Talk:Book of Judith

Story

Shouldn't this article include the Story of Judith, possibly with a spoiler warning? Borisblue 21:20, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Still lacking a general opening...

The first question generally asked by the Indoctrinated when faced with a text is, "Is the text orthodox"? In the article's long-standing current form, this question overwhelms all other considerations, viz: "The Book of Judith is a deuterocanonical book, included in the Septuagint and in the Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christian Old Testament of the Bible, but excluded by Rabbinical Jews and Protestants." Now, for a presentation with any claim to neutrality, the article needs an introduction that tells what the Book of Judith actually is, before rushing enthusiastically to denigrate it by applying the categories that have been assigned to it so long after the fact. For Wikipedia, the text is first of all a text: POV assignments do also need to be covered, needless to say --Wetman 07:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is entirely justified. The article does not "seek to denigrate" the text. It simply states what it is. When looking at other articles on books of the Bible, every article begins with "such and such is a book of the Bible..." or the like. Neither they nor Judith really exist as independent or isolated "texts", but as part of established canons. In this case, this is especially important, as there are debates over which canons specifically it belongs in. It doesn't seem that it would make any sense to say "Judith is a story/book/text written in Aramaic from the second century BC, which...". I think it'd be a pretty awkward composition to leave out the canons even from just the first sentence. Korossyl 20:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Korossyl doesn't seem to see that the reader is required to approach the text from within the POV that has categorized it, long after the fact, as "deuterocanonical". This is quite like hastening to announce that Hamlet is a "class A must-read" before saying what Hamlet is. As Korossyl points out, the problem is systemic, and not confined to this one article. --Wetman 10:18, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe so; I think a more apt comparison would be to begin with "Hamlet is one of the plays of William Shakespeare, written in...". Stating that a book is from the Bible, or from the dueterocanon, or whatever, simply tells what collection of ancient manuscripts it is a part of. To not include that would be to deprive the article of much-needed context. Korossyl 14:37, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really, and in fact the article is extremely vague on what the book actually is. Is it in fact "written in Aramaic from the second century BC.." - I don't think the article says so. The canonical status can be left to a 2nd para or section. Johnbod 02:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Terrorism

Why the heck is this article in the Terrorism category? Murderbike (talk) 21:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Presumably because the central theme of the book is that Judith cut off Holophernes' head in an "extrajudicial killing"; allowing that this was an historical act, a case could be made for this categorisation. --Rogerb67 (talk) 13:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous! A fictional category Fictional terrorism would perhaps fit. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:24, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is the name included with an Arabic translation?

Like, for example, why is it in Arabic? Before being in Arabic,it should definitely be in Greek because the translations of the bible were in Greek way before Arabic. The Arabic portion should be deleted!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.92.28 (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't see an Arabic version. So probably it was deleted. Can we delete this comment section, too, then? Please go ahead. 85.1.223.72 (talk) 21:58, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Original research

All of the "In the bible" section is original research that needs sources and cleaning up to meet encyclopedic quality. And the "artistic renditions" are also in need of 3rd party sourcing /analysis. Hence the tag.-- The Red Pen of Doom 02:23, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Problems with the historicity

Perhaps more of the problems with the historicity of the Book of Judith should be related. When I first read it I perceived it as a "bunch of lies" typical for a very badly written novel. The reason was of course that a name such as 'Holofernes' is very clearly not Assyrian, but something that have been mangled through the Greek language from an unknown source. The second was that the geography of the story is contrafactual, and that there is no such city as 'Baityloua', there is no such phonemes as 'y' nor 'ou' in Arameic nor in Hebrew. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 20:34, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree it would be good to insert a historicity section - I also query its being categorised under "women's history" as it probably didn't happen. The city's name in Hebrew is "Bethulia", which is a perfectly acceptable Hebrew word but not a real historical place. Kilburn London (talk) 08:40, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

It’s possible that Bethulia… sorry. Deleted. Imahd (talk) 17:07, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

None of this appears to be about improving the article. Please bear in mind WP:NOTFORUM and focus your comments on improving the article in some concrete way. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyway

Wiki editors are just not paying attention here

"Anyway, the book is quoted by Pope Clement I (1 Clement ch. 55) side-by-side with the canonical Book of Esther, and both are clearly assigned the same degree of historicity and canonicity. "

Anyways, I had a cat that... this isn't wikipedian get some editors in here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R3tr0 (talk • contribs) 22:49, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

There's also a lovely sentence about how she was a strong woman who "didn't need no man telling her what to do." Actually, I'll just go ahead and pull that one.ChristopherGregory (talk) 18:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Hebbel's Judith

I added a quote from Hebbel's diaries about his Judith. The translation is mine and can probably be improved, I have put the German original into a footnote. Maybe an English native speaker can take a look at it.—Austriacus (talk) 18:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Dating the composition

Although the article says that this work was "likely written by a Jew during the Second Temple period," that is a pretty big range, from 530 B. C. E.–70 C. E.  Do researchers have a more-specific general range than this, or is this the best up with which they can come?  allixpeeke (talk) 08:42, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Cheese

The article refers to the Jewish tradition of eating dairy products on Hanukkah. I do not have the two references given, but surely this is a confusion with Shavuot? It is traditional to eat fried foods on Hanukkah. Pelarmian (talk) 09:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Canonicity in Ethiopian Judaism

From the article: "[T]here is no evidence that the Book of Judith was ever considered authoritative or a candidate for canonicity by any Jewish group." According to Beta Israel the Book of Judith is part of the Ge'ez language canon for Ethiopian Jews. (Confusingly, the Beta Israel article lists Judith as one of the deuterocanonical books that is part of the canon; I think this means to say, canonical in Beta Israel, but deuterocanonical in some outside traditions.) I think this article should mention canonicity to Beta Israel, but I’m not sure how the "any Jewish group" statement should be formed up. Any ideas? —Amble (talk) 23:28, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

All Bible is 90% fictional

From the article: "The surviving Greek manuscripts contain several historical anachronisms, which is why some scholars now consider the book non-historical: a parable, a theological novel, or perhaps the first historical novel."" Citing the '1913 Catholic Encyclopaedia' is like saying "flat-Earthers believe the moon-landing was on a dinner-plate in the sky". The whole Bible is a parable. It is even impossible to prove that Jesus actually existed - just a bunch of parables thrown together from ancient stories and sayings. So why does this outdated scholarly book, the '1913 Catholic Encyclopaedia,' even get a mention. The Book of Judith is the same as any other book in the Bible, which are all just mish-mash of ancient stories, told by professional story tellers at feast and celebrations, and around the campfires at night along the ancient trade routes from East to West, and West to East over millennia. The part I quoted should be taken out, it is just part of a patriarchal slant on ancient literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.38.104.150 (talk) 14:59, 9 May 2021 (UTC)