual chastity to the God of Israel, means the opposite of what Bagoas believes she says.103
Let us continue looking at this meeting, for it is textually quite rich. Bagoas insults Judith in several ways. First, he insults her by not using the pronoun you and talking to her as if she is an object. Second he insults her by his familiarity, by giving her a nickname, lovely maid, without her consent. He then reveals his disdain for women, for he views Assyrian women as alive to serve the sexual needs of Assyrian men. He equates Judith with Nineveh courtesans. Third, he insults her by acknowledging her age and yet calling her a lovely maid. He knows Judith is not a virgin but a widow—and therefore (presumably) sexually experienced. Yet he seeks to flatter her by slicing years off her age. He calls her a maid (12:13).104 Fourth, he insults her by letting her know that she is expected to be a courtesan like the Assyrian women; in modern parlance, the Assyrian court seems to be filled with sex groupies.105 His condescending manner indicates he views women as men’s playthings. However, in a way Judith invites Bagoas’ bad manners, for in front of an appreciative audience of men engaged in war, she already praised Holofernes as brave, experienced, and dazzling in the art of war (11:8).
Her response to Bagoas seems to give Holofernes the chance to dazzle her in bed. No doubt Bagoas quickly relays her reply to the executive tent!
4 Bagoas as a Fool
Arriving for the intimate banquet, Judith steps upon lambskins spread by her maid and provided by Bagoas (12:15). The evening progresses; Holofernes drinks more than he has ever drunk on any other day of his life; Bagoas closes the tent from the outside and dismisses the weary servants (12:20; 13:1). Judith’s maid alone remains nearby (13:9-10). Bagoas fails as a servant, for, in his attempt to be discreet, he leaves Holofernes unprotected. Bagoas’ discretion allows Judith to behead Holofernes.
The text humorously depicts Bagoas as waiting patiently past sunrise for his master to emerge from his sexual conquest. Finally, duty demands that Bagoas must interrupt the (presumed) lovers. Notice the verbs; they convey his quick actions (14:14-16). He shakes the tent curtain, draws it aside, goes into the bedroom, and finds his master on top of the bedstool, a headless corpse! Bagoas suddenly acts quickly.106 It is in his best interests to do so, and his actions show a distinct measure of self-protection. He lets out a yell, and successively adds wailing, groaning, and shouting to it; he rips his clothes. All in all, it’s quite a convincing display of his surprise, outrage, and innocence. He immediately goes to Judith’s tent, finds her and her maid missing, and rushes into the midst of the people (14:17) (italics added). People is significant: one expects the text to say army. However, this textual putdown indicates the disunity of what is trumped up to be the best fighting force in the world. This Assyrian fighting force cannot withstand a change-of-command at the top. The story quickly verifies the veracity of the insult. ….
