Book of Judith - Historical errors?

[sloth]

Hello,

I have been told that the book of Judith has some historical errors in it.

what are these historical errors?

The main historical error seems to be about “nebuchadnezzar king of asserya”… it appears that nebuchadnezzar was king of babylon, which people will say is a historical error. However, nebuchadnezzar conquered asserya, so wouldn’t that make him the de facto “King of Asserya” ?

if that is the case then why does the Navarre commentary say that nebuchadnezzar is meant to be interpreted symbolically.

I am going to start reading this book today, i was just hoping for some insight on these so called errors.

 

[porthos11]

Judith is a biblical novella; the genre is an ancient form of “historical fiction”.

The inconsistencies are intentional: Judith is set after the return from the Exile, long after Nebuchadnezzar was dead, and while Assyria had been conquered by the Babylonians, the state Nebuchadnezzar ruled over was the New Babylonian/Chaldean Empire, with its capital in Babylon, not Nineveh. Further by the time of the Return, the Chaldean Empire had since been subsumed into the Persian Empire, so historically, by the time of the Return, both the Assyrians and the Babylonians had been rendered irrelevant.

If Judith’s genre is indeed that of a novella, then there is absolutely no issue with it being not historically accurate, because it would never have been written for the purpose of history. In other words, if Judith were in an ancient bookstore, you would find it in the Literature/Fiction aisle, not the History/Biography aisle.

 

[dmar198]

Hello,

I have been told that the book of Judith has some historical errors in it.

what are these historical errors?

The main “historical error” is that Nebuchadnezzer was not king of Assyria as Judith 1:1 says, but king of Babylon. Another is that he did not rule from Ninevah as Judith 1:1 says, but from Babylon. And a third is that the man Arphaxad of Ecbatana, mentioned in Judith 1:1, probably is a reference to a king who lived in a different time period than Nebuchadnezzar.

Catholics have several options for defending Judith from these supposed errors. One option is to deny that Judith is intended to be historical. A Catholic can take the book to be a blend of history and parable. There are various reasons for doing this, including the fact that the name Judith means “Jewish girl,” and is perhaps simply meant as a personification of the kingdom of Israel. She conquers her enemies, who are personified as a combination of Assyria and Babylon.

If Judith is not meant to be historical, then its historical “errors” are not actually errors but stylistic devices with a moral purpose. Just as if I wrote a book about how Lady Liberty won a war against Hitler the president of Communist Russia, I am obviously not implying that Hitler was really the president of Russia but I’m just combining historical people to indicate the moral point: America won against the Nazis and the Communists.

For those who take this perspective, a useful principle to keep in mind is this one: there can be no historical errors where there is no history recorded. If you’ve ever heard of the book “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court,” it’s about an American who travels through time to the age of King Arthur and introduces modern technology to the Saxons. Imagine someone saying, “This book is filled with historical errors.” Um, no, only if you take it as a real history, which it isn’t supposed to be. Some Catholics think Judith was intended as a parable about history, and that makes light work of its “historical errors.” There can be no historical errors where there is no history recorded.

Another option Catholics have is to take Judith as an actual historical book and defend it on historical grounds. For a Catholic who takes this approach, it might be useful to point out that other historical books corroborate the stuff it mentions about Nebuchadnezzar – At Least some of it. For example, it is true that Nebuchadnezzar reigned over the people in Assyria, and that Assyrians under his command attacked the Jews. So why not call him the ruler of Assyria? They were part of his empire, therefore he was their ruler. 2 Kings 24:1-2 mentions that God gave “bands of Syrians” to King Nebuchadnezzar and that he sent them against Judah. What happens in Judith, if it is meant as a historical book, might have happened during this time, since Judith mentions that militia that attacked Judith’s city was Syrian. (Judith 2:14)

In short, Catholics have two options: some Catholics think Judith is a kind of mix of parable and history. When people bring up “historical errors” in it, these Catholics explain these as stylistic devices with a moral purpose, on the principle that there can be no historical errors where there is no history recorded. Other Catholics think Judith Is a history book, but think its historical “errors” are not errors at all, but facts. They think there is evidence for its claims not just in Judith, but in other historical books as well. Catholics can take either approach, which is why you’ll find the Navarre Bible take one approach and the Haydock Bible take another.

