tains. In the mean time all the Jews fast, and implore help from GOD, c. iv. Holofernes, wondering at their unusual boldness, inquires of his captains, who this people was. Achior, leader of the Ammonites, in reply, gives a brief history of the Hebrews, in which he shows, that so long as they continued faithful to their God they were invincible, and dissuades Holofernes from undertaking a war with them, unless he is well assured that they have apostatized from their God, c. v. Holofernes, enraged at his unwelcome counsel, orders him to be given up to the inhabitants of Bethulia, that he may undergo the same fate with them, c. vi.—The next day having occupied the passes of the mountains of Bethulia, he intercepts their supplies of water, in order to oblige the city to surrender. After thirty-four days the inhabitants are reduced to such extremities that they resolve to yield, unless some aid should arrive within five days, c. vii. Upon hearing this, Judith, a rich and beautiful widow, calls the governor and senate of the city, and having upbraided them for their design of surrendering, asks them to have the gate opened for her at evening. Her request being complied with, she goes out clothed in the most splendid manner, and accompanied by her maid Abra or Habra carrying provisions, to Holofernes. She pretends to be a deserter, and informs him that the Hebrews could not, indeed, be conquered while they continued faithful to their GoD, but that they were now about to convert to their own use the tithes which were sacred to the use of his priests, and in this way to sin against him; and that for this reason she had left the city, foreseeing its approaching ruin. She adds, that she would remain with him in the camp, if he would allow her to go out at night and offer her prayers to God, and that she would point out to him the time when the Hebrews, having apostatized from their GoD, might be conquered, and would be his guide even to Jerusalem, c. vii-xi. This gratifies Holofernes, and Judith is well received. But on the fourth day, being left alone with Holofernes when he is drunk, she cuts off his head while asleep, and giving it to her maid Abra to carry in her bag, leaves the camp as she had been accustomed to do, for the purpose of prayer, but returns to Bethulia, where she displays the head of Holofernes to the governor and the people. In the morning the besieged make a sally, and the enemy, deprived of their general, are

put to flight. The rejoicings of all the Jews and the song of victory of Judith, with an account of the remainder of her life, and of her honourable sepulture, conclude the book, c. xii-xvi.

§ 244. Difficulties of the Book of Judith.

Inextricable difficulties in geography, chronology, and history, pervade the whole of this book. For the sake of brevity we will only undertake to show that there is no period of time in which all the things related in the book could have taken place.

I. Not before the captivity; for in c. iv. 3. v. 18. s. and in the Vulgate in v. 22. s. the return from the captivity is expressly mentioned. Nor can the silence respecting any king of the Hebrews, and the administration of the government by the high priest and the elders, be reconciled with a date antecedent to the captivity. It cannot be said that this is accounted for by supposing Manasseh, king of Judah, to have been a captive in Babylon; for at that time neither Arphaxad, king of Media, nor Nebuchadnezzar, were in existence, nor was Nineveh standing, as it had been destroyed by Nabopolassar, father of Nebuchadnezzar. Besides, it could not have been said then, as Judith says, that none of the people worshipped idols; nor could a general of Nebuchadnezzar who had carried away the Jews, find Jews in Palestine and be ignorant who they were. [a]-It appears to me, that the author of the book has confounded Nebuchadnezzar with Neriglissar, who, when he was preparing an expedition against the Medes, invited the Lydians, Phrygians, Carians, Cappadocians, Cilicians, Paphlagonians, and other neighbouring nations, to join in But he did not conquer the Medes, but was slain by Cyrus comp. Archæol. P. II. T. I. § 47. S. 216.

the war.

II. Nor is there any space of time subsequent to the return from the Babylonian captivity in which this history may be placed. For the Hebrews were 207 years subject to the Persians, then to Alexander, to the Ptolemies, the kings of Egypt, and last of all to the kings of Syria, till they recovered their liberty. If any thing like the matter of this history had happened it must have been in the age of Antiochus Epiphanes. But this is at variance with the statement that the Hebrews had had their temple destroyed, and had been carried captive, but now, having returned only a short time before, had restored

the temple and worship of GOD. Moreover no age in all this period witnessed an Arphaxad king of Media, or a Nebuchadnezzar king of Nineveh. This last place did not even exist; for it had been destroyed by Nabopolassar, 625 B. C., and was never afterward rebuilt, as HERODOTUS, I. 106, STRABO, p. 737, EUSEBIUS, Chronicon, p. 124, and SYNCELLUS, p. 218, unanimously testify.

[a) PRIDEAUX, Connexions, Book I. sub anno 655, Vol. I. pp. 35—43, is inclined to consider the book of Judith as a true history, with some amplifications and exaggerations, such as xvi. 23, 25. He places it in the forty-third year of Manasseh, which was the twelfth of Saosduchinus, king of Assyria, and the last of Dejoces, king of the Medes. He notices most of the objections, but confesses that they hardly admit of answers. Tr.]

