So difficult have commentators found it to secure an historical locus for the events described in the Book of Judith that the almost universal tendency today has become to relegate it to the somewhat meaningless category of "historical fiction", as some kind of literary fusion of all the enemies (Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Greek, etc.) with whom ancient Israel ever had to contend. This is not entirely surprising in that whoever might aspire to show the historicity of the book tends to choke right at the start, with verse 1:1:"It was the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchednezzar, who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh. In those days Arphaxad ruled over the Medes in Ecbatana". At first appearance, we have here a great Babylonian king, "Nebuchednezzar", ruling over an Assyrian capital city, "Nineveh", that had ceased to exist several years before Nebuchednezzar's rule. And that Babylonian king, in Assyria, will in that very year - as we learn a bit further on in verse 5 - make war on the Medes, who were in fact the allies of Nebuchednezzar; the Medes in Judith being ruled by "Arphaxad", a historical unknown. And, to complete this historical potpourri, Nebuchednezzar's commander-in-chief, introduced into the narrative in chapter 2, will be found to have a name that is considered to be Persian, "Holofernes", as will be thought to be the case also with his chief eunuch, "Bagoas". No wonder then that earlier commentators had sought for the book's historical locus in periods ranging over hundreds of years. "Attempts have been made to identify the Nebuchadnezzar of the story with Assurbanipal, Xerxes I, Artaxerxes Ochus, Antiochus Epiphanes: Arphaxad with Deioces or Phraortes" [1].
My starting point for anchoring the Judith narrative, which I had considered historical from my very first reading of it, was to locate the story's main incident in history. And then, after that, to attempt to tackle the details. Now there was only one incident in the entire history of the ancient Jews when a massive, world-conquering Assyrian army almost 200,000-strong had been stopped in its tracks as it marched to conquer Jerusalem. That was the demise of Sennacherib's army in c.700 BC.
Having the core of the story securely in hand, one could then proceed to fix up the details. But this was easier said than done, because one then encounters the hotly-debated problems associated with Sennacherib's invasions of the west. How many times did the Assyrian confront Jerusalem? In what campaign did the destruction of his army occur? And how did it occur? [2]. I was confident that I at least already had the details for this last question fully revealed in the Book of Judith.
There is also the belief that Sennacherib fought no great wars with the Medes, hardly went near them in fact. This issue, however, will be found to be irrelevant. But the greatest problem of all is, as we shall see, the suggestion in the Septuagint version of Judith that the whole drama may belong to a post-exilic era after the destruction of the Temple. Such is no doubt the main reason why commentators do not usually even consider the era of Sennacherib as being relevant for Judith, as is the case with the quote accompanying footnote [1] above. More popular choices for Judith's era have been:
1 - Ashurbanipal. The emphasis on the Medes had led certain able commentators in the past, wishing to uphold the historical integrity of the Book of Judith, to try to locate it to the era of the Assyrian king, Ashurbanipal (c.650 BC), grandson of Sennacherib. They claim to find similarities especially in regard to Ashurbanipal's war with the Median Phraortes, and the Judæan king Manasseh's being held by the Assyrians in Babylon, leaving Jerusalem temporarily king-less; this last accounting for the fact that there is no Judaean king mentioned in the entire Judith narrative. The Ashurbanipal scenario has the advantage too of preserving the pervading Assyrian element in Judith, which is frankly 'a given'. But there are important aspects as well that are thought not to fit Ashurbanipal's era. To give one example, Ashurbanipal never suffered the kind of reverse at the hands of the Jews that was suffered by "Nebuchednezzar". Again, Judith is said to have lived to the age of 105 and Israel was not troubled again during her lifetime nor for long afterwards (cf. 16:23, 25). M. Leahy has observed [3]: "It seems, therefore, that Judith's glorious deed cannot have taken place in the reign of Ashurbanipal, because [King] Josias of Judah was defeated and slain at Megiddo in 609".
