by
Damien F. Mackey
“... Judith is replete with conflated details drawn from
at least five centuries of real history ...”.
A reader
The Book of Judith, in its present form, lends itself to - and has been located to - various historical epochs.
It appears as a conflation.
To follow a reader’s quote, “... Judith is replete with conflated details drawn from at least five centuries of real history ...”.
It is seemingly such an historical potpourri that modern scholars tend to relegate it to the category of ‘pious fiction’, saying that it opposes holy Israel (represented by the Simeonite heroine “Judith”) to all of the traditional enemies with whom ‘she’ ever had to contend. [1].
The very first verse of the book introduces us to a Babylonian-named king, “Nebuchadnezzar”, ruling from the Assyrian capital of “Nineveh”, at war with a Chaldean-named king of the Medes, “Arphaxad”, based at “Ecbatana” [2].
But ‘pious fiction’ was by no means the description traditionally applied to the Book of Judith down through the centuries. Until the C16th, Judith had been regarded as truly historical; even by those (e.g. Jerome) who did not consider it to be scripturally canonical.
Judith is saturated with historical type detail from beginning to end - that no doubt being the reason why so many have tried to nail it to an historical mast.
A reader has actually made a valiant attempt to find the book’s historical matrix in the time of Nebuchednezzar II (c. 600 BC, conventional dating). Unfortunately, though, that reader is not able to sustain his early promise that he will show the historicity of Judith to be more accurate than others have, so that Judith will “pass from a pious fiction to real history”.
In the end this book in its entirety becomes also for the reader - as it has for so many before him - a ‘stone of stumbling’. He will have to abandon the last (and indeed main) part of the story because he cannot honestly find a niche for it in c. 600 BC. The reader thus ends up doing exactly what he had set out not to do, relegating the book to “pious fiction”.
At least the reader is honest enough to admit that the latter part of Judith cannot be force fed into his c. 600 BC matrix.
Like that other so-called deuterocanonical book, the highly popular Tobit, Judith must have been copied many times. And, like Tobit, names became changed - e.g., in Tobit the original “Bathania” and “Midian” became replaced by the nonsensical, geographically speaking, “Ecbatana” and “Media”. The trick is, of course, to rediscover the original names, and this can be done only, I suggest, by running down the main incident: in Judith's case the unequivocal stranglehold upon Israel by a world-conquering army (preferably Assyrian) of in excess of 182,000 (Judith 7:2), and then sudden defeat of that army.
The reader tries valiantly to keep alive the pervading Assyrian element of the Judith story by backdating the beginning of Nebuchednezzar II’s rule to what he calls “the Assyrian accession”, about the time of the final destruction of Nineveh in 612 BC (conventional dating). Not a very propitious time, though, for one to be ruling from Nineveh.
The reader, however, can produce no solid historical data to back up his hypothesis. Most noticeably of all, he fails to accommodate the main incident of Judith.
King Nebuchednezzar II would in fact have been the last invader of Jerusalem to whose army one would venture to attribute an annihilation at the hands of the Jews.
And 600 BC would be the last era of which an editor of Judith could honestly say, after Israel's victory: “No one ever again spread terror among the Israelites during the lifetime of Judith, or for a long time after her death” (Judith 16:25) [3].
For Jerusalem and its Temple were destroyed by Nebuchednezzar II’s forces within a mere decade or so of the reader’s choice of 600 BC.
There is only one biblico-historical situation that can possibly be matched to the main incident in Judith, and that is Sennacherib's invasion of Palestine, and, ultimately - according to the Bible - his defeat (c.700 BC). Sennacherib's army of 185,000 Assyrians, led against Jerusalem by the king’s Commander-in-Chief, admirably fits the Judith scenario of the “Holofernes”-led army of 182,000+ Assyrians whose goal was Jerusalem. With the historical era of Judith thus pin-pointed to c.700 BC, as I believe, then one can begin to tidy up the copyists’ errors regarding persons and places:
“Nebuchadnezzar” of “Nineveh” must be Sargon II, whom Tobit called “Sennacherib” (1:15) [4]; the name that a copyist of the Book of Judith apparently mistook for “Nebuchadnezzar” – a common misidentification in ancient (Classical) times.
“Nineveh” in the so-called deuterocanonical books seems to cover the biblical complex of cities, i.e. “the great city” (cf. Genesis 10:12; Jonah 1:2; Tobit 14:4).
“Arphaxad”, with whom the king of “Nineveh” waged war in his “twelfth year”, is Merodach-baladan II the Chaldean, against whom Sargon II warred in his 12th year; a battle that I believe coincided with Sennacherib's “first campaign” against the same Merodach-baladan II [5]. “Arphaxad” was no Mede, therefore, but was - as one notes from Judith 1:6, and as his name (lit. ‘Ur of the Chaldees’) suggests - a Chaldean. Moreover, “Arphaxad’s” coalition was, like Merodach-baladan II’s, Chaldæo-Aramæo-Elamite (same verse).
“Ecbatana”, the city that the king strengthened (Judith 1:2), would be the new fortress of Dur-Sargon that Sargon II built.
