Judith

Introduction to the Book of Judith

§ 1. Short Account of the Book.

THE Book of Fudith falls naturally into two parts: (1) The Introduction (caps. 1-7). War was proclaimed by Nebuchadnezzar against Media, and a summons was sent to Persia, Syria, and Egypt to join in the expedition. The remoter parts of the Empire, however, treated the order with contempt (i. 11), whereupon Nebuchadnezzar determined, after conquering Media (i. 13, 15), to take vengeance on Syria and Egypt. This task was entrusted to Holofernes, the commander-in-chief (ii. 4), with 120,000 infantry and 12,000 cavalry (mounted archers, ii. 1 5). He marched three days’ journey from Nineveh and encamped ‘at the left hand of upper Cilicia’, thence devastated ‘the hill country’, crossed the (upper) Euphrates as far as the coast, then turned south, ‘compassing’ the Midianites, to the plain of Damascus (ii. 27). After receiving the submission of Tyre and Sidon, Azotus and Ascalon, he went south to Esdraelon (iii. 9). The Jews, who were lately returned from the exile (iv. 3), resolved to resist, and Joakim the High Priest at Jerusalem sent instructions to Bethulia, which was near Esdraelon, to stop the passes leading to the capital (iv. 7). All Israel then fasted and prayed (iv. 9). Holofernes, hearing of the intended opposition, called a council of officers, when Achior the Ammonite gave a long account of Israelitish history (v. 5), pointing out that they could only be conquered if they had offended against their God (v. 20) and advising Holofernes to leave them alone. The advice was rejected, and Achior was handed over to the people of Bethulia (vi. 10), who received him in a friendly manner (vi. 20). Holofernes then moved his camp towards Bethulia, his army being now 170,000 infantry and 12,000 cavalry, besides accessories (vii. 2). It was decided to get possession of the water-supply at the foot of the mountain (vii. 7, 12) on which Bethulia stood, and thus to force the city to surrender, instead of risking a pitched battle. After thirty-four days, the stores of water within the city being exhausted (vii. 21), the people compelled Ozias and the leading men to agree to surrender in five days if no help came in the meantime (vii. 30).

(2) The story of Judith (caps. 8-16). This decision came to the ears of Judith (viii. 1, 9), the widow of Manasses, who lived in austere retirement (viii. 5, 6). She sent for the chief men (viii. 10), expostulated with them on their want of trust in God, and promised that she would herself effect their deliverance within the five days (viii. 33). They agreed to her project, without hearing the details, and departed (viii. 36). Judith then prepared for her plan by prayer (ix. 2). She put on her adornments, which had been laid aside since her husband’s death (x. 3), took with her a single maidservant with a bag of ‘clean’ food (x. 5), and went towards the Assyrian camp (x. 11). In an audience with Holofernes she informed him that what Achior had said was true (xi. 10), but that now the people had sinned by using first-fruits and tithes (xi. 13), and therefore God would deliver them up to their enemies (xi. 15). She would herself advise him when this was to take place (xi. 17). Holofernes, attracted by her appearance, invited her to his table (xii. 1), but she refused. She was allowed to go out of the camp every day to pray and bathe (xii. 6, 7). On the fourth day she consented to go to Holofernes’ feast (xii. 10, 14), but partook only of her own provisions (xii. 19). The critical moment arrived when the guests departed (xiii. 1) leaving Judith alone with Holofernes. His excitement had caused him to drink immoderately, and he now lay on his couch helpless (xiii. 2). Judith, calling on God for strength (xiii. 4), took his sword and with two blows cut off his head (xiii. 8), which she put in the bag (xiii. 10) carried by the servant who was waiting outside. The two went out of the camp as if to pray, as usual, and escaped to Bethulia (xiii. 10). They were received with enthusiasm by the citizens (xiii. 17), and Achior became a convert to Judaism (xiv. 10). A sortie was made (xiv. 11), and the Assyrians, thus surprised, tried to rouse their general (xiv. 13), but found him dead (xiv. 15). They fled in a panic (xv. 2), pursued northward past Damascus (xv. 5), while their deserted camp was sacked (xv. 6, 7). The High Priest Joakim came in person from Jerusalem to bless Judith (xv. 8).

Chapter 16 contains a hymn of praise by Judith. The book ends by relating that Judith dedicated to God her share of the plunder (xvi. 19), that she remained a widow till her death at the age of 105 years (xvi. 23), and that the land was at peace all her lifetime and for long after.