2 - Artaxerxes III 'Ochus'. Others have suggested that the period in question was c.352 BC, when Artaxerxes 'Ochus' is thought to have invaded Palestine en route to Egypt, and "Holofernes", a Cappadocian prince, fought against Egypt [4]. "Holofernes" and "Bagoas" are considered to be "definitely Persian names" [5]. See footnotes [6, 73], though, for problems associated with Persia, (Arta-)Xerxes.
3 - Second Commonwealth. For others, the political set-up, the absence of any mention of a king, and with a gerousia, "the people's Council of Elders" sitting in Jerusalem (Judith 4:8), has confirmed them in their view that Judith pertains to the time of the Second Commonwealth period, when Jerusalem was ruled by only a council, and no king. But it should be noted that the Greek word translated as "Council", gerousiã, is the one used also of the "ancients" in Leviticus 9:1 (Hebrew
, "zaqen"). So it could simply mean the 'elders' of Jerusalem. And indeed we find "the elders of the town" also guarding Judith's town of "Bethulia" at the time of the Assyrian invasion (Judith 6:16).4 - Maccabees. For others again, the socio-political situation more exactly fits the Maccabean age. Thus "Nebuchednezzar" is to be identified with one or other Greek ruler (e.g. Antiochus Epiphanes) who hated the Jews and who had ordered armies against the beleaguered Jerusalem.
Each of these proposed scenarios has points in its favour. Each has its defects. None of them, but for Sennacherib's era, has the main incident.
Virtually all of the details in the Book of Judith can be, it will be seen, exactly fitted to the era of Sennacherib and Hezekiah. The very few that cannot have to be put down to copyists' mistakes. Let us now examine the Book of Judith chapter by chapter, according to our Hezekiah-Sennacherib context.
Judith 1
"Twelfth year". A king of Assyria very close to Sennacherib did in fact successfully wage an eastern war against a stubborn opponent in the former's "twelfth year". That was Sargon, thought to be Sennacherib's father, who tells us [7]:"In my twelfth year of reign (Merodach-baladan) .... For 12 years, against the will (heart) of the gods, he held sway over Babylon ...". But I have shown recently in my Assyrian revision that Sargon was in fact Sennacherib himself, who ruled at Nineveh (and was in fact a great conqueror of the Medes).
Moreover, I have argued that the so-called 'Middle' Babylonian king, Nebuchednezzar I (c.1000 BC, conventional), was in fact Sargon/Sennacherib as ruler of Babylon. Sennacherib began to rule Babylon in fact even before his rule over Assyria had commenced [8].
This immediately accounts for one of the Book of Judith's most controversial details, having a "Nebuchednezzar" ruling over the Assyrians at Nineveh.
Given this premise, then "Arphaxad" can only be Merodach-baladan of Babylon (cf. 2 Kings 20:12; Isaiah 39:1), whose Chaldean origin is reflected in the name, "Arphaxad", i.e., 'Ur of the Chaldees'. And that is confirmed by what we are told in verse 6: "Thus, many nations joined the forces of the Chaldeans", including the Aramaeans and the "Elymeans" (Elamites), perennial allies of Babylon against Assyria.
(For a map go Here)
Thus we can isolate, as a copyist's mistake, "Medes" and "Ecbatana", and also "Ragau" mentioned in Judith 1:5. Now it is interesting to note that these very same entities, "Media", "Ecbatana" and "Rages" have been wrongly added to another pseudepigraphal book, Tobit, causing havoc with that book's geography. Young Tobias in company with the angel Raphael, travelling supposedly from Nineveh to the Median locations of "Ecbatana" and "Rages" (therefore necessarily travelling eastwards), is said to have arrived in the evening at the "Tigris" river (to the west of Nineveh).
That of course is a geographical impossibility.
Moreover, whereas according to Tobit 5:6:"It usually takes two full days to get from Ecbatana to Rages. Rages lies in the mountains and Ecbatana in the middle of the plain"[9], the actual Median Ecbatana and Rages are almost two hundred miles apart, so that it took Alexander the Great and his men eleven days to cover the distance, riding at full gallop with some of their horses dying underneath them [10]. These obvious geographical inaccuracies in extant versions of Tobit have led at least one commentator to remark [11]: "[The angel] Raphael knows the journey of life far better than the route to Media".
