In the book of Judith, Judith is presented as a model of virtue, yet she lies repeatedly and seduces Holofernes in order to murder him. Did the author of the book of Judith intend the reader to see her as a model of virtue? Like Jael, Tamar, or Esther, Judith is a hero with a dark side.
In her prayer prior to entering the Assyrian camp, Judith tells God she has a plan and asks him to “By the deceit of my lips strike down the slave with the prince and the prince with his servant; crush their arrogance by the hand of a woman” (9:10). She more or less says, “bless my lies.”
She dresses to entice men: “she made herself very beautiful, to entice the eyes of all the men who might see her” (10:4), and the people of Bethulia prayed to God to give her success (10:8). When the Assyrian soldiers see her “she was in their eyes marvelously beautiful” (10:14). In fact, they judge Israel positively because of Judith’s beauty, “Who can despise these people, who have women like this among them?” (10:19).
Yet the people of Bethulia praise Judith and God when she returns with the general’s head in a bag. “When she had finished, the people raised a great shout and made a joyful noise in their town” (14:9). The elders of Bethulia say she has walked “the straight paths of God” (Judith 13:20). The Hebrew Bible has many examples of characters who are morally corrupt, but their actions are not praised or set up as a model to be emulated. For example, David uses his power to sleep with Bathsheba and murders her husband to cover up the affair. Even though the ultimate result of that relationship is Solomon, the greatest king of Israel, nothing in the text implies David’s adultery was a noble act. Yet Judith 15:9-10 the elders of Bethulia call Judith the “pride of our nation.”
Judith 15:9–10 When they met her, they all blessed her with one accord and said to her, “You are the glory of Jerusalem, you are the great boast of Israel, you are the great pride of our nation! 10 You have done all this with your own hand; you have done great good to Israel, and God is well pleased with it. May the Almighty Lord bless you forever!”
David deSilva suggested Judith should be read through the lens of honor and shame. Moral obligations toward God, kin, and nation differed from moral obligations to outsides (“Judith the Heroine?,” p. 56). A lie told in order to protect the honor of one’s family or one’s nation was an “honorable means” according to deSilva. He illustrates this with several stories from the Hebrew Bible in which zeal for defending the family or the nation includes lies and violence. He mentions Simeon and Levi’s defense of their sister Dinah (Gen 34) and Jael’s breech of hospitality when she killed Sisera (Judges 4-5). Although Simeon and Levi are not praised in Genesis, the Second Temple period book Testament of Levi describes Levi’s perpetual priesthood as a reward for his zeal for keeping Israel pure. In deSilva’s view, Holofernes is a threat to the honor of Israel, so the use of lies and violence to meet that challenge is acceptable and honorable. God’s honor is at stake, so Judith’s actions as she defends God’s honor are acceptable. Still, for many modern readers Judith’s use of her sexuality to seduce the general seems offensive. This this, as deSilva suggests, a case of “all’s fair in love and war”?
Geoffrey Miller suggest Judith is depicted similar to Israel’s Divine Warrior, God rising up to rescue his people in the day of distress. The writer of Judith did not intend for Judith to be an example for people to follow. (I would add here, this is unlike Daniel, who is presented in the first part of Daniel as model for resisting the empire.) For Miller, Judith’s behavior is difficult to justify (p. 232) and any attempt to do so falls short. Miller therefore argues Judith’s words are similar to divine utterance and her character is designed to evoke divine warrior theme from the Hebrew Bible.
Judith is often described as a heroic woman, “a woman who fights with a woman’s weapons, yet far from being defined by her ‘femininity,’ she uses it to her own ends.” (Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 117).
The book of Judith is especially striking for its feminism. In creating a protagonist the author has chosen a woman, who calls to mind the Israelite heroines of the past-Judith “the Jewess.” As the narrative unfolds, Judith is consistently depicted as superior to the men with whom she is associated: Uzziah and the elders; the Assyrian army and their general. George Nickelsburg, Jewish Literature Between the Bible and the Mishnah. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1981), 108.
Pamela Milne, for example, is not comfortable using Judith as a feminist icon and tracks a range of views from feminist interpreters moving away from the view of Nickelsburg. She suggests that “feminist readers reject any suggestion that she is a feminist heroine or a feminist’s heroine.” (Milne, “What Shall We Do with Judith?,” 55) For Milne, Judith is still presented “from a male, patriarchal perspective” even if she is a heroic figure.
The Book of Judith should be read as part of a wide range of responses to threats to Israel in Second Temple literature. Daniel was willing to die rather than eat the king’s food or pray to the Persian emperor. In fact, there is no hint of a violent resistance in most of the book of Daniel. God’s faithful resist and are willing to die rather that cross certain boundaries. Judith represents another response to similar challenges. Perhaps God’s people ought to actively resist by any means to protect the honor of God.