The book is thus almost equally divided between the introduction and the story proper. The former is no doubt somewhat out of proportion, and the author dwells at rather unnecessary length on the military details. In spite, however, of these defects of composition, the literary excellence of the work is universally recognized even through the uncomely disguise of the Greek translation. It was originally written in Hebrew (now lost) for Jewish readers, with the object of encouraging and edifying the people in a time of trial or persecution. In order to carry conviction the more, it aims at the appearance of being historical, in its use of well-known names and of precise details ‘but this historical character is only apparent. The author is concerned with theology rather than with history of which perhaps he had a not very exact knowledge, although he adopted this form as the most suitable for his purpose. He seems to have had in mind the time of Artaxerxes Ochus, with whose campaign in Syria many of the incidents agree, but it would be unsafe to assume that he is consciously depicting an episode in that campaign. The name and date of the author are alike unknown. He must have written at a time of oppression, such as the Jewish race often suffered, and various indications point to the second century B.C. as the most probable date. It is, however, possible that the author adopted an existing story or popular tradition, purposely confusing his historical allusions in order to disguise it.

§ 2. Title of the Book.

The title of the book in Greek is simply ᾿Ιουδείθ (or ᾿Ιουδήθ, or ᾿Ιουδίθ). In Hebrew it would have been מגלת, יהודית like מנלת אסתר and מגלת, אנטיוכוס or מעשה, יהודית derived from the name of the principal character. The name, of course, simply means ‘Jewess’, and hence Grotius, explaining the story allegorically, makes it represent the Jewish people. But apart from the fact that this method of interpretation is forced and unconvincing, there is no need to suppose that the name suggested this meaning. It is used personally in Gen. xxvi. 34 as belonging to the Hittite wife of Esau, where at any rate it cannot mean ‘Jewess’.

§ 3. MSS.

The Hebrew original (see § 5) being lost, the earliest form in which we have the book is that of the Greek translation, the only primary version existing. Of this there are three recensions: (1) the usual and no doubt the most original form, represented by the MSS. x, A and B (Swete’s text); (2) that contained in codd. 19, 108; (3) that of cod. 58, with which the Old Latin version (VL) and the Syriac (Syr) agree in a remarkable manner. All three recensions, however, represent the same version and go back to the same original. Their differences are due to corrections made not on a fresh comparison with the Hebrew, but subjectively by editors of the version, and though considerable, they concern the form rather than the matter. Such ‘corrections’ are most evident in the second and third classes of MSS., and vary even within the same class.

In the notes here added to the English (R.V.) variants are only mentioned where they materially affect the sense. §

§ 4. The Ancient Versions.

The Greek version, at least as contained in δὶ AB, is as a rule easily intelligible and probably a correct rendering of the original, but it is very hebraistic. From it were made the Syriac and the Old Latin, both of them fairly close and agreeing in general with cod. 58, as will be seen from the notes. VL is rough, often merely latinized hebraistic Greek, and sometimes misunderstands the Greek which it translates. The MSS., of which Sabatier used five for his text, have been much corrected, perhaps from different Greek MSS.,so that they vary considerably in minor details, though all derived from one text.

The Syriac version was first printed in Walton’s Polyglot. It was derived from two late MSS., now in the Bodleian Library, of which one, dated 1614, belonged to Pococke (MS. Poc. 391), and the other was copied for Ussher in 1627 (MS. Bodl. or. 141). With these a Cambridge MS. was collated and the variants are given (by Thorndyke) in vol. vi of the Polyglot. The version has been edited by Lagarde, in his Libri V. 7. apocryphi Syriace (Lipsiae, 1861), from a tenth-century Ms. in the British Museum (from the Nitrian collection) with a full apparatus criticus. The Museum possesses two other MSS.., of the twelfth and seventeenth century respectively.