One can unravel this whole geographical puzzle though with the help of some lesser known versions of the much-copied Tobit [12]. These give, instead of Media, "Midian"; and, instead of Ecbatana, "Bathania" (i.e. Batanæa or Bashan). That makes all the difference! Accordingly, the young Tobias would indeed have been travelling westwards, from Nineveh, across the Tigris, to Batanæa in Midian (Transjordan) - with his back to Media. Herodotus [13] had noted that there was also an "Ecbatana in Syria", as distinct from the Median city of that name. And "Rages", said in one version of Tobit to be "situated in the mount of Ecbatana" (5:8), two full miles distant, can only be the city of Damascus in the mountains of Bashan, 50 miles from Nawa at the centre of Batanæa, and indeed two days distance according to Jâkût el-Hamawi: "Between Nawa and Damascus is two days' journey ..." [14].
The Vulgate of Tobit helpfully gives "Charan" (i.e. Haran) "in the midway to Nineveh" (11:1). Haran is more or less "midway" between Damascus and Nineveh (if old Tobit be taken as speaking to his son by way of a rough approximation, as one does when directing a person on a journey).
So a copyist has obviously corrupted the original Tobit, that was perfectly accurate from a geographical point of view, and turned it all into a nonsense. The same applies to parts of Judith.
In the context of my revision of the Judith era, the first verse of the Book of Judith actually needs very little alteration. It can be re-cast as follows: "It was the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchednezzar [I = Sargon/Sennacherib], who ruled over the Assyrians in the great city of Nineveh. In those days Merodach-baladan ruled over the Chaldeans in Babylon".
"Nineveh", when qualified as the "great city", is a biblical term for a complex of cities, not necessarily just the classical Nineveh alone (cf. Genesis 10:12; Jonah 1:2; 3:3).
Presumably the "He" who is said to have greatly fortified "Ecbatana" [i.e. Babylon] at the time, as we read in verse 2, refers to the Chaldean king, Merodach-baladan. He was indeed a great builder. Or did the "He" originally pertain to the Assyrian king? Certainly Sennacherib, too, was doing a lot of building at the time, both on classical Nineveh and, more notably, on his jewel city of Dur-Sharrukin ('Sargonsville').
Arioch - !
In verse 6 we are introduced to one who will turn out to be a most fascinating character, "Arioch, king of the Elymeans". What this late footnote is actually meant to do is to precisify for those reading Judith the region of the Hydaspes (var. Choaspes), and along the plain, from where Elamite troops rallied to the Chaldean cause, by adding that it was the same region as that over which Arioch (var. Erioch) ruled. But commentators express puzzlement about him. Who was this Arioch? And if he were such an unknown, then what was the value of this gloss for the early readers?
An editor, apparently failing to realise that this person, given as Arioch, was the very same as the Achior who figures so prominently throughout the main story of Judith, has caused confusion by calling him by the different name of Arioch. He should have written: "Achior ruled the Elymæans".
The Book of Tobit tells us more. Some time after the destruction of Sennacherib's armies, he who had been Sennacherib's Rabshakeh (
) (2 Kings 18:17; Isaiah 36:2), or Cupbearer, was appointed governor (or 'king') of Elymaïs (Elam) (cf. 1:18,21: 2:10). This was Tobit's very nephew, Ahikar ('Achior' in the Vulgate), of the northern tribe of Naphtali (cf. Tobit 1:1).Now the New Catholic Encyclopedia, whilst incorrectly suggesting that: "There does not appear to be any demonstrable connection between this Achior [of Judith] and the Ahikar of the [legendary] Aramaic Story", confirms however that the name Achior can be the same as Ahikar [15]:
A certain Achior is mentioned in four passages of the Book of Tobit. He is presented as chief administrator and royal adviser ("keeper of the seal") under Esarhaddon and is claimed as Tobit's nephew (1:21-22) and friend (2:10).
