2. Texts and Versions. — The LXX text exists in three recensions, (1) B A X, etc., the ruling text; (2) cod. 58, to which Old Lat. and Syriac are closely related ; (3) cod. 19, 108, similar to (2).
A Hebrew original is commonly accepted, not only on the ground of Hebraisms in language and ideas, but also because of errors of translation (see 18 oa 31.8.9.10 4s §21 ir-ii 169- ", Fritzsche, Ball). Origen, indeed, says that he learned from Jews that they did not possess Tobit and Judith even among their 'Apocrypha' (Ep. ad Afric. 13), and there are no allusions to Jth in the older rabbinical literature. Yet it does not follow that the later Jewish versions are retranslations from the Greek. If the story had an independent history among Jews it is historically important to trace it. Jerome is the first witness to a Heb. (Aram.) original, and his testimony deserves attention.
The Vulgate. — Jerome (Pref. to Jth.) says that the Hebrews had Jth among their Apocrypha, and reckoned it among histories. His Jth he affirms to be a translation of this ' Chaldee ' version, which he regarded as the original. He put into Latin ' only those things which a sound understanding could find in the Chaldee words.' His work was indeed hastily done, in one night, and carelessly, ' aiming to give sense for sense rather than word for word.' Probably, as in the case of Tobit, an biterpreter rendered the Chaldee into Hebrew, and
Jerome dictated a Latin version of the Heb. to a scribe. He, of course, had the Old Lat. before him.
Jerome's testimony is commonly set aside, and it is assumed, after Fritzsche, that his modifica- tions of the Old Lat. were mainly arbitrary and that we can know nothing of Ins Chaldee text. Is this a just verdict? The Vulg., in comparison with the Old Lat. and Greek, omits many geogra- phical details (e.g. LXX 2-« S^*-'" 4*-'' 15^) and many concrete incidents (e.g. LXX l"-" 2'-'» T"- "■'"• "- 1 ^P'-
3b. a. lob. 17. IS. M.Ti IJSb. 4 J.^Sb. 16b 14«. 9 IS'ib 16'"' and parts of 8" '•»•-■»• »' 9' l3'=- » 14>»"" 15'»- "). Jth.'s achievement is made less sensuous and more simply religious in character (cf. LXX W* 11" 12"- 15.1,) xhe dece^.tions are less bald (LXX IP"' 13'). Homiletical additions are made (Vulg. 4'"-" 5"""
ijn-» 5i,i-io^ parts of 0'
12-21 719-22 i;21-2l
S'-''-"). Changes such
as these mark a secondary form of the story. But are they due to Jerome? Against that supposition it is to be argued, (1) that it was not his way to edit, but to translate ; (2) that he did not in this case take time for such revision. It is therefore probable, apart from the confirmation of the Mid- rash, that even such deviations of Vul" from LXX as these were due in the main to the Chaldee version. Still more probable is this in the few ca.scs of additional couciete detail (Vulg. 7'' 11"
1411-12 1^31)
Further, it is probable that in Jerome's Chaldee, Bethulia was identified with Jerusalem. The Vulg. never gives a clear description of the situa- tion of Bethulia (cf. LXX i'- ' 6'- '»• " 7' 8^ 10" ll'^) ; it omits or changes all passages which clearly dis- tinguish Bethulia and Jerusalem up to 15" (cf. LXX 4»-' W 11" 15»; and Vulg. omits LXX 821. 22. 24 gib 1114. i5)_ FurUicr, Vulg. contains some positive suggestions that Jerusalem is tlie besieged city (Vulg. 3" [cf. LXX 3"- '»] 7'- '*• '• » 15-' ; and Ozias is ' prince of Judah,' Vulg 8** 13==). Only in 15' and perhaps \Q---^ does Vulg. require the distinction. This suggests that the identification is not due to Jerome out to his source.
Hebrew Versions. — The story of Jth exists in several forms in Hebrew, none of them from early sources (Jellinek, Beth ha-Midrasch, i. 130-141, ii. 12 11'. [translations in Lipsius, Zeitschr. f. wissens. Theol. (IS07), p. 337 ff. ; Ball in Wace's Apocrypha, i. p. 25211'.; Scholz, Commentar, 2 ed., Anliang i. and ii.]; Gaster, 'An unknown Hebrew Version of the History of Jth' [P^'B^( 1894), p. 156ff.]). Lip- sius distinguishes two forms of the story, one of which is closely related to our book. In both the scene is Jerusalem, the time that of the Maccabrean wars. Judith is in some way related to the Has- monsean house. It is Nicanor who is beheaded ; and the deed is celebrated in connexion with the Feast of Dedication. Names are often omitted, and details vary widely. The long Midrash (Jellinek, ii. 12-22; Scholz, Anhang i.) summarizes clis. 1-5 briefly, but in clis. 7-14 follows the Vulgate so closely that a relationship between them is certain. * The indications of the Chaldee original in the Vulg. pointed out above are strongly con- firmed by this version. The phenomena would be explained by supposing that the Midrash is a later form of Jerome's Chaldee text, still less concrete, still more general and homUetical in character. Jerusalem entirely displaces Bethulia ; Holofemes is king of Greece, and Nebuch. disappears; Chabris and Charmis are priests, Ozias is prince of Israel ( = Vulg. 13^), and Joakim is not mentioned.
The older Form. — Scholz argues for the greater originality of the Vulgate against the LXX, and