§ 6. INTEGRITY OF THE TEXT; ITS HISTORICAL FRAMEWORK

It has been suggested that the story is founded on a popular tradition, true or imaginary. Reuss thought that the Song in cap. 16 was an early composition, like the song of Deborah, and that the story was built upon it. It is certainly remarkable that in 16:10 Persians and Medes, not Assyrians, are mentioned. There can be no doubt that Judith belongs to the family of Jael, Esther, and Joan of Arc. Such a theme appeals strongly to popular imagination, and even if based on fact, easily tends to be overlaid with fiction. Whatever may be the truth, the work, as we have it, is a consistent whole, and, with the possible exception of the song, shows no signs of being by more than one hand.

What then is the period which the author is proposing to describe, and how far is it in agreement with history? The question has been very variously answered. Attempts have been made to identify the Nebuchadnezzar of the story with Assurbanipal, Xerxes I, Artaxerxes Ochus, Antiochus Epiphanes: Arphaxad with Deioces or Phraortes. Without discussing these theories in detail, it may be said at once that none of them is consistent without a good deal of forcing. The historical Nebuchadnezzar did not reign at Nineveh (1:1): he died in 562, and the return from the exile was not till about 536. He did not make war on Media (1:7) nor capture Ecbatana. Nor do the annals of Assurbanipal, though they are very full, record anything of the kind, while Media had ceased to be a power before the time of the other kings whom it has been proposed to identify with Nebuchadnezzar. At the time of the Return, the Babylonian empire had passed to the Persians. They were not likely to send a punitive expedition against the Jews, who were not then in a position to offer any resistance. Moreover, Arphaxad is not the name of any Median king mentioned by Herodotus, and the fortifications of Ecbatana were not built by him but by Deioces (Hdt. 1:98): (H)olofernes (= Orofernes) and Bagoas, if they are historical names, are Persian, and belong to the time of Artaxerxes Ochus (see below). Again, there was no king in Israel, but the people was ruled by the High Priest Joakim (4:6, 8, 14, 15:8) and a Sanhedrim (4:8, 15:8). It has been suggested that this points to the reign of Manasseh when he was a prisoner in Babylon, or to the minority of Josiah. Either explanation is improbable. If a High Priest was acting for the king, so unusual a situation would have to be explained, whereas it is taken for granted, and also it is inconsistent with the references to the exile (4:3, 5:18). The suggestion that Joakim (Eliachim in the Vulgate) is the same as the Eliakim of 2 Kings 18:18, and that he may have survived as High Priest under Manasseh, is not supported by the list of High Priests. In fact the author clearly intends to put his story at the time of the Return, but makes no attempt to fill in the picture consistently. If it is to be made consistent, this can only be done by explaining the names as pseudonyms disguising really historical persons. This is the view taken by Ball, and it must be admitted that he finds some remarkable coincidences, on the assumption that Nebuchadnezzar is Antiochus Epiphanes, the Assyrians are Syrians, Nineveh is Antioch, and Arphaxad is Arsaces of Persia (= Media), against whom Antiochus made an expedition. 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 framework of the story was most probably suggested (so Schürer and others) by the campaign of Artaxerxes Ochus against Phoenicia and Egypt (about 350 b.c.). One of his generals was Holofernes, brother of the king of Cappadocia (Diod. Sic. 31:19), who was sent against Egypt, though it is expressly stated that he died in his own country, and a certain Bagoas was his most trusted servant (Diod. Sic. 16:47). Sidon surrendered to the Persians (cf. Judith 2:28 seq.), and the army then marched south towards Egypt, passing, no doubt, through Esdraelon (3:9). If any incident occurred in the campaign similar to that related here, we have no other record of it. The details are not meant to be historical. Nebuchadnezzar is introduced as the typical arch-enemy of Judaea: the time of the Return is chosen as being far away and little known, and the author is guilty of a further anachronism by describing his characters under the conditions of his own day. In the song (16:10), if that is by the author of the rest, the mention of Persians seems to show that he was really thinking of the campaign of Artaxerxes Ochus. He also affects archaic names and allusions: hence with Nebuchadnezzar’s army he includes princes of Moab and captains of Ammon (5:2), the traditional enemies of Israel, who were in place, e.g. in 2 Kings 24:2, but can surely not have been important in 150 or even 350 b.c. Similarly Midian (2:26) and Esau (7:8) are archaistic for Arabs and Idumaeans.

Such being the method of the book, we need not expect to identify all the geographical any more than the personal names. Bethulia, the scene of the story, is very like Shechem, and, if the author was thinking of Shechem, that may account for his using the name Βετυλούα = בית אלוה, since the Samaritans call Mt. Gerizim בית אל. It also fits the story, as a place of first-rate strategic importance, far better than Safed or Bait Ilfa, which have also been proposed. With regard to the other place-names, there is evidently a good deal of corruption either in the original or in the versions, or both. Many of them are too much distorted to be recognizable, but they may conceal actual sites, known or unknown. They can hardly be purely imaginary. Torrey (JAOS, 1899, pp. 160 sqq. and Florilegium … de Vogüé, p. 599) shows that, taking Bethulia to be Shechem, the other places agree, so far as they can be identified. See further on 4:6.