A third version, the Vulgate, is of less value for textual purposes. Jerome’s own account of it, in his preface, is not altogether clear. He says that he found great variations in the MSS. (multorum codicum varietatem vitiosissimam amputavi’) and implies that he endeavoured to produce a consistent text by embodying in his work only what he found in the ‘Chaldee ᾿ The questions which naturally present themselves are, What were these divergent MSS. and what was the * Chaldee’ text? The MSS. cannot have been Greek, because the Vulgate differs from that version in important particulars 2 e.g. xiv. 5-7 comes at the end of xiii; i. 12"-16 and iv. 3 are omitted; iv. 13-15 is altered; additions are made after xiv. 12 and elsewhere; names and numbers often differ. In fact, if compared with the Greek, the Vulgate presents the appearance of a paraphrastic recension. On the other hand, apart from these material differences, it often follows VL closely even in diction (cf. cap. 16), and the resemblance throughout is sufficient to show that Jerome used MSS. of the VL, which he merely adapted and corrected, as he considered, by the help of his ‘Chaldee’ text. It is evident from his own remarks (‘huic unam lucubratiunculam dedi, magis sensum e sensu, quam ex verbo verbum transferens’) that he spent very little time or trouble on it, and for this reason its style is less like Jerome’s than the rest of the Vulgate.

As to the ‘Chaldee’ text, we have no other evidence. It will be remembered that he speaks in the same way of a Chaldee text of Tobit, and that an Aramaic recension of that book was actually found and published by Neubauer (Oxford, 1878). No such text of Judith is now known, but as Jerome’s statement is explicit with regard to both books, we have to inquire what the text was. Probably the answer is to be found in a sentence in the preface to Judith, ‘Chaldaeo tamen sermone conscriptus inter historias computatur.’ If Azstorzas represents מעשיות, he means that the story of Judith was regarded as a myyn, such as we find embodied in midrashim, or even composed separately for use on special occasions, Later forms of the story, in Hebrew (see § 8), were composed and so used, and in Neubauer’s midrashic MS. the story of Tobit is called as a matter of course מעשה. טוביה We may therefore conclude that Jerome, finding no Hebrew text of the book, used an Aramaic מעשה (historia) containing a free treatment, not a translation, of the story, derived probably from the Greck. He evidently attached more importance to it than to VL, since he included in his own work only what he found in the Chaldee, but in language he was naturally influenced by VL where the two coincide. Thus the Vulgate of Judith is a hurried version of an Aramaic midrash containing a free presentation of the story, rather than a translation of any given text. It omits about one-fifth of the book.

§ 5. Date of the Original, and of the Versions.

(a) The existing versions thus all go back, through the existing Greek, to the same original, their differences being due to alterations within the versions. It is now generally agreed (against earlier scholars such as Fabricius, Jahn, and Eichhorn) that this original was Semitic, and Hebrew rather than Aramaic. Indeed there can be no possibility of doubt if we consider the style of the Greek and the nature of some of the mistakes in it. The language is not merely that popular Greek which we now know from papyri of the early centuries A.D. to have been identical with the κοινὴ διάλεκτος Of the New Testament, even when independent of any Semitic idiom. The translation is so literal that it can be put back into Hebrew with ease, and in some cases becomes fully intelligible only when so re-translated. Moreover, the unusual Jack of particles shows that the writer was under the influence of a foreign idiom, while the constant recurrence of phrases uncommon in late Greek but frequent in Hebrew shows incontestably the language of the original. Such are e.g. ἀπὸ προσώπου = 290, εἰς πρόσωπον ταῦθ, the frequent use of σφόδρα = IND, ἐν = 3, and many more: see the notes on iv. 2, v. 12, 19, vii. 10, 28, xii. 4, xiii. 4, 8, 13, 16, xiv. 2,6, 11. The same conclusion is indicated by the confusion in the geographical names, due to uncertainty in the mind of the translator as well as to mistakes of copyists, so far as it is not intentional on the part of the author (see ᾧ 6). So also in other names, e. g- Achior no doubt = “אחיהוד, chosen as meaning ‘friend of the Jews’, with the common confusion of 3 and ".

Against this comparative certainty we have the express statement of Origen (ad Afric. 13), οὐδὲ τῇ ᾿Ιουδὴθ (χρῶνται) οὐδὲ yap ἔχουσιν αὐτὰ καὶ ἐν ἀποκρύφοις ἑβραιστί, ὡς ἀπ᾿ αὐτῶν μαθόντες ἐγνώκαμεν, as well as the fact that Jerome did not use a Hebrew text, which he certainly would have done if he had found one. It is possible that in the statement which Origen received from his Jewish informants, stress should be laid on χρῶνται rather than ἔχουσιν, and that it had fallen out of use and was not even included among the apocryphal books at the beginning of the third century. This must have been only temporary, since in 398 Jerome says ‘Apud Hebraeos liber Judith inter apocrypha legitur’. Jerome’s preface is all rather obscure, and it may be that he really means here to indicate a Hebrew text which he knew to exist but did not possess. In the very next sentence he speaks of the Chaldee which ‘inter historias computatur’, a degree lower than apocrypha, and seems to draw a distinction between them. No trace of the Hebrew original now survives.

