Judith

JUDITH, of the tribe of Reuben, daughter of Merari, and the widow of Manasseh, has made herself celebrated for the deliverance of Bethulia besieged by Holofernes. See what we have already said in the article Holofernes, and in that of Bethulia. Judith after she became a widow, Judith viii. 4, 5, 6, &c.made a private chamber for herself upon the top of her house, where she remained shut up with the young woman who attended her. She put on sackcloth upon her loins, she fasted every day of her life, except the Sabbath, and other festival days observed by her nation. She was of an uncommon beauty, and her husband left her great riches, a great number of servants, and a great estate in lands, upon which she had numerous flocks of sheep, and herds of oxen. She was very much esteemed by all the world for her piety and virtue, and no one said the least thing to her disadvantage.

Being informed that Ozias, who was the first man in the city Bethulia, had promised to deliver it up within five days to Holofernes, she sent for Chabris and Carmis, elders of the people, and said to them, has Ozias then consented to surrender the city to the Assyrians unless we are relieved in five days! And now who are you that have tempted God this day? This is not the way to obtain his mercy, but rather to stir up his wrath, and inflame his anger. But let us now have recourse to the clemency of the Lord, let us humble ourselves before him; let us acknowledge that we are intirely his, and wait with patience the effects of his mercy. She added, I exhort you to pray, and recommend all these things to the Lord. For my part, I have resolved to depart this night out of the city with my maidservant; you shall stand at the city gate, you shall open it and let me go, without enquiring after my design, and in some days, I will come my self with an account of what I have been doing. They took their leave of her, and departed.

Judith ix. 1, 2, 3, &c.Judith after this, went into her closet; and being covered with sackcloth she put ashes upon her head, and prostrating herself before the Lord, she prayed, begging of God that he would please to humble Holofernes, and the other enemies of Israel, protect his people from the danger which threatned them, and give her charms sufficient to affect Holofernes, constancy enough to despise him, and fortitude enough to destroy Judith x. 1, 2, &c.him. When she had finished her prayer she got up, came down from the plat -form into her house, then she took off her sackcloth, laid aside her widows weeds, washed, perfumed, and combed herself, put on a fine suit of head clothes, dressed herself in a very rich habit, put on sandals of great value, bracelets, pendants to her ears, and rings. In short, she set herself out in all her ornaments; and God still farther encreased her beauty, that she might appear in the eyes of all with an incomparable lustre. She loaded her maid with provisions necessary for the journey, and went with her to the city gate, where Ozias and the elders waited for her. They opened the gates for her without asking any questions, being satisfied with wishing success to her journey, and good resolution.

As she came down from the mountain, the advanced guards of the Assyrians met her; and having asked her whither she was going? she said to them, I am fled from Bethulia, knowing very well that you must soon take and pillage the city, and I am now come in order to discover all the secrets of the Jews to Prince Holofernes, and to put him in a way of taking the town, without costing him so much as one man. They carried her therefore to Holofernes’s tent. As soon as this General saw her, he was captivated; and his officers said, certainly the Hebrews are not so contemptible a people, since Judith xi. 1, 2, 3, &c.they have such beautiful women. It is very well worth making war with them, if it were only to get possession of such lovely slaves. Judith fell prostrate at the feet of Holofernes, who ordering her to be raised by his people, said to her, Be of good courage, and fear not, for I never did any prejudice to any one who was willing to submit voluntarily to King Nebuchadnezzar. But tell me what at present induced you to come to me.