... In view of these striking similarities there can be little doubt that this Achior is to be identified with Ahikar of the Aramaic Story. Moreover, the spelling of the name in the Greek text [
] eliminates any difficulty on that score.But Tobit's nephew Ahikar (Achior) ruled Elam, not then in Sennacherib's 12th year, when he was a high officer in the Assyrian army, but (about a decade) later, during the reign of Ashurbanipal [16], when he was sent to Elam. From there it is smooth running to make the comparison:
"Achior ... Elymæans" (Judith); "Ahikar ... Elymaïs" (Tobit).
Suffice it to say here that this ubiquitous personage, Achior the Cupbearer, would have been the eyewitness extraordinaire to the detailed plans and preparations regarding the eastern war between the Assyrians and the Chaldean coalition as described in Judith 1.
The Defeat of Merodach-baladan
The Assyrian king, as he was wont to do, sent messengers to all the nations that he had brought into submission in his previous campaigns, eastern and western - from Persia to Ethiopia - to enlist help in his war against Merodach-baladan (vv. 7-11). But these blatantly refused. This refusal that so infuriated the Great King was the catalyst for the story's main drama, the invasion of the west, including Israel.
Merodach-baladan, who had once sent his own envoys to Hezekiah (Isaiah 39), and who had been a thorn in Assyria's side even since the time of Tiglath-pileser III, was defeated once and for all, and slain according to the Septuagint version of Judith (v.15). His city was captured and plundered. This was now in the Assyrian king's "seventeenth year", five years after the war had commenced (vv. 13-15). It would equate with Sennacherib's Eighth Campaign, in which he brutally destroyed Babylon: though it is thought not as completely as Sennacherib might have claimed.
The king then "returned to Nineveh, he and all his combined forces, a vast body of troops; and there …rested and feasted for one hundred and twenty days" (v.16).
Judith 2
This chapter opens with a precise date: "In the eighteenth year, on the twenty-second day of the first month …". Plans were now being set in motion for the Great King's war of revenge against his recalcitrant subjects. Achior the Rabshakeh would no doubt have attended the war council, along with Sennacherib's other "ministers and nobles", during which the king set before them his secret plan" the destruction of all the disobedient (v.2).
"Holofernes"
We are now introduced for the first time to "Holofernes", the commander-in-chief of the Assyrian army, whom I have identified in my Assyrian revision with Sennacherib's own son, Esarhaddon. The latter had already served for some years as Sennacherib's appointee over Babylon, and had undertaken his own campaigns, even against Egypt. He is described as "second only to the king himself" (v.4). He held a rank far greater even than the Turtan. He was in fact viceroy to the king and his named successor. As in history, so in Judith, does he remain loyal to his father, Sennacherib, showing the greatest contempt and hatred for those who had resisted his predecessors.
The Great King now orders his commander-in-chief to organise an army of foot-soldiers 120,000-strong (the same sized force that Shalmaneser III had fielded at the Battle of Qarqar about a century and a half earlier [17]), plus 12,000 cavalry (v.5). 'Go out against all the kingdoms of the west, and against them especially that despised my commandments' (2:5). Previously, at the Council, the king had, in typically Assyrian fashion, referred to the "wickedness" of these rebellious nations (2:2). Indeed the Assyrians were wont to call "sinners" whomsoever would disobey them and their gods. There is plenty of this throughout the Book of Judith. And Sargon will record, regarding for example his raids into the provinces of king Midas [18]: "Not a sinner escaped".
The Great King's further command that the westerners "prepare earth and water" (v.7) a sign of their submission, is considered to be a Persian element, associated for instance with Xerxes' western invasion. Persia may not have been where this custom originated, however. [Refer again to footnotes [6, 73].
The immense army that departed Nineveh, accompanied by its baggage train and transport animals, is described as follows: "Along with them went a mixed crowd like a swarm of locusts, like the dust of the earth - a multitude that could not be counted" (v.20). Sargon had, with reference to a campaign in his Year 6, used for his armies that exact same metaphor, word for word as is here used in Judith [19]: "In the anger of my heart I overran (lit., covered) these lands like [a swarm] of locusts ...".