The story is represented as taking place just after the return from the exile (iv. 3). The author does not, however, represent himself (as e.g. Daniel) as contemporary with the events recorded. In fact, he must have written much later. The return is far enough away to have become a sort of golden age, a time of simple happiness granted by God in consequence of the piety of the people. In this, as in its details, the description is wholly at variance with history (see § 6), either because the author did not know the facts, or because he was intentionally disguising them. He cannot have written as late as the first century A.D., for the book is quoted by Clement of Rome (1 Car. 55). Moreover, there is no allusion to the final destruction of the temple, nor even to the Roman occupation of Palestine. Jewish tradition connects the story with the time of the Maccabees, making Judith the daughter of Johanan or Mattathia (Zunz, Gottesd. Vortrage, and ed., p. 131), and this date agrees on the whole best with the author's point of view (see ᾧ 9)ς. We must, however, be careful to distinguish between the date of composition and the real or supposed date of the events related (see § 6). The author evidently puts back into his post-exilic story the state of things under which he himself lived. There was no king, but the whole people is united under the High Priest (Joakim) governing with the γερουσία or Sanhedrim. The object of the book, too, is clearly to encourage the nation to resist the enemies of their religion and country even under the most desperate circumstances, and presupposes a time of great political or religious emergency. These several points, as well as the definitely Pharisaic theology, most naturally indicate an author living towards the middle of the second century B.C. Such is the view of Schurer, Hilgenfeld, and Noldeke. (Cf. also Chajes in Festschrift . Harkavy, p. 105 Heb., who finds a number of parallels with the books of the Maccabees.) Ball proposes a date about 79-70 B.C., and argues with great ingenuity that Judith is modelled on Salome, successively wife of Aristobulus and Jannai, but this seems less probable than the earlier date.

The fact that the book is not mentioned by Josephus or Philo or in the New Testament proves nothing. Josephus does not refer to Job, besides other books, and Philo does not notice any of the Apocrypha.

(2) The versions can only be approximately dated. The earliest reference to the book, and no doubt to the Greek version of it, is by Clement of Rome (I Cur. 55. 4 and 5) about go A.D. He alludes to the story as if it were well known to his Greek readers, very much in the same way as he goes on to speak of Esther. Allowing some time for the original book to become established before it was translated, and some time for the translation to become known, we should probably date the Greek not later than the beginning of the first century A. D.

The VL was made from the Greek, and as in Jerome’s time (see § 4) it was already very corrupt, it must have been a long time in existence. The Syriac, which agrees closely with it, was possibly made about the same time from the same Greek text, for the use of oriental Christians. Fritzsche surmises vaguely that both were made between the first and third centuries A. b., and we have no means of dating them more precisely.

§ 6. Integrity of the Text; its Historical Framework.

It has been suggested that the story is founded on a popular tradition, true or imaginary. Reuss thought that the Song in cap. 16 was an early composition, like the song of Deborah, and that the story was built upon it. It is certainly remarkable that in xvi. 10 Persians and Medes, not Assyrians, are mentioned. There can be no doubt that Judith belongs to the family of Jael, Esther, and Joan of Arc. Such a theme appeals strongly to popular imagination, and even if based on fact, easily tends to be overlaid with fiction. Whatever may be the truth, the work, as we have it, is a consistent whole, and, with the possible exception of the song, shows no signs of being by more than one hand.

