3. Original language, versions, condition of the texts, etc.-That this 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, being written in Chaldee (Chaldeo sermone conscriptus), is reckoned among the histories,' and that he had used a Chaldee codex to correct thereby the vitiated readings of the MSS. (Praf. ad yucl.) This is, moreover, corroborated by the Byzantine historian John Malalas (ft. circa A.D. 88o), who, having em bodied the contents of Judith in his Chronographia, remarks, Taiira Se Talc 'El3paikais extOperai 7pacbcas (tom. i., p. 203, ed. Oxon., 1691). 13e sides, the Greek contains unmistakeable indications that it •was made from a Hebrew or Arainxan ori ginal, e. g., giving the Hebrew use of the relative 8,erp,pE, ev CL6T 43 (X. 2), TO 71").f79-0S ain-Cop (xvi. 4), the literal rendering of runnm, 4v ri 7rapektpoN0 (xii. 7), which has occasioned so much difficulty to interpreters, but which is easy enough when it is borne in mind that the Hebrew pre position 2 signifies at, by, near ; the many He braisms (i. 7, 16 ; ii. 5, 7, 18, 23 ; iii. 3, to ; iv.
2, 6, t, 13 ; v. 9, 12, 14, 16, IS ; Vii. 15, i8 ; ix. 8 ; x. 23 ; xi. 5, 16 ; xii. 13, 20 ; XiV. 19) ; and the mistranslations of the Hebrew (i. 8 ; ii. 2 ; ill. 1, 9, to ; v. 15, IS ; 27 ; XV. II). Origell was therefore misinformed when he was told that Judith did not exist in Hebrew (irepl Twpia hp:as gxpfiv ..yvcatcbctt 6rt rcr, Twpicc ot) xp&ivrat .9133.! 1-5 (NW. -yap exouo-t at'yra xal Aroxpo clps chr' dr.ta9-6,,Tes e-yrno Kap,o,, Ep. ad Afric., sec. 13). The Old Latin and the Syriac 'versions viere made from the Sept., which, however, does not represent a fixed Hebrew or Aramman original text, as may be seen from the various recensions 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 other, and which St. Jerome corrected according to an Aramman codex, differs materially from the Sept., sometimes having more than the latter (comp. Vulg. iv. 8-15 with Sept. iv. to ; Vulg. v. z, 12 with Sept. v. 11-16 ; Vulg. v. 26-29 with Sept. v. 23-25 ; Vulg. vi. 15-19 with Sept. vi. ; Vulg. vii. t8-20 with Sept. vii. 29) : sometimes less (comp. Vulg. vti. 9, ff., with Sept. vii. 8-15 ; Vulg. v. It, ff., with Sept. v. 17-22 ; Vulg. Ix. 5-7, IT, ff., 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 ; ; vii. 2, etc.)* There are also extant several Hebrew recensions of Judith. Three of these have been published by Jellinek in his Beth Ila-lIfidrash, vols. i. and ii., Leipzig 1853, and the one which comes nearest to the Greek and Latin versions certainly removes all the difficulties against the historical character of the book contained in those versions.t 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. The analysis in this article is also of the Greek text.
4- Historical character of the Book.—There are three theories about the nature of this book—a.
That it records actual history ; b. That it is pure fiction; and c. That it is a mixture of history and fiction.
a. Up to the time of the Reformation the view that this book records actual history was univer sally entertained. The difference of opinion which obtained during those fifteen centuries, and which still exists among the defenders of its historical character, is about the precise time when these events occurred, involving as a necessary conse quence the identification of the principal characters, etc. etc. The limits of the range of time within which they have been alternately placed are 784 B. C.-I '7 A.D. The most ancient opinion, how ever, is, that the circumstances here described oc curred after the Babylonish captivity, which is sup ported by the book itself (comp. iv. 3; v. IS, 19, Sept.; v. 22, 23, Vulg.) Still, as it does not tell who this Nebuchadnezzar was, the advocates of this view have tried to identify him with every Persian monarch in succession. Thus, St. Augustine (De Civ, Dei, xviii. 16), and others, take him to be Cambyses ; Julius Africanus and Georgius Syn eellus regard him as Xerxes; Mercator, Estius, etc., make him to be Darius Hystasies ; whilst Sulpi. cius, Severus, and others, identify him with Arta. xerxes Ochus (comp. Suidas sr. 7.1 JUDITH , Bellarm., de Verb. Dei, i. 12 'Scholz, Einleitun,; in die Heiligeu Schrifien, 5SS, ff.) Against this view, however, is to be urged, that, 1. Ai these monarchs inherited the provinces which are de scribed in this book as having been conquered for Mem by Holofernes, thus precludin,r the identity of any one of them with Nebuchldnezzar. 2. Nineveh, which is here mentioned as the capital of Nebuchadnezzar's, or the Assyrian empire, was destroyed before the Babylonish captivity, and no Assyrian or Median kingdom existed during the post-exile period. 3. The Persians, Syrians, Phce nicians, Cilicians, and Egyptians, are described as subject to the Assyrians, which could not have been after the captivity of Judah, when the Assyrian empire was wholly extinguished, and the Persians, instead of being subject to the Assyrians, had made themselves lords over them, and all the other nations of the East, from the Hellespont to the river Indus. 4. There is no point of time except the Maccabman period when the events here recorded could possibly have occurred, since the Jews were subject to the Persians for 2o7 years, then were under the dominion of Alexander the Great, and finally under the Ptolemies and the kings of Syria till they obtained their independence through Judas Maccabmus, B.C. 164. To escape these difficulties, and more especially to obtain a point of time suitable for these events, Usher, Lloyd, Calmet, Montfaucon, Prideaux, Whiston, Wolff, etc., maintain that they occurred before Me exile, either in the reign of Zedekiah, Manasseh, Amon, Josiah, or Jehoiakim. The general opinion, however, is, that the story is to be placed under Manasseh, and as Calmet, Montfaucon, Pricleaux, Whiston, and others, will have it, after this monarch's return from Babylon. Accordingly, the events recorded in the book of Judith, and the collateral circumstances, occurred in the following order of time A.M. B. c.