I hope that helps. Please let me know. God bless!

 

[porthos11]

The main “historical error” is that Nebuchadnezzer was not king of Assyria as Judith 1:1 says, but king of Babylon. Another is that he did not rule from Ninevah as Judith 1:1 says, but from Babylon. And a third is that the man Arphaxad of Ecbatana, mentioned in Judith 1:1, probably is a reference to a king who lived in a different time period than Nebuchadnezzar.

Catholics have several options for defending Judith from these supposed errors. One option is to deny that Judith is intended to be historical. A Catholic can take the book to be a blend of history and parable. There are various reasons for doing this, including the fact that the name Judith means “Jewish girl,” and is perhaps simply meant as a personification of the kingdom of Israel. She conquers her enemies, who are personified as a combination of Assyria and Babylon.

If Judith is not meant to be historical, then its historical “errors” are not actually errors but stylistic devices with a moral purpose. Just as if I wrote a book about how Lady Liberty won a war against Hitler the president of Communist Russia, I am obviously not implying that Hitler was really the president of Russia but I’m just combining historical people to indicate the moral point: America won against the Nazis and the Communists.

For those who take this perspective, a useful principle to keep in mind is this one: there can be no historical errors where there is no history recorded. If you’ve ever heard of the book “A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court,” it’s about an American who travels through time to the age of King Arthur and introduces modern technology to the Saxons. Imagine someone saying, “This book is filled with historical errors.” Um, no, only if you take it as a real history, which it isn’t supposed to be. Some Catholics think Judith was intended as a parable about history, and that makes light work of its “historical errors.” There can be no historical errors where there is no history recorded.

Another option Catholics have is to take Judith as an actual historical book and defend it on historical grounds. For a Catholic who takes this approach, it might be useful to point out that other historical books corroborate the stuff it mentions about Nebuchadnezzar – At Least some of it. For example, it is true that Nebuchadnezzar reigned over the people in Assyria, and that Assyrians under his command attacked the Jews. So why not call him the ruler of Assyria? They were part of his empire, therefore he was their ruler. 2 Kings 24:1-2 mentions that God gave “bands of Syrians” to King Nebuchadnezzar and that he sent them against Judah. What happens in Judith, if it is meant as a historical book, might have happened during this time, since Judith mentions that militia that attacked Judith’s city was Syrian. (Judith 2:14)

In short, Catholics have two options: some Catholics think Judith is a kind of mix of parable and history. When people bring up “historical errors” in it, these Catholics explain these as stylistic devices with a moral purpose, on the principle that there can be no historical errors where there is no history recorded. Other Catholics think Judith Is a history book, but think its historical “errors” are not errors at all, but facts. They think there is evidence for its claims not just in Judith, but in other historical books as well. Catholics can take either approach, which is why you’ll find the Navarre Bible take one approach and the Haydock Bible take another.

I hope that helps. Please let me know. God bless!

Even if we were to admit to the Assyrians being under the Chaldean Nebuchadnezzar’s command, it doesn’t jive with the narrative that they had returned from exile, and this exile is clearly the Babylonian Exile because the Speech of Achior explicitly mentions the razing of the Temple to the ground. Since the book mentions Joakim and the people prostrating before the Temple, therefore, the Temple had been rebuilt. This was set in the Second Temple period.

Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon had long been dead by that time, and Nineveh had been destroyed in 612 BC, so in post-exilic Judah, there was no Nineveh to speak of (Nineveh had never been rebuilt). No King Nebuchadnezzar lived during that time; the closest were “Nebuchadnezzar III” and “Nebuchadnezzar IV”, both of whom were pretenders and attempted to revolt against Darius I; both were quickly put down. Hardly the powerful king who could threaten Judah and other nations of the Persian Empire.

There is no reconciling Judith as intending to relate history. It is clearly a parable/novella and its intention was solely to tell an inspiring moral story, not to teach a historical lesson. It’s simply genre of the time.

 

[sloth]

Thank you all for your replies.

are there any implications with interpreting Nebuchadnezzar to symbolically mean Artaxerxes III?

it seems very convincing to me,

Artaxerxes III had a general in his army named Holofernes and he exiled jews to hyrcania.

the only implication that I can see is that Artaxerxes didn’t live during the time of Nineveh being a town.

 

[porthos11]

Thank you all for your replies.

are there any implications with interpreting Nebuchadnezzar to symbolically mean Artaxerxes III?

it seems very convincing to me,

Artaxerxes III had a general in his army named Holofernes and he exiled jews to hyrcania.

the only implication that I can see is that Artaxerxes didn’t live during the time of Nineveh being a town.

It will have to be a stretch, since there is neither internal nor external evidence to this claim. One would have to attach extended meanings to the words “Nebuchadnezzar”, “Nineveh”, “Assyrians”, “Bethulia”, and even “Judith.” If a pattern can be found, then maybe, but there is no historical event whose sequence coincides with the events portrayed here. Rebellious Jews being exiled isn’t quite the story depicted in Judith, a siege of a (fictitious) city.

 

[po18guy]

Hello,

I have been told that the book of Judith has some historical errors in it.

what are these historical errors?

Yes! Like Tobit and a few others, historical accuracy is not its point. From Inside The Bible by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S. J. (Very highly recommended!),

“The historical setting presented by the author does not square with recorded history, so this in an indication that the author is not writing history, at least not in the sense in which we understand it.”

I think of Judith from a ‘big picture’ viewpoint: All Israel is threatened by a worldly, pagan, seemingly insurmountable enemy. One woman, rather than an army or even a male leader, embraced great personal risk and took bold and singular action against this enemy. Because of the boldness and selflessness of this exemplary Israeli woman, the evil threat is defeated and the enemy flees in terror and disarray. Peace is restored to the Nation of Israel.

Analogize this to the Blessed Virgin Mary, whose singular “Fiat” to the Archangel Gabriel brought about the Incarnation, which defeated the evil threat - not only against Israel, but against the entire world. Judith, written perhaps 100 years BC, is a ‘type’ of Mary.

 

[po18guy]

Yes! Like Tobit and a few others, historical accuracy is not its point. From Inside The Bible by Fr. Kenneth Baker, S. J. (Very highly recommended!), I think of Judith from a ‘big picture’ viewpoint: All Israel is threatened by a worldly, pagan, seemingly insurmountable enemy. One woman, rather than an army or even a male leader, embraced great personal risk and took bold and singular action against this enemy. Because of the boldness and selflessness of this exemplary Israeli woman, the evil threat is defeated and the enemy flees in terror and disarray. Peace is restored to the Nation of Israel.

Analogize this to the Blessed Virgin Mary, whose singular “Fiat” to the Archangel Gabriel brought about the Incarnation, which defeated the evil threat - not only against Israel, but against the entire world. Judith, written perhaps 100 years BC, is a ‘type’ of Mary.

OPINION: Consider also the book of The Wisdom of Solomon (not written by Solomon, but attributed to him). Chapter 2 (“the just man”) contains a very interesting narrative on the rejection of a “just man.” It also mentions not sparing the “widow” or the “gray hairs of old age.” So? The “just man” is a type or prophecy of Christ - the most precise Old Testament prophecy of Christ, with a surprising amount of detail. The widow is a type or prophecy of Mary, and the “gray hairs of old age” is a type or prophecy of Saint Joseph. In a few short verses, the entire Holy Family is described by type.