What then is the period which the author is proposing to describe, and how far is it in agreement with history? The question has been very variously answered. Attempts have been made to identify the Nebuchadnezzar of the story with Assurbanipal, Xerxes I, Artaxerxes Ochus, Antiochus Epiphanes: Arphaxad with Deioces or Phraortes. Without discussing these theories in detail, it may be said at once that none of them is consistent without a good deal of forcing. The historical Nebuchadnezzar did not reign at Nineveh (i. 1): he died in 562, and the return from the exile was not till about 536. He did not make war on Media (i. 7) nor capture Ecbatana. Nor do the annals of Assurbanipal, though they are very full, record anything of the kind, while Media had ceased to be a power before the time of the other kings whom it has been proposed to identify with Nebuchadnezzar. At the time of the Return, the Babylonian empire had passed to the Persians. They were not likely to send a punitive expedition against the Jews, who were not then in a position to offer any resistance. Moreover, Arphaxad is not the name of any Median king mentioned by Herodotus, and the fortifications of Ecbatana were not built by him but by Deioces (Hdt. i. 98): (H)olofernes (= Orofernes) and Bagoas, if they are historical names, are Persian, and belong to the time of Artaxerxes Ochus (see below). Again, there was no king in Israel, but the people was ruled by the High Priest Joakim (iv. 6, 8, 14, xv. 8) and a Sanhedrim (iv. 8, xv. 8). It has been suggested that this points to the reign of Manasseh when he was a prisoner in Babylon, or to the minority of Josiah. Either explanation is improbable. If a High Priest was acting for the king, so unusual a situation would have to be explained, whereas it is taken for granted, and also it is inconsistent with the references to the exile (iv. 3, v. 18). The suggestion that Joakim (Eliachim in the Vulgate) is the same as the Eliakim of 2 Kings xviii. 18, and that he may have survived as High Priest under Manasseh, is not supported by the list of High Priests. In fact the author clearly intends to put his story at the time of the Return, but makes no attempt to fill in the picture consistently. If it is to be made consistent, this can only be done by explaining the names as pseudonyms disguising really historical persons. This is the view taken by Ball, and it must be admitted that he finds some remarkable coincidences, on the assumption that Nebuchadnezzar is Antiochus Epiphanes, the Assyrians are Syrians, Nineveh is Antioch, and Arphaxad is Arsaces of Persia (= Media), against whom Antiochus made an expedition. But if the book is historical fictzov, as it seems to be, we need not expect to explain all its statements. The writer selected such incidents as suited his purpose, without troubling about historical accuracy. The framework of the story was most probably suggested (so Schürer and others) by the campaign of Artaxerxes Ochus against Phoenicia and Egypt (about 350 B.C.). One of his generals was Holofernes, brother of the king of Cappadocia 5 eo ane ae aT (Diod. Sic. xxxi. 19), who was sent against Egypt, though it is expressly stated that he died in his own country, and a certain Bagoas was his most trusted servant (Diod. Sic. xvi. 47). Sidon surrendered to the Persians (cf. Judith ii. 28 seq.), and the army then marched south towards Egypt, passing, no doubt, through Esdraelon (111. 9). If any incident occurred in the campaign similar to that related here, we have no other record of it. The details are not meant to be historical. Nebuchadnezzar is introduced as the typical arch-enemy of Judaea: the time of the Return is chosen as being far away and little known, and the author is guilty of a further anachronism by describing his characters under the conditions of his own day. In the song (xvi. 10), if that is by the author of the rest, the mention of Persians seems to show that he was really thinking of the campaign of Artaxerxes Ochus. He also affects archaic names and allusions: hence with Nebuchadnezzar’s army he includes princes of Moab and captains of Ammon (v. 2), the traditional enemies of Israel, who were in place, c.g. in 2 Kings xxiv. 2, but can surely not have been important in 150 or even 350 B.C. Similarly Midian (ii. 26) and Esau (vii. 8) are archaistic for Arabs and Idumaeans.

Such being the method of the book, we need not expect to identify all the geographical any more than the personal names. Bethulia, the scene of the story, is very like Shechem, and, if the author was thinking of Shechem, that may account for his using the name Βετυλούα = בית, אלוה since the Samaritans call Mt. Gerizim בית. אל It also fits the story, as a place of first-rate strategic importance, far better than Sated or Bait Ilfa, which have also been proposed. With regard to the other place-names, there is evidently a good deal of corruption either in the original or in the versions, or both. Many of them are too much distorted to be recognizable, but they may conceal actual sites, known or unknown. They can hardly be purely imaginary. Torrey (AOS, 1899, pp- 160 sqq. and //orilegium .. de Vogiié, p. 599) shows that, taking Bethulia to be Shechem, the other places agree, so far as they can be identified. See further on iv. 6.

§ 7. The Author of the Book.