Judith answered him, that she had fled from the Hebrews, first, because she knew that God being provoked by their sins, was resolved to abandon them to their enemies; and secondly, because, as they were reduced to the last extremity, she thought she could not any way provide with more certainty for her own preservation, nor do him a greater service in the present conjuncture, than to inform him of the state of these things. Holofernes replied, God hath favoured us in a particular manner, by thus sending you to us. If your God should make me master of the whole nation of the Hebrews, as you encourage me to hope; he shall likewise be my God, and you shall have great honours confer’d on you in the house of Nebuchadnezzar, and will be famous over all the earth. Then he commanded her to be conducted to the place, where his treasures were, and that she should be served from his own table. But Judith entreated him, that she might eat no other provisions than such as she had brought, lest she should be polluted by eating any strange food. She desired likewise, as they went into the apartment appointed for her, that she might have the liberty of going out in the night, and before it was day, in order to perform her devotions, which was allowed her.

lived four days in this manner, without being at all distrusted when she was seen to go out of the camp, and to return again after having washed herself in a fountain, and prayed.

Judith xiii. 1, 2, 3.But on the fourth day, Holofernes sent Bagoas his eunuch to invite her to pass the night with him, with a design to spend it in eating, drinking, and diverting himself. Judith went decked with all her ornaments. She eat and drank not from Holofernes’s table, but what her maid had prepared for her; and Holofernes was so transported with joy at the sight of her, that he drank more wine than he had ever done at any entertainment in his life. The evening being come, his servants returned in haste, every man to his own house; and Bagoas shut the chamber doors and departed. Judith was left alone there with her maid, and Holofernes with excess of wine slept very soundly. Judith therefore appointed her maid to stand without and watch, and at the same time having put up her prayer to God, she took down Holofernes’s sabre, which hung upon a pillar at his bed’s head, and having drawn it out of the scabbard, she seized him by the hair of the head, and said, strengthen me this day, O Lord. Then she struck him twice upon the neck, cut off his head, wrapt him up in the curtains of the bed, gave Holofernes’s head to her maid, and directed her to put it in her bag. After which they both went out according to their custom, as if they were going to pray without the camp.

Judith xiv.As soon as they came to the city gate, Judith cried aloud, Open the gates, for God is with us, and hath signalized his power in Israel. They accordingly opened them, and the whole city got about her. She placed herself upon an eminence, shewed them the head of Holofernes, and told them in few words what she had done. Achior was sent for, to whom also they shewed the head of Holofernes. At length Judith spoke to the elders, and all the people, in these terms: Hang this head upon the walls, and as soon as the sun rises, let every one arm himself, and sally out with great noise, but do not descend so low as the bottom of the mountain, make a shew only as if you intended to attack the enemy. Then it will be necessary for the guards to wake the general, and when they find him headless, and bathed all over in his blood, they will be in a consternation, and betake themselves to flight. This is the time for you to march boldly against them; for the Lord will deliver them into your hands.

Judith xvi.This advice was followed, and the thing happened as Judith had foretold. As soon as the Assyrians knew that Holofernes was killed, they thought of nothing else but flying; and the Hebrews with loud cries pursued them. At the same time Ozias sent to all the cities of Israel, to inform them of what had passed, that they might fall upon the Assyrians from all quarters. The defeat was extraordinary, and the whole country was enriched with the spoils which were taken upon this occasion. The High-Priest Jehoiakim came from Jerusalem to Bethulia, to compliment Judith upon the victory, which she had procured for Israel. Every thing which they thought belonged to Holofernes they gathered together, his clothes, gold, silver and precious stones, and gave them to Judith. Hereupon this pious widow sung an hymn to the honour of God, as a thanksgiving to him, who was the author of these blessings; and taking all the arms of Holofernes, which the people had presented to her, and the curtain of his bed, she consecrated all of them to the Lord, as a monument of so great a benefit. The name of Judith became afterwards very celebrated in Israel. Upon feast days she appeared in publick with great glory, and after having dwelt an hundred and five years in her husband’s house at Bethulia, and made her maid free, she died, and was buried with her husband at Bethulia; and all the people lamented her seven days. The day on which this victory was obtained, was placed by the Hebrews among their festivals. Several learned men are of opinion, that there is no other festival to be met with in commemoration of Judith’s victory, beside that which is celebrated for the dedication or renovation of the Temple by Judas Maccabæus on the 25th of Casleu. Leo of Modena, and the Jewish calendar published by Sigonius, Grot. Cornel. á Lapide, Bellarmin. Salian. Torniel. Part iii. c. 9. Sigon. l. iii. c. 17. de Repub. Hebr.place it on this day.