Maybe I am over-reading what was intended as an entertaining story, but it seems to me the book of Judith provides support for the violent resistance of the Maccabean Revolt as opposed to the passive resistance found in Fourth Maccabees.
What would Daniel do in a similar situation?
Bibliography: deSilva, David A. “Judith the Heroine?: Lies, Seduction, and Murder in Cultural Perspective.” Biblical Theology Bulletin 36 (2006): 55–61; Efthimiadis-Keith, Helen. “Judith, Feminist Ethics and Feminist Biblical/Old Testament Interpretation.” Journal of Theology for Southern Africa 138 (2010): 91–111; Miller, Geoffrey David. “A Femme Fatale of Whom ‘No One Spoke Ill’: Judith’s Moral Muddle and Her Personification of Yahweh.” Journal for the Study of the Old Testament 39 (2014): 223–45; Milne, Pamela J. “What Shall We Do with Judith? A Feminist Reassessment of a Biblical ‘Heroine,’” Semeia 62 (1993): 36-56; Tamber-Rosenau, Caryn. “Biblical Bathing Beauties and the Manipulation of the Male Gaze: What Judith Can Tell Us about Bathsheba and Susanna.” Journal of Feminist Studies in Religion 33 (2017): 55–72.
The book of Judith promotes ethics that differ greatly from the ethics that are found in the Bible. Some commonly known ethics from the Bible are to tell the truth, avoid dressing in a provocative manner, being compassionate/kind to others, and do not murder. The book of Judith contradicts these ethics. For instance, throughout the book of Judith, it is evident that Judith purposely dresses in a manner that will catch the attention of men. In fact, she was described as being beautiful by Assyrian soldiers. However, time and time again, the book of Judith proves the saying that beauty is only skin deep. A person cannot be beautiful on the inside as well as the outside if they lack integrity and morals.
What stood out most from this article is how people such as David in the Bible would have affairs with other people, but it was never held in a high regard as something great. Instead, it was held as a sort of disgrace. However, when Judith does something similar to this, she is held as the pride of their nation. While the book of Judith is a story, it can be applied to society today. People who have good morals and present themselves in a conservative manner are viewed in society as being on the outside of what is popular. Then there are the people who present themselves in the opposite manner where they are wearing revealing clothing and do not seem to have a good head on their shoulders. While not everyone fits into one of these categories, this is how our society is today. Similarly, to the book of Judith, it praises those who are provocative, which instead of being called what it is, it is labeled as being confident. Overall, from what I have read, the book of Judith seems to view the bad as good and the good as bad.
The book of Judith sounds similar to a strange old testament battle. An example of that would be in 1 Samuel 18 when Saul is jealous of David and wants him to die, so he tells him that the only way for David to marry his daughter is by bringing back one hundred Philistine foreskins. It only gets weirder that David goes out of his way to bring back two hundred foreskins. The Bible we accept as canon is not much less strange. However, I agree that there is a difference between what is celebrated and shown as noble. The main thing that felt off about reading Judith was that she exploited her sexuality in ‘the name of the Lord’ making her the Israelites’ hero. This does not line up with how the Bible portrays people who do works on behalf of God. There is a lack of integrity that Judith portrays as well as the absence of ownership of what she did being wrong. With David and Bathsheba, at least it is shown through a moral lens owning up to the fact that he made a mistake and what he did was a lapse of integrity, not something to be celebrated as we see with Judith.
In the canonical Old Testament, actions such as Judith undertook would have been presented not as morally good, but from either a more neutral, “this is what happened” perspective, or one of condemnation and immorality. An example of this would be Jacob marrying both Rachel and Leah. At that point, God had not condemned polygamy yet, so Jacob was not technically committing an offense (using logic based on Romans 4:15). However, we know that God’s design for marriage and sexual relations is one man and one woman, and we know that His will does not change, therefore had God given the Law prior to this account, Jacob would have been in sin. Based on this, Jacob having two wives cannot be used as a defense of polygamy. However, though it is technically a transgression, Jacob is also not shown being punished for it or having to atone for it. Therefore this narrative is neither a defense of or a warning against polygamy; it’s a purely factual and historical retelling. Judith, on the other hand, is the opposite; here we have a promiscuous, sexually immoral woman, lying and killing her way to the top, asking God to bless her efforts. This is part of how we know it’s a fictional account; no God-fearing Jewish woman would ask God’s blessing on sin, as well as be successful in her efforts. She’s shown as a heroine, despite her clear disregard for God’s Law. Because of this, there’s very little likelihood that this was ever seen as a historical account (ignoring the blatant historical discrepancies, of course). God doesn’t change His standards of morality, therefore Judith has to be fictional.