Read the annals of Sargon II and Sennacherib and you will find there being described the exact same eastern war between Assyria and the Chaldean coalition as in Judith 1. Moreover, virtually all of the major characters in Judith can be found in II Kings, II Chronicles and Isaiah for this era. Apart from those kings already mentioned, we find:
On the Assyrian side
“Achior” the Ammonite, more correctly Ephraïmite (Judith 6:2; See: Online Version), was Sennacherib’s Rabshakeh (e.g. II Kings 18:19); the famous Ahikar, who, Tobit proudly informs us, was his own nephew (cf. 1:21 and 22) [6]. That gloss in Judith 1:6 telling of the mysterious “Arioch” ruling over the Elymæans (i.e. Elamites) should be amended, in light of Judith 6:2; Tobit 2:10, to “Achior” ruling over the Elymæans;
"Bagoas" the Eunuch = the Assyrian Rabsaris (II Kings 18:17);
On Israel's Side
“Joakim” (var. “Eliakim”), the high-priest = King Hezekiah's chief official; Eliakim, who would likewise have been a priest (cf. I Kings 4:1-3; II Kings 19:2; Isaiah 22:15 Douay) [7];
“Uzziah”, the chief magistrate of Judith’s town of “Bethulia”, and indeed “prince of the people of Israel” (cf. 6:15 and 13:23 Douay) was the great Isaiah himself.
Conspicuously absent from the Book of Judith, though, is the Bible’s king Hezekiah.
But we need to recall that Hezekiah was critically ill in his crucial 14th year of reign (cf. Isaiah 38:1-4 and II Kings 18:2), and Eliakim had taken charge, as in Judith. In regard to the king’s incapacity, note this possible subtlety, that, whereas Sennacherib had actively “sent” his three chief men to Jerusalem, there is no mention of Hezekiah's having actively and personally reciprocated. His three officials noticeably “came out” - were not sent (cf. II Kings 18:17, 18) [8].
And the king of Assyria sent Tartan and Rabsaris and Rabshakeh from Lachish to king Hezekiah with a great host against Jerusalem. And they went up and came to Jerusalem ... they came and stood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is in the highway of the fuller's field.
And when they had called to the king, there came out to them Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, which was over the household, and Shebna the scribe, and Joah the son of Asaph the recorder. [2 Kings 18:17, 18]
The whole background scenario described in Judith 4:3 of a recent return from captivity, after the Temple, altar and sacred vessels had been profaned - which some have confused with the Babylonian Exile, though Judith says it was “of recent date” - can all in fact be accounted for during the turbulent reign of Hezekiah's impious father, Ahaz, who personally profaned the Temple (one can read the long litany of Ahaz's misdeeds in e.g. II Chronicles 28:1-5). His son, Hezekiah, spurred on no doubt by Isaiah, had to undo all of his father's damage and instigate a massive religious and civil reform (cf. 29:3-31:1-20).
“The Assyrian .... But the Lord Almighty has foiled them by the hand of a woman. For their mighty ones did not fall by the hands of the young men, nor did the sons of the Titans strike them down, nor did tall giants set upon him; but Judith daughter of Merari with the beauty of her countenance undid him”. (Judith 16:3, 5-6).
This appears to me to be the true story of what happened to Sennacherib's ill-fated army of 185,000, which fled in chaos, with enormous casualties, after its all-conquering general had literally lost his head to this Jewish beauty (Judith 14:11-15:7). The ancient Jews were so impressed by what their heroine (an ancient Joan of Arc) had done for them (cf. Judith 13:17-20; 15:8-10, 12; 16:21-22) that - as in the case of Queen Esther - they dedicated an entire book to her [9].
The Book of Judith is a vital supplement to 2 Kings, 2 Chronicles and Isaiah in regard to Sennacherib’s ill-fated invasion.
Notes and references
[1] See e.g. The Jerome Biblical Commentary, “Judith”, 38:17.
[2] All quotes taken from NRSV (Catholic Edition) unless otherwise indicated. See also: The online Vulgate Version of Judith and Tobit
[3] Judith, apparently a young woman (a “girl”) when she confronted the Assyrian general, lived to be 105 years of age (cf. 12:13 and 16:23).
[4] Thereby placing before revisionists of neo-Assyrian history a further intriguing consideration: namely, the likelihood that Sargon II was Sennacherib.
[5] Sargon: "In my twelfth year of reign, Marduk-apal-iddina (Merodach-baladan) ...". Sennacherib: "In my first campaign I accomplished the defeat of Merodach-baladan, king of Babylonia, together with the army of Elam, his ally, in the plain of Kish. ...".
[6] The Douay version of Tobit actually calls him by the same name as in Judith: namely, “Achior”, the nephew of Tobias. From Judith 6:2 (Septuaginta) we learn, that Arioch was an Ephraimite even though elsewhere he is called an Ammonite.
[7] The translation “over the House [or household, or Palace]” (II Kings 19:2) should therefore be amended to “over the Temple”. Same Hebrew word.
[8] In fact when the Assyrians actually "called for the king [Hezekiah], there came out to them [the king's three officials]".
[9] I see no reason to disagree with the tradition that Judith was composed by Joakim/Eliakim whom I here identify as the high priest. The book's very pious style is consistent with how a zealous priest would write.