The greatest difficulty proposed relating to the Book of Judith, consists in fixing the time wherein the history which it includes, was transacted. The Greek and Syriac seem to prove, that it was after the Jews returned from the captivity of Babylon. The Latin text of the Vulgate may be explained, as refering to the time preceding this captivity: both one and the other labour under great difficulties, in what manner soever we understand it, and in what time soever we place the period of this history. We shall here give a short account of the two systems or opinions, one whereof maintains, that the history of Judith passed before; the other, not till after the captivity. These two opinions are farther subdivided and diversified in a manner which we shall not particularly examine; for this would take up too long and too nice an enquiry.

To remove all difficulties, and answer perfectly all objections which may be formed against this story, seems impossible, what side of the question soever we take, and what system soever we follow. Neither sacred nor profane history, in the time of Manasseh or in that of Zedekiah, either before or after the captivity, say any thing of a King of Niniveh named Nebuchadonozor, who in the twelfth and seventeenth year of his reign conquered a King of the Medes called Arphaxad. It would be very hard to find at this particular time an High Priest of the Jews, whose name was Joachim or Eliakim. Lastly, we should always meet with almost invincible difficulties, whenever we would reconcile the Greek text and the Syriac with the Latin of S. Jerom, and would scan every thing relating to the Geography and other circumstances of this recital. Nor would there be, perhaps, less, were we to adhere only to the Vulgate, and reject the Greek, Syriac, and old Italick Versions.

This is not the only history wherein we meet with difficulties, whether in proper names, dates, or other particulars. It is very usual in the Histories of the East, to find one and the same Prince described under different names in profane and sacred Authors, in Greek and Hebrew Writers, and even in the historians of the country. The learned do not think this at all strange. Thus whether Nabuchodonozor in Judith be called Saosduchinus, or Cambyses, or Xerxes, no one ought to be surprized, no more than to see the name of Phraartes, or any other name of a Median King, to be met with in Herodotus, or any other Greek historian, given to Arphaxad. We reckon therefore these difficulties as resolved already, supposing the name to be the only thing in question.

There is another thing of more consequence to be cleared up, before we proceed farther in this matter, and this is, to know what text to stick to; the Greek or Latin; for as to the Syriac, no one doubts but it was taken from the Greek, and I confess sincerely, that if I were to read the Greek only, I should believe that the story of Judith was translated and written after the captivity; but if we follow the Latin, it may be placed before the Babylonish captivity. The question is therefore, which of the two texts should have the preference. The Greek text is very antient, some suppose it to be Theodotion’s who lived under Commodus, who did not begin to reign till the year of Jesus Christ 180: but it is of greater antiquity; for it is cited by Clemens Romanus in his epistle to the Corinthians, written above an hundred and twenty years before. The Syriac is likewise very antient, and translated from some Greek text more correct than that we have at present, but the same as to substance.

The Latin Italick version, or the old Vulgate, is made likewise from the Greek; but it is very defective. S. Jerom’s Vulgate, which the Church has acknowledged for authentick, was translated from a Chaldee text, which S. Jerom took to be the genuine original of Judith. He undertook this translation at the request of Paula and Eustochium, but he leaves us matter for dispute, and much perplexity, when he says in his preface, that he rendred the sense without Hieron. Præfat. in Judith.adhering to the letter, and that he suppressed the faulty variations which were to be found in different copies. Magis sensum è sensu, quam ex verbo verbum transferens, multorum codicum varietatem vitiosissimam amputavi, sola ea, quæ intelligentiâ integrâ in verbis Chaldæis

