III. Oriyinal Lanffuage, Versions, Condition of (he Texts, e'f-— That tliis book, was originally written "in Hebrew or Syro-Chaldaic.is distinctly declared by St. Jerome, who says that "Judith is read by the Jews among the Hagiographa . . . and, h, Imj irrhun in Chaklee (Chal- da;o sermone conscript u. >. is re.koned among the histo- ries," and that he had used a ( li;dilee codex to correct therel)y the vitiated readings of the MSS. {Prtpf. ad Jud.). This is, moreover, corroborated bv the Bvzan- tine historian John Malalas (fl. circa A.D. 880\"who, having embodied the contents of Judith in his Chrono- graphia, remarks, 'IViSra ct iv rah: 'EfipaiKa'ig f/(0fp£- rai ypcKpcni: (i, 203, ed. Oxon. 1691). Besides, the Greek contams unmistakable indications that it was made from a Hebrew or Aramajan original, e. g. giving the Hebrew use of the relative tv <^ durpilSiv tv aim^ (x, 2), uiv ro yXJ/^oc aiiTdv (xvi, 4), the literal rendering of ri3n:3a IV ry TTctpnijio^ (xii, 7), which has occasioned so much difficidty to^interpreters, but which is easy enough when it is borne in mind that the Hebrew preposition n sig- nifies «/,/«/, nmr; the manv Hebraisms (i,7,16; ii,5 7 18, 23 ; iiiy 3, 10 ; iv, -2, 0, 11,13; v, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18 ;' vii'
15,18; ix, 8; x, 7, 23; xi, 6, 16; xii, 13, 20; xiv, 19), and the mistranslations of the Hebrew (i, 8 ; ii, 2 ; iii, 1, 9, 10; v, 15, 18; viii, 27; xv, 11). Gesenius, and espe- cially Movers, have been very successful in their efforts to correct the present geographical errors by the suppo- sition of a Hebrew original. Betani (i, 9) the latter con- ceives to be Beth-anoth (Josh, xv), and the two seas (i, 12) the two arms of the- Nile. For xaWaiwv he reads Xa\Saiu)v, and considers Basses to be an oversight for Tarshish. Origen was therefore misinformed when he . was told that Judith did not exist in the Hebrew (jrfpt Toj/3('n y/xdi; ixp^v tyi'ifKevai on T<p TiufSia ov xP'^v- rai ovSi Tij 'lovviSf, ouvt yap txov(n avra icai iv Atto- icpv(poiQ 'EjipaicrTai, w(; utt' avTwv ficiBovrer tyvuiKa- f.itv, Ep. ad AJ'ric, sec. 13). The Old Latin and the Syriac versions were made from the Septuagint, which, however, does not represent a Jixed Hebrew or Aramaean original text, as may be seen from the various recen- sions of it differing greatly from each other. This is, moreover, corroborated by the fact that the Old Latin, the MSS. of which also deviated greatly from each oth- er, and which St. Jerome corrected according to an Ara- mtean codex, differs materially from the Sept., some- times having more than the latter (comp.Vulg. iv,8-15 with Sept. iv, 10; Vulg. v, 11, 12 with Sept. v, 11-16; Vulg. V, 26-29 with Septuag. v, 23-25; Vulg, vi, 15- 19 with Sept, vi, 19 ; Vulg. vii, 18-20 with gept. vii, 29), sometimes less (comp. Vulg. vii, 9 sq., with Sept. vii, 8- 15; Vulg. V, 11 sq., with Sept. v, 17-22; Vulg. ix, 5-7, 11 sq., with Sept. ix, 7, 10). Sometimes the names are different (comp. i, 6, 8, 9 ; iv, 5 ; viii, 1), and sometimes the numbers (i, 2 ; ii, 1 ; vii, 2, etc.), A very minute col- lation of the variations between the Vulgate and the Sept. is given by Capelliis, Commentarii et Notce Criticm in V. T. (Amstel, 1689), p. 574, etc. ; and Eichhorn, Ein- leitung in die ajiokryphischen Sch riftm, p. 3 18, etc. There are also extant several Hebrew recensions of Judith. Three of these have been published by Jellinek in his Beth Ha-Midrash, vols, i and ii, Leipzig, 1853, and the one which comes nearest to the Greek and Latin ver- sions certainly removes all the difficulties against the historical character of the book contained in those ver- sions. They are called n^IDH^ 'CI-ITij r'^miT' Irr^a {Beth Ila-Midrash, i, 130-136), and ni'Tini n"ir"53 (ii, 12-22). Other Hebrew editions (ni^^n;' f^i^?.^) have been published at Berlin (1766, 8vo), Venice (s. a. 8vo), and Frankfort-on-the-]Main (cd. S., London, 1715, 8vo). Coverdale and the Bishops' Bible, following Luther and the Zurich Bible, have translated from the Vulgate, whilst the Geneva version, which is followed by the A. v., has a translation of the Greek text.
IV. Historical Character of the Book. — There are three theories about the nature of this book :
a. Up to the time of the Reformation, the view that this book records actual history was universall}' enter- tained among Christians. The difference of opinion which obtained during those fifteen centuries, and which still exists among the defenders of its historical charac- ter, is about the precise time when these events occur- red, involving as a necessary consequence the identifica- tion of the principal characters, etc. The limits of the range of time within which they have alternately been placed are B.C.784-A.D. 117. The most ancient opin- ion, however, is, that the circumstances here described occurred after the Babylonian captivity, which is sup- ported by the book itself (comp. iv, 3; v, 18, 19, Sept.; V, 22, 23, Vulg.). Still, as it does not tell who this Neb- uchadnezzar was, the advocates of this view have tried to identify him with every Persian monarch in succes- sion. Thus, St. Augustine (De Civ. Dei, xviii, 16), and others, take him to be Cambyses ; Julius Africanus and Georgius Syncellus regard him as Xerxes; Mercator, Estius, etc., make him to be Darius Ilystaspis ; whilst Sulpicius Severus and others identify him with Arta- xerxes Ochus (comp. Suidas, s. v. Judith ; Bellarmine, Z'e Verb. Dei,\,l2\ Scholz, Einleituny in die Heiligen Schrif-