Introduction

Preface

The book “Judith” takes its name from the main heroine of its narrative – a beautiful and pious Israelite woman Judith, who became renowned for saving her homeland from Holofernes, sent by Nebuchadnezzar, king of Assyria, to devastate and conquer Judea.

The authenticity of the book and its historical reliability have been the subject of considerable scholarly debate, owing to the great number of historical, archaeological, geographical and other important errors contained in the book. Nevertheless, the Book of Judith has enjoyed the highest respect from ancient times, reaching the point of being granted canonical status. Jerome grants it such status, appealing to the Council of Nicaea, although among the canons of that council there is not one that discusses this book, and Jerome himself nowhere cites such a canon. Augustine and the entire African Church also recognized this book as canonical. In general, however, the Church later came to affirm the non-canonical status of this book.

The author of the book is not known with certainty, though some scholars have named him. According to Jerome, the book was written by Judith herself; according to others, the author was the high priest Eliakim; still others attribute it to Achior the Ammonite, mentioned in the book, or to Jesus, son of Josedek, colleague of Zerubbabel at the return from Babylonian captivity, and so forth. Among the various texts of the book, the most well-known are: the Greek Septuagint, ancient translations – the Syriac and Latin, known as the Old Latin (Vetus Latinus) and Jerome’s in the Vulgate, which he made from a Hebrew text now lost. According to authorities, the original text of the book was Hebrew.

The time of writing of the book is determined by researchers only approximately and in two ways – depending on how one resolves the major historical confusion raised by the book, which casts its own light on the entire course of its narrative: either after the return from Babylonian captivity (Jdt 4:3), and in that case the name of Nebuchadnezzar must be struck from the narrative or corrected, and he is even called king of Assyria, or else – if one recognizes the unassailable force and plausibility of the latter, then it is possible to assign the writing of the book to pre-captivity times, and in that case recognize as misplaced the references of the narrative to later post-captivity times, such as the place cited above, Judith 4:3. Which of these opinions has the weightier arguments and should be preferred is not easy to say, just as it is impossible to point to a king who would satisfy all the extremely tangled details of the account given by the author of the book.

More precisely, many researchers assign the time of writing of the book to the Maccabean period, and a further reworking even later – to the time of early Christianity. From this it is understandable why the renown of Judith in the written records of antiquity begins rather late. Philo, Josephus and generally the writers of Old Testament times say nothing of this book. The first mention of the book belongs only to Clement of Rome (in his First Letter to the Corinthians, ch. 55). The subsequent Church Fathers and teachers – Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Ambrose, Augustine and others, while making use of the Book of Judith for purposes of edification, do not provide any accounts or traditions about its origin.

As for the event itself constituting the content of the book, some saw in it a simple metaphor – a depiction of the victory of pious Judaism over the impiety of pagan polytheism. Others regarded the story of Judith as a pious poem, presenting a mixture of fact and fiction, written to move the religious and patriotic feelings of the Jews. Finally, still others agreed to recognize even the actual historicity of the entire event – however – only on condition of correcting in the narrative all the erroneous names and inaccuracies and assigning the event to the times of the dominion of the Syrian kings (the Maccabean era).

The whole body and details of the account in any case bear an indelible imprint of the actual historicity of the event, independent of individual inaccuracies of description. The narrative provides much valuable information on history, geography, chronology, gives a detailed genealogy of Judith, mentions a festival established in memory of the victory of this heroine; finally, ancient Jewish prayers in the first and second Sabbaths of the Feast of Dedication, which present an abbreviated exposition of the essence of the Book of Judith, also show that the Hebrews believed in the reality of the facts transmitted in it, for they could not have thanked God for a fictitious deliverance. To this must be added the existence of several ancient midrashim, independently of the Book of Judith recounting the same events. Universal tradition from ancient times allowed a strictly historical character to the book, and no one until Luther doubted this. And even now – all objections raised against the truth of the facts of the Book of Judith must be counted among the unconvincing and unimportant. As for, finally, the king himself (called the Assyrian Nebuchadnezzar), to the time of whom the described event should most probably be assigned, then all attempts to point out more precisely in history such a king, most probable and corresponding to all the details of the account in the Book of Judith, are doomed to hopeless doubtfulness and insoluble groundlessness. And not without reason – there has remained, it seems, not a single king – neither before nor after captivity – who has not been thought to be the most identical person with Nebuchadnezzar – with equal plausibility and groundlessness at one and the same time: we do not set forth here individual opinions and arguments in favor of them and do not enter into fruitless polemics, preferring to hold to the precise indications of Scripture and allowing each one to adapt himself to them by his own convictions.