VOL. I. in venire potui, Latinis expressi. S. Jerom without doubt had no great quantity of Chaldee copies; it was not there that he suppressed the faulty variations, but in Latin copies, and he left nothing in his translation but what he found intelligible in the Chaldee. He had therefore the old Latin version before him; from this he pared off what was superfluous, and left all that he found agreeing with the Chaldee; in all probability he added likewise what was wanting; so that his version is rather a reform of the old, than a translation altogether new; and in reality we still observe some words in it, which are taken from the old Italick, and are not borrowed from the Greek: for example; Unxit se myro optimo, Judith x. 3. She anointed herself with excellent perfume: and in ch. ix. 13. Percuties eum labiis charitatis meæ. Thou shalt wound him with the lips of my love; instead of labiis fallaciæ meæ, with the discourses wherewith I shall endeavour to deceive him. Judith. Grec. ix. 13The ambgiuity proceeds from the Greek, which reads apates, deceit, instead of agapes, love, as he read it, whose translation S. Jerom had before him.

And as in these translations, which are made with some latitude and without keeping strictly to the original, the only care of the Translators seem’d to be to express the sense, and make their Author intelligible, they sometimes use more liberty than ordinary, and sometimes lay themselves under greater restraints; it were to be wished, either that S. Jerom in the book of Judith had followed the same method which he observed in his other translations, that is to say, that he had kept literally to his text, or that he had apprized us, how far he had carried the liberty taken by him in his version, wherein he is contented, Magis sensum è sensu, quam ex verbo verbum transferre; for who ever told us that he suppressed nothing in the Chaldee, or left nothing in the vulgate, which ought to be expunged out of it? As the Chaldee text which S. Jerom had, has not been delivered down to us, we can make no certain judgment of it; and after all, what certain assurance have we, that this text was the original of the Book of Judith? If this were the first original, it would be a strong prejudice in favour of the opinion, which places this history after the captivity of Babylon; for before this time the Jews did not write in Chaldee.

They who maintain, that the History of Judith contains what passed before the captivity of Babylon, and in Manasseh’s time, believe it sufficient to demonstrate, that there is nothing in the history repugnant to this assertion. Now supposing the

II A Nabu- Nabuchodonozor in Judith to be the same as Saosduchinus in Ptolemy, who reigned over the Assyrians and Chaldeans, and succeeded Ezerhaddon King of Assyria; that Arphaxad is the same as Phraartes mentioned in Herodotus; that these two Princes made war with one another in the twelfth year of Saosduchinus; that Arphaxad being overcome, Saosduchinus resolved to subdue all the people, spoken of in Judith, under his dominion; that to this purpose he sent Holofernes at the head of his armies, to reduce those by force who refused to acknowledge him for Sovereign. That at this time Manasseh, who had been a little before delivered from captivity, into which he had been carried to Babylon, dwelt at Jerusalem, concerning himself little with the government, and not daring to declare openly against the Chaldæans, whose power and indignation he had so lately felt, and leaving the care of affairs for the most part to Joachim or Eliakim the High Priest. That the inhabitants of Bethulia resolved with God’s assistance to preserve their liberty and Religion, and shut their gates against Holofernes; that Judith seeing the extremities the city was reduced to, undertook to destroy Holofernes, in which design she succeeded, as may be seen in the book that bears her name.

Now supposing all this, I say, there is nothing in it against the laws of History, or contrary to Chronology. The war between Nabuchodonozor and Arphaxad, we place in the year 3347, the expedition and death of Holofernes both in the same year 3348. Manasseh was taken and carried to Babylon in 3329. He returned some years after, and died in 3361.

There are some expressions a little perplexing, taken from the Greek text of Judith, which however are very capable of being set right; for Judith v. 18. in Græco.example, Achior says, that the Temple of the Lord was cast to the ground; that after the return of the Jews from their dispersion, they took possession again of Jerusalem, where their Sanctuary is; and again, that they were newly Judith v. 19. Judith iv. 3.returned from the captivity, and all the people of Judea were lately gathered together. To all this I say, there may be a reply made, by distinguishing particular captivities and dispersions in Israel, from other general dispersions. Under Manasseh the Temple was profaned, and part of the people carried away into captivity: this Prince and his people both returned from this short dispersion; the Temple was purified; which happened but a little before. This is what the author of the Greek version of this work would describe. Here therefore you have what is alledged for the support of that system which we have followed in our Comment.