§ 245.

Solution of the Difficulties in the Book of Judith.

From what has been said it appears how strongly they are armed who impugn the historical truth of this narrative and contend that the book contains a parable, which teaches that the Hebrews as long as they remained faithful to GOD might expect deliverance even in the utmost extremity of danger.[a]-Some, however, think that at least the principal points of the history are true.[b] They bring no arguments in favour of their opinion, it is true, except the single one that every thing is told in a historic style: yet it might be urged that the genealogy in viii. 1. would be entirely useless in a parable. They who think that the entire narrative is a true history, either do not notice the difficulties at all, or touch them very slightly, or at least do not give them all their force, in order to avoid them with the more facility. Yet after all they confess that they cannot extricate themselves from all. Du PIN, Proleg. L. I. c. iii. § 8. p, 86. ss. [On the Canon, p. 92. s.] HUET, Demonst. Evang. Prop. IV. p. 231. ss. LAMY, Apparat. Bibl. p. 337.

[a) GROTIUS, Præf. in lib. Judith, considers it as an extended allegory. See PRIDEAUX, Conn. ubi supra, and DE WETTE, Einleit. 307. anm. a).- -BUDDAEUS, Ecc. Hist. V. T. p. 618., after LUTHER; SEMLER, Abhandlungen von freyer Untersuchung des Kanons, III. Th. S. 120. ff.;

BERTHOLDT, S. 2550. ff., and DE WETTE, ubi supra, are of opinion that the book is a political and moral fiction. Tr.]

[b) So SandrueCHLER, Erläuterungen der biblischen Geschichte, I. Th. S. 369-383.]

§ 246. Age of the Book of Judith.

The author of the book is unknown; it merely appears from the narrative, that he wrote in the age of the Maccabees,[a] in order to inspire the Jews with courage to resist the Syrians. The practice observed throughout the work, of making set speeches in the Grecian style, agrees with that period, and proves that the author lived at a time when, as was the case in that of the Maccabees, the Hebrews were acquainted with Grecian literature. Besides, c. viii. 6., the προσαββατον and προνομήνιον are mentioned, both of which belong to a modern age. The circumcision of Achior is not indeed at variance with an ancient date, but it suits a modern one better.

[a) BERTHOLDT, S. 2564, places it as low as the time of the war with the Romans. DE WETTE, Einleit. 307. anm. c), considers it impossible to fix the date of the book. Tr.]

§ 247. Language of the Book of Judith.

The imitation of the Grecian practice of introducing orations into the history renders it probable, that the author used the Greek language. This is confirmed by the fact that there are no instances of readings, the origin of which must necessarily be traced to the Hebrew or Chaldee. Origen, moreover, declares in his epistle to Africanus, that nothing had ever been heard of any Hebrew text. Jerome, it is true, had a Chaldee copy, but there is no proof that it was not a translation from the Greek.

JEROME, Præf. in Judith, writes thus: "The book of Judith is reckoned by the Hebrews among the hagiographa, the authority of which they deem insufficient to decide any controverted points. Yet being written in the Chaldee language they consider it as one of their histories. But as we read that this book was reckoned by the

Nicene Council in the number of the Sacred Scriptures,[a] I have acquiesced in your request, or rather demand, and laying aside my other occupations, with which I was greatly pressed, I have devoted one evening to this translation, rather rendering sense for sense, than word for word. The very corrupt various readings which occur in many manuscripts I have left out, translating into Latin only that which I found in a complete sense in the Chaldee text." The version thus made is that of the Vulgate. Jerome having acquired only a very imperfect knowledge of Chaldee, at an advanced age, as he himself acknowledges, Præf. in Dan., must certainly have made use of a Jewish interpreter, or else he only occasionally compared the Chaldee with the Greek text. His version differs considerably from the Greek, a circumstance which perhaps arose from the simultaneous use of the Greek and Chaldee texts, and is alluded to by Jerome when he speaks of having left out the corrupt various readings of manuscripts.There is extant another older Latin version made from the Greek text, yet constantly differing from it; which fact confirms the statement of Jerome, that there existed a corrupt variety in the manuscripts.. Some have thought that this version has been mixed along with that of Jerome.[b]The Syriac version is of an unknown age, but follows the Greek more closely than the others, so that there can be no doubt that it was made from that text.

(a) It is worthy of remark that no such admission is found in the Acts of that council, no mention of the Book of Judith occurring in them.] [6) This opinion is advanced by Jahn himself in his German work, where he supposes the mixture to have been made during the middle ages. Tr.]