As to the anonymous author there is no tradition. From his writing in Hebrew and from his detailed references to the geography of the Holy Land, it may be inferred that he was a Palestinian Jew. From his theological views (§ 9) it seems that he belonged to the Pharisaic party. He was a man of some literary skill. The story is well told, and apart from a certain tendency to exaggerate the magnitude of the military operations, the style is restrained and straightforward, without unnecessary elaboration. He was also well acquainted with the literature of his people, for, while his descriptions have vigour and originality, the book is full of reminiscences of the Old Testament, c.g. with the story of Achior in caps. 5, 6, cf. that of Micaiah in 1 Kings 22; with viii. 3 cf. 2 Kings iv. 18 seq.; viii. 16 is a quotation from Num. xxiii. Ig; ix. 7, xvi. 3 from Exod. xv. 3; xiii. 18 from Gen. xiv. 19, 20. The fact that the quotations agree with the LAX rather than with the Hebrew text may be merely due to the translator. The author apparently knew some of the latest of the O. T. books (Esther and Daniel), and in v. 6-8 draws upon some midrashic source for the story of Abraham.

§ 8. Later Use of the Book.

(2) Although the Book of Judith was not received by the Jews, the story was well known to them, at least in the middle ages. It is mentioned in the liturgy for Hanukka (the feast of the Dedication of the temple, instituted by Judas Maccabaeus on Chisleu 25), and appears in various Hebrew forms among the minor midrashim (see Zunz, Gottesd. Vortrdge, ed. 2, p. 131). A short recension of it is edited by Jellinek in his Set ha-Midrasch, i, Ρ- 130, a longer text, 2014. p. 132, and another, zdzd. ii, p. 12. Three more forms of the story are found in MSS. of the Bodleian Library. See also Gaster in PSBA, xvi, p. 156. <A text translated from the Vulgate, and agreeing with that of two Bodleian MSS. (Heb. d. 11 f. 259 and MS. Opp. 712 f. 164), was published at Venice about 1651, under the title of -מעשה. יהודית None of these is in any sense a translation of the Greek, still less the original form of the book. They are free sketches of a well-known story, set down from memory, like other מעשיות, in more or less detail according to the taste of the writer. They are usually short, and of no great antiquity. In the MSS. they are generally headed ‘for Hanukka’, Hebrew translations of the Greek were published by Meir b. Ascher at Berlin in 1766, by Benseb at Vienna in 1819, and by Frankel at Leipzig in 1830 (with other apocrypha). A Judaeo-German translation by 5. Landau appeared at Frankfurt a. M. in 1715. A Persian version exists in a Bodleian MS. (Hyde 19). It is anonymous, but is made from the Vulgate, and the MS. was probably written about 1600.

(2) In the Church it was well known from the Greek (and Latin) translations, and was often quoted, not as canonical but as edifying, e.g. by Clement of Rome, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Tertullian, Ambrose, Augustine (see Fritzsche, Einleitung, § § 9), thus gradually acquiring a quasi-canonical recognition. On the use of the book in mediaeval times, see Pentin, Fé’, London, 1908.

After the Council of Trent, the Protestants, though rejecting it from the canon, maintained the early view that it was good for edifying, and used it largely in preaching. It was never admitted to the English Church lectionary.

§ 9. Theology of the Book.

The theology of the book is strongly Pharisaic. The story is clearly intended for edification, to encourage the people in some time of trial, and to point out the true way to deliverance by showing that Israel’s troubles are due to sin (v. 17, 18, xi. 10), that salvation comes through trust in God and obedience to Him, and that God uses the weak things to confound the strong (ix. 10 and frequently). But obedience to God, which is righteousness, consists in the strict observance of the Law. Judith is strong because of her consciousness of keeping the Law (xvi. 16). She observes not only the pentateuchal feasts of the Sabbath and New Moon, but also the eves of them (viii. 6), as required by the later teaching. She not only abstained from forbidden food, but she fasted continually, and underwent further mortification (viii. 5,6) although she was rich. She is thus a perfect type of Pharisaic righteousness. She even dilates on these doctrines to Holofernes (cap. 11), laying stress on the sureness of punishment which would follow on such sins as the eating of forbidden things and the using of tithes and first-fruits by the citizens of Bethulia in their extremity. For even in the most desperate case God will find a means of deliverance for His faithful people and will punish the oppressor. This punishment is inflicted not only in the present life. There will be a day of judgement (apparently after death) when the wicked will be condemned to torment by fire and worms for ever (xvi. 17).

The objection which has been made to Judith’s deceit (xi. 5) and approval of violence scarcely deserves notice. It could only be made in complete ignorance of the spirit of the time, and shows an utter inability to appreciate the position of a people struggling against overwhelming odds for their religion and their very existence.

By A. E. Cowley