The opinion which places the history of Judith after the captivity of Babylon, is founded principally upon the authority of the Greek version. This translation is certainly very ancient, the Italick version, which was the only one in use among the Latins before S. Jerom, and the Syriac, were both made from it. It may pass for an original, there being nothing more ancient and authentick; for it is dubious whether St. Jerom’s Chaldee were the original text of this work. Perhaps the Hebrew, mentioned by Origen, was more authentick, but it is not come so low as our time.

If any one would maintain the Chaldee text to be the original, it will follow, as has already been remarked, that this work was written after the captivity, and that the history as probably might be translated at that time. Besides there was no King at that time in the country; there is no mention made of any in the whole course of this History; there is no application made to any but the High Priest, in an affair wherein the King directly was concerned; for the question was about making war, or at least resisting a powerful Monarch, and one able to destroy the Kingdom of Judah. To say that Manasseh, out of fear or policy, dissembled what passed, and left the management of affairs to the High Priest, is to advance a thing almost incredible; besides, it were to attempt imposing upon the King of Chaldæa with child’s play, as if this Prince could be ignorant, that there was a King in Judah, that this King was subject to him, and that nothing could be transacted there without his knowledge and participation; and who would be persuaded, that if this affair of Bethulia had taken a different turn from what it did, the King of Babylon would not have made Manasseh accountable for it, upon pretence that he did not appear in it? People do not judge of matters of this kind after such a manner, and are not so easily mistaken.

Besides, where would they find an High Priest in Manasseh’s time, whose name was Eliakim? The catalogues preserved in the Chronicles, in Josephus, and what may be gathered out of different places of the Scripture, does not furnish us with any of that name about this time. We find 2 Kings xviii. 18, 26, 37. 2 Kings xxii. 4. & 2 Chr. xxx. Baruch i. 7.Hilkiah under Hezekiah, and another Hilkiah under Josiah, and an High Priest named Joakim at the time when Jerusalem was taken by the Chaldæans; but we find no one of the name of Joakim or Eliakim under Manasseh. It is true Hilkiah comes pretty near Eliakim, and the Hebrews took great liberties in changing names, particularly when there was little or no difference as to the meaning of them; and there is scarce any between Hilkiah and Eliakim. I am very willing not to insist much on this argument, and to confess, that the same Hilkiah or Eliakim might live under Manasseh and Josiah.

But what seems demonstrative for the opinion which places this after the return from the Babylonian captivity, is the import of the Greek, ch. iv. ver. 2. that the Israelites were newly return’d from the captivity, and all the people of Judea were lately gathered together, and the vessels and the altar, and the house, were sanctified after the profanation. Achior, General of the Ammonites, says the same thing to Holofernes: They were destroyed in many battles very sore, and were led captives into a land that was not theirs; but now are they returned to their God, and are come up from the places where they were scattered, Judith v. 23. Grec. 18. καὶ ὁ ναὸς τοῦ Θεοῦ αὐτῶν ἐγεννήθη εἰς ἔδαφος, &c. --- καὶ κατῳκίσθησαν ἐν τῇ ὀρεινῇ ὅτι ἦν ἔρημος.and have possessed Jerusalem where their Sanctuary is. And observe, that this last passage is taken from the Vulgate; but the Greek adds, And the Temple of their God was overthrown (literally) reduced to the pavement, or trampled under foot, and their cities were taken by the enemies,—— and they dwell again in the mountains which were not inhabited. It is in vain to endeavour to correct the sense of these passages, the bare reading of them, and the first impression they make upon the mind, naturally leads any one to say, that this history was translated after the return from the Euseb. in Chronico. Aug. l. xviii. de Civit. c. 16. Sulpit. Sever. l. ii. Syncell. a Sixt. Senens. Dionys. Carthus. Lyran. Natal. Alex. Estius, &c.captivity: and thus almost all the ancients, and many of the moderns a, have believed. If they were to be found only in the Greek, their authority perhaps might be rejected. But we have seen the import of the Vulgate, wherein it is said, that the Jews, after they had been dispersed, were at last reunited, and have again taken possession of Jerusalem, where their Temple is. Can these last words be naturally understood of a short captivity, which happened under Manasseh?

