• Vule. and Midrash agree, i.e.. in omissions (LXX 717-19. w
g>l-23.Mb 91 109. lOf. 17». 18. 22 114.14 1213b 153.4.6.11b) and in
additions (Yulg. 618-18 76. 10. 11. 19-22 go-'a ()«« 1016.I8. 20 1112. 14. it 126 136. 16. 23 14^. 8-14), as well »8 in a multitude of lesser details
JUDITH, BOOK OF
JUDITH, BOOK OF
823
of the short Mitlrash (Jellinek, i. 130 f. ; Lipsioa, p. 355 f. ; Ball, p. 252 f. ; Scholz, Anh. ii. ) against the lon^'. So Gaster contidently claims orij^nality for his Hebrew version, and is followed with surprising unreserve by Comill (EM. in d. AT*, p. 272). ' It seems undoubted that here lies the simplest and most original form of tlie story, out of which the Greek romance grew ' (cf. Ginsburg). But is the simple always the original form of a story ? Caster's argument, ' If it were an abridged text, names and situations would have been retained, and only the rhetorical portions omitted,' substitutes the interests of a modern historian for those of an ancient story-teller. On the other hand, in favour of the greater originality of the LXX version, apart from the general fact of its far greater age, it is to be urged that it is more natural to suppose (1) that elaborate but not especially significant geographical and historical details, aside from the main story, should be omitted rather than added by later editors ; (2) that edifying and rhctoricMl embellishments, speeches, praj'ers, etc., should be added, not omitted ; (3) that references to the Maccabsean period should be added, not removed to give place to an impossible or an unknown historical setting ; (4) that the scene should be changed from Bethulia to Jerusalem, not the reverse ; (5) that Greeks should take the i>lace of Assyrians as Israels enemy ; (6) that .Itli.'s lineage should be changed from the tribe of Simeon to the family of the Hasmona'ans, not the reverse ; ami perhaps that she should be first a widow, afterwanls a maidi'U. (She is a widow in the long Midrash).
The originality claimed for the LXX, or its Hebrew text, is, however, relative. The story may have had a long previous history.
3. I'LACK OF THE STORY.— Bethulia (Betylua) cannot, in the LXX, mean Jerusalem. Its situa- tion is so well described (in Northern Samaria, near Dothan, 4«' ; cf. 3»- "> 5' 6'- '»• " 7'- '» 8») that few doubt its existence, though it is not otherwise known. 'To hold it for a jiure fiction belongs to the •rross fictions of the learned ' (Fritzsche). ' He would not have built his story geograjihically in the air' (Schiirer). It is as clearly distinguished from Jerusalem as words permit (4'- «• ' 8*'- ** 11" 153. B i,ji». a), ii. i9_ (.f_ 83)_
4. Time of the Story.— The historical setting of the LXX is impossible. Nineveh and Assyria fell 608 B.C. Nebuch., kin" of the Chaldieans in Babylon, destroyed Jenisalem in his 18th year (586), and died 562. The return from e.xile was not before 536, and the rebuilding of the temple was in 520-516. But the confusion of these events coulil hardly be due to ignorance. What .lew would not know the place of Nebuch. in relation to the Assyrians and to the Exile? It is possible that a copj'ist or translator put familiar oiblical names in the place of names strange to him (Kaulen). It is also possible that the author used Nebuch. and the Assyrians as syml)ols, and that he meant to tell (1) no history at all but a story (' poem,' Luther), teaching that Judah is aa.lti from nil cneniies if it keeps the law ; or (2) future history prophetically set forth (an apocalyp.se, Scholz) ; or (3) present or recent history disguised under significant names. Thus Volkmar (1860) elalioratelv defended the equations: Nebuch. = Trajan, Nineveh = Home (or Antioch), Mcdes = rarthians, Ecl>atnna= Nisibis, l!olofemes=Lusius Quietus, etc. But the iiarallels are forced, and 'the arguments which place the Epistle of Clem. in the 1st cent, are a hundreilfold stronger than those which place the Bk. of Jth in the second' (Lightfoot). More commonly the MaccalMi-an history is found veile<l in our story. Hall suggests (not always consistently) that Nebuch. = Anti- ochu-i IV.. .As.svriiiiis = Syrian-*, lloloferni's =
Nicanor, Arphaxad — Ar.saces, Medes = Parthians, Jth = Juda.s, Bethulia = Jerusalem, Joakim = Al- cimus, etc. He say*, 'The Bk. of Jth is a free corapositio 1 in the manner of the Haggada, princi- pally based upon recollections of the facts of the heroic Juda-s, and more especially upon the facta related in 1 Mae 3"-4'" 6'' 7*"*', 2 Mac 9'-« 10'-* 15' (cf. Holtzmann, Neutest. ZeitgesrhUhte, 16). But the t)ook does not readily j-ield to allegorical trcM 1 luent. If it was written in the reign of AJi\:indra (B.C. 79-70) concerning the Maccabican wail (Ball), why is the scene Bethulia, not Jeru- salem? why are Judith and Ozias Simeonites? why should Judas and his exploits be so completely veiled in a book meant to glorify him and his house!
In fact, the indications of the Maccabiean age are of a general and doubtful character. The history ' points to a time when danger threatened not only the people but also its faith. . . . This reminds us of Daniel and the Maccabaan period ' (Schiirer). The ritualism of the book has some lute marks (8''). The high priest did not command Samaria (4*"* ; cf. 15'- ") until John Hyrcanus. Hellenistic cities were not independent after the Roman period. But, on the other hand, a writer may attempt to describe past conditions, and may make mistakes in doing so. This wTiter professes to tell of a time long past (14'" IC-^*). That he wrote in the late Maccabaean or in the Roman period is quite probable. That he wTote primarily of the Maceabajan wars there is little sign.