Mar.6] PROCEEDINGS. [1894,
Megillath Taanith. Considering that these festival days were
abrogatedbeforethe middle of the third century,thereis no wonder
that portions of it have disappeared. It is a fortunate coincidence
thatwe have recoveredat the same time the day on which the
Jewishfeastwas kept and a portion of the Megillath Taanith. This
settlesthe Makkabaean originof Judith. Insteadof the unknown
Holoferneswe get then a historical nameSeleukos, whichmakes
the fact related in the tale at any rate less improbable. Judith is
alsonot a widow, but a maiden ; and it is questionable whether
Betulah, TvTsT^(virgin), has not suggested to the romancer the
otherwise unknown Bethulia, against which the also unknown
Holopherneswagesan unsuccessful war, which costshim his life.
In our text the town whichSeleukosbesieges is Jerusalem, and
the reason whichJudithgivesfor her coming is muchmoreplausible,
thanthe very curiousand unsatisfactory in the long recension.
In our text, whichis as simple a narrative as can be conceived,
we find also a satisfactory explanationof the bath : it is the ablution
of purification prescribedby Leviticus xv, 19-28, and xv, 13.
I may mentionfurtherthat the Synagogue has always brought
the history of Judith in connection withthe Makkabaean period.
Oneof the variations of our recensions, publishedby Jellinek,* is
actuallyembodiedin a liturgical piecewhichwas recited on the feast
of Dedication, establishedby Judah Makkabee. Judithis mentioned
in connection with this festival also by Abudarham (fourteenth
century) in ed. Venice, f. 135 a. The longer recensionis also
found in connection with the history of the Makkabaeans, in
Hemdath-hayamin,t reprinted by Jellinek.J Of this longer re
cension there is —as I may mention by the way —another copy
in the MS. Chronicleof Jerahmeel, fromwhich I have published
the Testament of Naphtali ; and to the kindness of Dr. Neubauer
I owe the information that Cod. 2240, 5 (Oxford) containsalso the
longrecension.
Theprofound differencebetweenthe short and the long re
cension,precludesthe possibility that the former may be an abbrevi
ationfromthe latter ; the changes are much too radical. In fact,
everyessentialincidentis so much alteredin the latter that it can
by no means be the result of mere abbreviation. If it were an
* Bet-hamidrasch, I, p. 132-136.
+ Constantinople, Q2]~)fc'$T, II, f. 62A-65C
% Bet-hamidrasch, II, p. 12-22.
iS9