Besides some assert, that Phraartes, whom they suppose to be the Arphaxad in Judith, long survived Saosduchinus, whom See Basnage, Antiq. des Juifs. t. 1. p. 19, 255, 256. c. 19. art. 18, 19.they would have to be Nabuchodonozor in the same History, who, in Judith’s account, shot his adversary Arphaxad, and killed him. Saosduchinus died, according to Petavius, in the year 4067 of the Julian Period, and Phraartes not till the year 4071. If this be true, we must of necessity give up the system we proposed at first, and receive this History after the return from Babylon.

Lastly, It is said to support this opinion, that the text of the Vulgate, as well as the Greek text, implys, that Judith lived an hundred and five years, and that during her life time, and many years after her death, no enemy disturbed Israel. Let them suppose, if they please, that Judith was fifty years of age when she appeared before Holofernes, with a design of making him enamoured with her beauty, nay, that she was five and fifty; how can any one maintain, that for these five and fifty last years of her life, and farther for many years after, the Jews were not molested by any enemy, since we know, that from the year of the world 3347, in which this war with Holofernes is dated, to sixty years beyond this time, there was nothing but a chain of evils to be seen in Judea, and a succession of almost continual misfortunes.

It must be acknowledged therefore, say they, that this history was not transacted till after the captivity of Babylon; and supposing this, opinions are still farther divided: David Ganz, a Jewish historian tells us, that a certain Poet, who wrote the history of the dedication of the Temple, refers this event to the time of the Asmoneans; that another says, it happened in the time of Cambyses son of Cyrus, but, adds Ganz, the wise men of the Age say, this history is to take place at the same time as the miracle of the dedication, meaning the miracle of the multiplication of oil, which lasted for eight days in the lamps. See above, the Feast of Lights. Eusebius supposes it to have happened in the reign of Cambyses, Syncellus in that of Xerxes, Sulpitius Severus in that of Ochus; others, under Antiochus Epiphanes, and in the time of the Maccabees.

And this last opinion doubtless is the most easy to maintain, if they will acknowledge, that a feast was instituted in memory of this event, as we read in the Vulgate, but not in the Greek, nor in the Syriac, nor in the old Italick, which imply nothing like it. The generality of Commentators believe, that this festival of Judith is the same with that of the renovation of the sacred fire, and the new dedication of the Temple by Judas Maccabæus. Leo of Modena is of this opinion, as well as Salianus, Bellarmin, Tornielle, Cornelius a Leon de Modene, Ceremonies des Juifs. parties. 3. c.9.Lapide, Grotius, &c.

They cite a passage from Philo, which imports, that the High Priest Jesus instituted the feast of Judith under Darius Longimanus. The intire passage is as follows. Ahasuerus dwelt at Babylon, and the High Priest Jesus went to wait on him, because the governors of Syria had wrote against the Jews; but he was one whole year without obtaining an audience, because the King was too much taken up with the affairs of war. Having been successful, he sent sent Holofernes the year following into Judea, and upon intelligence that the Jews had cut his head off, he forbad them to rebuild the Temple. Darius Longimanus succeeded him, and Jesus returned to Jerusalem. This was he who appointed the festival to be kept every year in honour of Judith. They likewise cite an Hebrew calendar, Sigon. de Rep. Hebr. l. iii. c. 17.published by Sigonius, wherein this festival is found upon the 25th day of the ninth month, or of Casleu; which answers to the feast of the dedication of the Temple, and renewing of the sacred fire by Judas Maccabæus. But in reply to the passage of this pretended Philo, it is said that it was taken from Annius of Viterbo, who is known to have been one of the most eminent impostors, in forging spurious books, that ever was: so that it is needless to confute it.

