Book of Judith

The Book of Judith is one of the Deuterocanonical books included in the Septuagint that is considered canonical by Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, but apocryphal by Protestants.

Historicity
Many objections have been raised by skeptics of the Book of Judith that it contains alleged historical errors. These assertions, while at first appear to be inconsistencies, can be refuted. Here are some commons objections made against the historicity of the Book of Judith:

This claim is easily answered. Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary relates the following information:

"Ver. 5. Nabuchodonosor. Not the king of Babylon, who took and destroyed Jerusalem, but another of the same name, who reigned in Ninive; and is called by profane historians Saosduchin. He succeeded Asarhaddon in the kingdom of the Assyrians, and was contemporary with Manasses, king of Juda. (Challoner) --- He might be the same with Asarhaddon, who resided at Ninive in the 20th year of his reign. After the defeat at Bethulia, the Medes recovered part of their power, under Cyaxares I., who was succeeded by Astyages and Cyaxares II., with whom Cyrus was associated in the empire. (Xenophon) --- Asarhaddon spent the latter years of his life at Babylon, of which he had made himself master. (Houbigant) --- The Jews frequently give names to foreign princes different from those by which they are known in profane history. See Tobias ultra. (Haydock) --- Him. Greek afterwards (ver. 15) insinuates that he prevented any from mounting the throne of Media, till this work was written, "he transfixed him with his darts, and destroyed him till this day." (Houbigant)”"

One apologist comments further on this issue: "The Babylonian form of the name is Nabu-kudurri-usur, the second part of which is variously interpreted ("O Nebo, defend my crown", or "tiara", "empire", "landmark", "work"). The original has been more or less defaced in the Hebrew, Greek, and Latin transliterations, from which are derived the modern English forms, Nabuchodonosor, Nebuchadnezzar, Nebuchednezzar, and Nebuchadrezzar. On the whole, Nabuchodonosor appears to be nearer to the original Babylonian pronunciation than Nebuchadrezzar and especially Nebuchadnezzar (A.V., Ezra, ii, 1) taken from the Massoretic transliteration, and would be still nearer if the "r" were restored to the second element where "n" has crept in. Nabuchodonosor was not a rare name, there two kings of this name are known to have ruled over Babylon.

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. It has also been suggested by some scholars that '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.

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....”

"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).

Other Biblical accounts of this campaign [Isaiah 37:36; 2.Kings 19] agree much with the Book of Judith on the slaying of a large part of the Assyrian army, albeit the Book of Judith has it happen as the Assyrians fled the area while the Bible in its brevity makes it sound like it happened at the place where they were camped."