The prophet Joel was almost certainly referring to the same nation's army, rather than to flying insects, when he spoke of an invasion of locusts (1:4) which he immediately metamorphosises into "a nation has invaded my land" (v.6), and later a "northern army" (2:20), to lay it waste utterly. It was not uncommon for the prophets to use beast-like metaphor to describe an enemy. Had not Isaiah himself referred to successive neo-Assyrian kings in similar, un-endearing metaphor, as snakes and dragons? (Isaiah 14:29):
), from where several cities mentioned by name send ambassadors to offer submission (iii 1 ff.).
has been inserted (perhaps in replacement of some other original reading) in order to adjust the account of the campaign to the terms of I 7 and I 12.
) between Libanos and Antilibanos * mentioned in I 7. Holofernes' base-camp was not in the centre of the plain ("
") must have developed from or be the remaining part of a statement to this effect) but "near the mountains on the left (north) side", in other words: at the foot of the Antilibanos* (cp. Its modern name "
"). It is this mountain-ridge (
) which the army has to climb (v.22) before "sweeping down (
) on the plain of DAMASCUS" (v. 27). 
, which neither because of the name itself nor on the ground of its location … can be reasonably considered to render Hebrew "dor" …is probably but a duplicate of TYRUS (cp. Hebr: Sor). It is possible that the distinction between the island-city and the settlement on the mainland (Palaetyrus) accounts for the duplication. 
) son of Hilkiah (2 Kings 18:18; Isaiah 36:3). Already in my Assyrian revision I have identified Hezekiah's official, EliAKIM, with AKHI-Miti (var. Mitinti, i.e. Mattaniah) of the Assyrian records, the ruler of the fort of"Ashdod" (that is, Lachish). The fact that verse 6 above specifies that the high priest Joakim "was in Jerusalem at the time" might indicate that the capital city was not his usual abode. I suggest Lachish was. I have previously argued that the mighty stronghold of Lachish was entrusted to a succession of high priests; the high priest being the foremost official in the land according to I Kings 4:2.
', that Eliakim was in charge of palace affairs, literally 'over the palace': bayit, being one of the Hebrew words for"palace".
means 'strong'), may have been, at that stage, too sick and feeble to come out, rather than too proud. Pride was probably no longer the factor, as Hezekiah's legendary pride had already been well and truly humbled by Sennacherib at about this time (II Kings 18:13-16).
(2.Kings 18:17-19), his three officials to Jerusalem, there is no corresponding "sent" recorded in the case of Hezekiah. As the text reads, the initiative in this case would appear to come entirely from the Judæan officials themselves, who "went out", 
, to the Assyrians. Hezekiah may not have been in control at this stage. His chief official Eliakim was. With the king incapacitated, the leadership of the kingdom had fallen into the hands of the high priest.
, tydvhy hlgm
there is also discernible the special Erez Israel (
) spelling (the substitution of the 
"
verb by 
"
).
, 
, the frequent use of 
, 
, 
, 
, 
and many more ....
, as also required by parallelism) Dothaim unto Belbaim and lengthwise from 'Belbaim' (LXX reads "Bethulia". However, the besieged city itself cannot have been at the extremity of the besieging army) unto Cyamon which is opposite (the plain of) Esdrelon" or in terms of modern geography; from tell Dôtân unto Hirbet Bel'ameh and from Hirbet Bel'ameh unto El-Jâmûn. The disposition of Holofernes' army thus described is perfectly comprehensible, if Bethulia was situated between the upright sides of a triangle, the top of which was the twice mentioned site of Hirbet Bel'ameh, while its base was a line from tell Dôtân to El-Jâmûn.
(= sahl 'arrãbeh ….) and occupies a spring still accessible to the inhabitants of Bethulia on the north-western edge of this plain (vii 12.17), another part of the army moves to some high observation-posts "opposite Dothaim" (vii 18a) in order to watch possible attempts at escape from the beleaguered city. This section of his forces, therefore, occupied positions on the height of the north-western border of sahl 'arrãbeh, more specifically - xv 3 - "round about Bethulia".
)", which it covered with its many tents (vii 18c).
) [65].