As to Sigonius’s calendar, Selden undertakes to prove that it is wrong. Besides the feast of the dedication of the Temple was celebrated on the 25 of Casleu, or the lunar month, which answers pretty near to November, and has no relation to Judith’s festival and the deliverance of Bethulia, which must have been about the month September. Lastly, if Leo of Modena and some prayer books printed for the use of the Jews, do mention Judith’s victory upon the day of the dedication of the Temple, it does not follow, that the festival on the score of the deliverance of Bethulia by Judith, was kept upon this day. The memory of this event is then recalled by them, as having some relation to what happened under Judas Maccabæus; and besides, some Jewish authors hold, that the Judith mentioned in these hymns or prayers, was sister to Judas Maccabæus, who being beloved by Nicanor general of the Syrian troops, made him drunk, and cut his head off. We believe this adventure to be very false, but some Jews give it out as certain.

If therefore they would maintain the reality of the feast instituted in memory of the victory obtained by Judith over Holofernes, supposing this history to have happened before the Babylonish captivity, it must be allowed, that the Jews have long forborn to celebrate it, or have transfer’d it from the day on which it was of old celebrated, to that on which they keep the dedication of the Temple under Judas Maccabæus.

It is surprizing, indeed, and with reason, that a handful of people, shut up within the little town of Bethulia, tho we should suppose them to have been supported by all the Jews who were at that time in Judea, should dare to resist Holofernes, and all the power of the Assyrians; but we are to consider, that Nabuchodonozor had resolved, not only to subdue all the nations from the Euphrates to Æthiopia, but intended likewise to oblige them to adore him, and acknowledge him alone to be God; Præceperat illi Nabuchodonozor Rex, ut omnes Deos terræ exterminaret, videlicet, ut ipse solus diceretur Deus ab his nationibus, quæ potuissent Holofernis potentiâ subjugari. And in another place, Judith v. 19. Vulg.the Princes in Holofernes’s army, after they had heard Achior’s discourse, exhorted one another to march against Bethulia, that all the Nations, said they, might know, that Nabuchodonozor is the God of the earth, and there is none other besides him. It was a state maxim with the Kings of Persia, to procure divine honours to be paid them: Persas non piè tantum sed etiam prudenter Reges suos inter Deos coluere: Majestatem enim imperii salutis esse tutelam, says Cleon in Quintus Curtius.

We should not think it strange, that the Jews opposed this foolish and impious pretension of Nabuchodonozor and his general; they could not without impiety, and renouncing their religion, submit to the dominion of such a King, and they had reason to promise themselves assistance from God in this war; and if God had permitted them to overcome, this would have been not only very glorious, but likewise very advantageous to them.

As to other questions which are started with relation to the story of Judith. See the prolegomena of Serarius upon Judith, the truth of the history of Judith by D. Bernard de Montfaucon, our preface to Judith, &c. We thought it convenient to fix it before the Babylonish captivity¹; and according to our hypothesis you have here the chronology of this history. The Chronology of the history of Judith, upon suppofition that it happened in the time of Manasseh.

The year of the world.3285. THE birth of Judith. 3306. Manasseh King of Judah begins to reign. 3347. The war between Nebuchadnezzar and Arphaxad, otherwise Saosduchinus, King of Assyria, and Phraartes King of the Medes. 3348. Holofernes’s expedition, the siege of Bethulia, and death of Holofernes.