She is not a promiscious woman no where does it say that she never slept with holfornes because he was too drunk. That being said she did dress sexy and act seductive in order to seduce the man. But she never did sleep with him or do anything actually sexual with him. It was also to save the people of Israels lives she did that whereas David took advantage of innocent people. She wasn’t trying to lie and kill her way to the top though I agree with what the rest you said . I think this is more to do with Gods people delivered then a book for moral example.
It is interesting how Pamela Milne said that she rejects Judith as a feminist icon because she is presented from a male, patriarchal perspective. Judith reminds me a lot of modern heroines in media who were also created for a male perspective. An example that comes to mind is Black Widow in the Avengers. She is this great and strong superhero but is constantly in skintight bodysuits and being lusted over by the other characters and the audience. Seeing almost the exact same concept in Judith is almost a little scary. Women in media, ancient and modern, are not seen as powerful, unless they also appeal to the male gaze. Another example like this is the Greek myth of Medea. She is seen as this feminist icon as a beautiful witch who married the Greek hero, Jason. Jason cheated on her and she got jealous and murdered their children. She is not seen as a murderer, but as this Greek heroine who got revenge on her husband. This is not the way that women should be portrayed in media and is crazy that little has changed in thousands of years. DeSilva does point out that Judith may be intended to challenge Ben Sira’s view that having a daughter is a loss (DeSilva). I am sure that having a strong heroine who was willing to do whatever it took to save her village was a big step during this time. I also assume that had she not been so beautiful and seductive, the story would not have gained popularity.
The story of Judith is probably my favorite of the Intertestamental Literature. Like deSilva suggests, it was originally written to entertain but brings forth so much more that we can learn and take away from the story. The story brings forth so many questions as we see above. Was Judith ethical in her endeavors to save her people? How should Christians respond when threats are made to God’s people? Should we take the non-violent approach such as David or side with Judith in violence for the sake of God’s people? “Judith represents another response to similar challenges. Perhaps God’s people ought to actively resist by any means to protect the honor of God.” Personally, I find Judith to be more complex than a simple storytelling or propaganda for zealous resistence for God’s glory. Judith challenges what Christians have been wrestling with for centuries. When I read Judith, I am reminded of the Crusaders and their violent standing under the premise of God’s leading. However, Judith is more descrete with her resistence and action. We see her dive into prayer for the very dangerous and risky mission she has set on. She prays for God to bless her as she lies to enter the camp of the enemy. She also is seen to keep to Jewish law specifically with the dietary laws. She brings her own food and wine so that she stays clean while still gaining favor and trust with Holofernes. She asks for time to pray with God each night. At any point God could have stopped her actions and showed her that this was not within His plan. Despite this being non-canonical and historically innaccurate, the story of Judith shows how God can use his people in mysterious ways. Similarly to Simeon, Levi, and Jael, Judith represents the zealous thoughts and actions that many Jews held especailly after the Maccabean period. The author shows us a quite accurate depiction of Jewish history throughout the Old Testament as “Judith reaffirms Deuteronomy’s basic viewpoint that Israel’s fidelity to God’s commandments results in divine favor and protection against all adversaries, whereas Israel’s transgression of Torah (particularly idolatry) exposes them to the ravages of conquest and the like.” In terms of the sexual nature of the story, I believe it goes to show the author’s catering to their audience and showing how a widow with not many advantages used the only weapon in her power to use that would not raise suspicion in the very sensitive mission she was completing. We’ve seen this numerous times throuhgout history in stories and modern day media. Heroines using their biological advantage against the male antagonist. Murder brings up concern for many christians and understandably so. As one of the ten commandments, we are told that murder goes against God. For example, when David murders Bathsheba’s husband in order to have her for himself, we see God’s anger in David’s actions even though David was a man after God’s own heart. However, we have seen many times in the Old Testament how God blesses Israel when fighting against their enemies. Is war not murder? If God is against murder, how can we justify God’s protection over His people against their enemies in battle all over the OId Testament?
“The story of Judith is probably my favorite of the Intertestamental Literature.” – your favorite so far.