Judith was written about 100 years before Christ. Wisdom was written about 50 short years before Christ. For this reason, and others, I view the Deuterocanonical books of scripture as being the anticipatory books of the New Testament. Martin Luther placed them between Pharisee’s Old Testament and the New Testament. Although the Church had long before placed them among the books of their respective types, viewing them as anticipatory of Christ can also be useful. The same with all of the Deuterocanonical books.

 

[COPLAND_3]

It could have very well been that the name Nebuchadnezzar was used because this king was of similarity to the one of Babylon. I follow the principle that St. John Chrysostom followed when he was explaining how John the Baptist was Elijah. He gives other examples to back it up…

Jesus calls John, Elijah, with regard to the manner of his administration. Yea, and so the prophets used to call every one of their approved kings, David; and the Jews, rulers of Sodom, (Is. 1:10) and sons of Ethiopians; (Amos 9:7) because of their ways. For as the other shall be forerunner of the second advent, so was this of the first. (Homily 57.1 on Matthew NFNP 1.10)

 

[The_Serpent]

It is correct that Nebuchadnezzar conquered Syria, which was under the rule of Neco, King of Egypt. The Jewish historian Josephus states this in Book 10, Chapter 6 of “The Antiquities of the Jews.” So the book of Judith is right about this historical claim.

 

[sloth]

Well i have finished reading Judith.

It reads pretty much like the other Historical books in the bible and I don’t know what to make of it.

I read it from the Navarre Hardback and it has pretty good commentary, although the Jewish Encyclopedia, and the Dom Orchard Commentary “A Catholic Commentary on Holy Scripture” has some pretty useful information as well.​

Artaxerxes III had 2 generals in his army named Holofernes and Bagoas,

Eusebius states that Artaxerxes III deported Jews to Hyrcania

In Judith 2:7 “Nebuchadnezzar” states “Tell them to have earth and water ready”
Earth and Water is supposedly a Persian saying/custom which would make since since Artaxerxes III is a Persian King.

Acorrding to Other parts of the bible Kings of Peria was called the King of Assyria ( see ezra 6:22) and in Judith 16:10 it states " The Persians trembled at her boldness"

(most of this information came from the Dom Orchard commentary)
…

Now Bethulia

As Torrey first pointed out, in the “Journal of the American Oriental Society,” xx. 160-172, there is one city, and only one, which perfectly satisfies all the above-mentioned requirements, namely, Shechem… The reason for the pseudonym is obvious. Because of the feeling of the Jews toward the Samaritans, the name “Shechem” could not be repeatedly used in a popular tale of this character for the city whose people wrought deliverance for Jerusalem and for the sanctuary of the Jews.
(jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/9073-judith-book-of)

I’m not sure if i believe 100% if this is a totally historical book, i believe it definitely has some historical elements, but like others have said it probably wasn’t intended to be a historical book but rather a telling of a story.

 

[jas84173]

Yah it’s historically not accurate. It’s a historical fiction novella whose purpose is to teach a moral purpose. We know from the first sentence it is historically inaccurate. Nebuchadnezzar was the king of the Babylonoians who took Jerusalem in 586 bc which is told in many other books. In Judith it claims he is the king of the Assyria NSA. These biblical fictions aren’t bad they teach a large number of moral principles and may have aspects of historical truth as well. Maybe the author used that name because readers would be so familiar with him viewed as a tyrant. Judith and 3 Maccabees ( which isn’t Canon in Catholic Bibles but is in Orthodox Bibles but is included in the Deuterocanonical books in the NRSV) are quite possibly my two favorite historical fiction novellas. The moral of the story is irony at the end and Judith is a hero. It may be truth in some forms I don’t know. Esther is another one that seems to be a novella on moral principal and irony. The purpose is to teach us lessons which Judith does very well.