3361. The death of Manasseh King of Judah. 3363. The death of Ammon King of Judah.

3362. The death of Judith, in the hundred and fiftieth year of her age.

Whether the book of Judith be authentick and canonical, is a point very much disputed. There are an hundred difficulties started concerning the persons, and other circumstances to be met with in this history. We have endeavoured in our preface to this book, to confute the most plausible objections to it, and to prove it to be both genuine and canonical. The Jews read it, and in S. Jerom’s time still preserved it among them: S. Clement, who was Pope, hath cited it in his Epistle to the Corinthians, as well as Clem. Rom. Ep. i. ad Corinth. p. 177. Constit. Apost. l. viii. c. 2. can. 85. alias 76. p. 448.the author of the apostolical constitutions written in the same S. Clement’s name, Clemens Alexandrinus, l. 4. Strom. Origen. homil. 19. upon Jeremiah, and tome 3. upon S. John; Tertullian lib. de monogamia, c. 17. S. Ambrose, lib. 3. de Officiis, & lib. de viduis, S. Jerom quotes it in his Epistle to Furia; and in his preface to the book of Judith², he says that the council of Nice received this among the canonical books; not that any canon was made by it on purpose to approve it; for we know of none wherein there is any mention of it; and S. Jerom himself does not produce any: but he knew perhaps that the fathers of this council had approved it, since after this council the fathers acknowledged it, and have citations from it. S. Athanasius, or the author of the synopsis which is ascribed to him, gives a summary account of it, as he does of the other sacred books. S. Austin and the whole African Church received it in their canon. Aug. l. ii. de Doctr. Christ. c. 8. Conc. Carthag. 3. can. 47. Fulgent. Ep. ii. ad Gallum.Pope Innocent I. in his Epistle to Exuperus, and Pope Gelasius in the council of Rome, acknowledged it to be canonical. It is quoted in Fulgentius, and by two ancient authors, whose sermons are printed in the Appendix to the fifth volume of S. Austin. I say nothing of the more modern Ecclesiastical writers, who are very numerous and very favourable to Judith : Lastly, the council of Trent hath confirmed the book of Judith to be a part of holy scripture, as the Church before had esteemed it to be. These authorities are more than sufficient to fix our doubts concerning the dispute, whether this book be canonical, tho we were not able to satisfy every objection in particular, which might be formed against it.

The author of the book of Judith is Hieronym in Agg i. 6.unknown. S. Jerom seems to think, that Judith wrote it herself; but produces no good proof for his opinion. Others will have it, that the High Priest Joakim or Eliakim, mentioned in this book, was the author of it, which is all affirmed upon mere conjectures.

They who believe that the history of Judith was what happened in the time of Cambyses, and after the captivity of Babylon, suppose that Joshua the son of Josedek, who was then High Priest, wrote it. The author, whosoever he was, does not appear to have been contemporary, with the transactions he relates. He says that Achior’s family was still in his time subsisting in Israel, and that the festival instituted in memory of Judith’s victory was still celebrated. Expressions which intimate, that this was what had happened long before.

The Jews in Origen’s time had the history of Judith in Hebrew, that is to say, they might have it probably in Chaldee, which is often confounded with Hebrew. S. Jerom says, that in his time they still read it in Chaldee, and ranked it among the Hagiographa. Sebastian Munster thinks, that the Jews of Constantinople have it at present in this language. But hitherto we have seen no part of Judith printed in it. The Syriac version Hieronym. Præfat. in Judith. Seb. Munster. Præfat. in Tobiam Hebr.which we have of it, is taken from the Greek, but from some Greek copy more correct than that which is at present in our hands. S. Jerom made his Latin version from the Chaldee, and this translation is so different from the Greek, that no one could say they both came from the same source and original. S. Jerom complains very much, of the variety observable among the Latin copies of his time, and we may be easily convinced that his complaints were just, by comparing the several fragments of these translations which have been handed down to us, and the citations from them in the fathers. See our preface to Judith, and the notes which are placed below the Comment.

Read this article in its place on the printed pages