There seem to be many layers to the story and character that is Judith. When we are introduced to Judith, we are given the image of a broken and morning women. Since it is the death of her husband that she has been grieving, it’s hard to see her upcoming actions as something promiscuous or sexually immoral. As if it would be impossible for Judith to even think about pursuing another man at this time in this way, rather choosing (as is described at the end of the book) to maintain her widowed and pious state. That is why (despite the various art depicting a scantily clad Judith) her choosing to fight with “the weapons of a woman” (Elisabeth Schüssler Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 117) cannot be viewed this way. As for the issues of Murder and deceit, there are simply too many Old Testament stories with similar plots to see Judith’s actions as particularly vulgar. I Think of the story of Ehud, who similarly used his particular characteristics (Left handedness and not Beauty) to perform an assassination in which resulted in Isreal’s deliverance (Judges chapter 3:12-30). Finally, when it comes to the angle of “feminist Judith” it’s just interesting that this story has been rejected as showing a real feminine hero because she uses her beauty to achieve her purposes. The motif of using physical attractiveness to enact the will of God is very ironic since Judith is probably one of the only women to use her looks for good (that’s how we know it’s fictional). Beauty is commonly associated with negativity in the Bible, see Genesis 12:10–20; Genesis 20:1–18 with Sarah, Genesis 39:6–20 Jospeh, 2 Samuel 14:25–15:12 Absalom, and 2 Samuel 13:1–22 Tamar.
I think Judith gives perspective of real human nature than some others Old Testament stories. Is Judith always morally right in the story? No, but is it critical to the story? Also no. I really enjoy the story of Judith because there is a humanness/realness element to the story. Judith stands up for God’s people in her own way and ultimately it works. Quite honestly, there are worse stories in the Bible such as Elijah slaughtering all the prophets of Baal. Which once again shows that idea we talked about in class. That Christians seem to be okay with violence, but the idea of being seductive is awful to think about. When discussing the morality of Judith, no one seems to be touching on the fact that she beheaded Holofernes, and they displayed his head after she escaped the camp. Which one would think would be more taboo than being seductive to sneak into the camp. We can look at the story of David, who is overcome by desire and sleeps with Bathsheba. Most people agree this is unmoral but focus more on David getting Uriah killed to cover the fact. Yet the opposite is true with Judith. It makes me wonder what controversy the story would have if it were a male “seducing” his way into camp instead? While Judith may have gone about things in a not completely moral way, her intentions were good and should be the focus of the story.
I am actually really excited to respond to this because I noted the questionable ethics of the work in a paper for class, though it was brief. I think the first and last options are the most likely reading. Much of the ancient world existed in a honor and shame culture rather than the individualistic hedonistic culture we have in the U.S. As such, it may have been morally permissible to lie and use violence to protect honor, especially God’s honor. We know from ancient sources that Romans respected Jews more than Christians because Jews would fight, suggesting that Judith represents relatively common ethics of the day. While many readings of her and her story are presented, I want to propose a black reading of the Judith story.
Many blacks have had the same ethical struggles and answers presented in Judith. Nat Turner was a black slave in the 1800s who believed he received a vision from God to use violence to liberate people. James Cone, father of Black Liberation Theology, considered non violent love a part of white theology and said that the use of molotovs was a start to liberation. While many blacks, understandably, took a Judith approach, many took a more Daniel and Jesus approach. MLK is a prime example of such a peaceful approach. So like the Jewish people many blacks are and have been faced with the same ethical question. Can violence be ethical in the face of oppression? The Jew we must look to for ethical guidance is Jesus. What does he tell us to do? What would Jesus do?
I am most intrigued with deSilva’s argument in favor of reading the book of Judith through a lens of honor and shame. I find that it makes sense to say that Judith wants to guard the honor of God when Nebuchadnezzar is being esteemed as a God, especially if we read her desire to action as a rebuke to Bethulia’s desire to surrender, which would “leave God’s temple in Jerusalem vulnerable to defilement” (deSilva, 2018). However, I truly wrestle with the idea that Judith’s actions and lies are simply justified for doing so. However, I cannot say that the use of a women who lies in favor of God’s people is unbiblical, for we do see this happen when Rahab lies to the king of Jericho about the Israelite spies (Joshua 2). In fact, her hiding of the spies allows her and her family to become one with the people of Israel. In light of this, I cannot say that Judith is completely out of line; yet, I do question the degree to which a writing such as Judith can claim a thing such as the use of flattery and suggestiveness for the good of God’s will.
The Book of Judith is interesting because it shows a heroine who isn’t perfect. Judith does some morally questionable things, like lying, seducing Holofernes, and killing him, but her actions are still praised because she saves her people. The author likely didn’t want Judith to be a simple model of virtue. Instead, she represents a more complicated form of heroism, where doing tough or morally bad things can be justified when facing serious threats. Judith’s actions are all about protecting her people and God’s honor. While this might seem wrong to modern readers, the text seems to say her bravery outweighs her use of deception. I agree with David deSilva’s idea that, in her time, defending the nation by any means was considered honorable. However, even though Judith is a strong woman who uses her femininity to gain power, the story is still told from a male perspective. This makes it tricky to fully call her a feminist icon. Overall, Judith’s story challenges what we think about heroism, especially when it involves tough choices and gender dynamics.