by
Damien F. Mackey
“The city on which everything depended was Bethulia, or rather Betylūa ...
which commanded the main road by which the [Assyrian] army was advancing into Judea.
On this fact the whole story turns”.
Charles C. Torrey
One hundred and twenty years ago this year Charles C. Torrey, in his article “The Site of Bethulia” (JSTOR, Vol. 20, 1899, 160-172), pointed to certain aspects of the Book of Judith - e.g., “unusual number of geographical and topographical details”; “Nebuchadnezzar’s campaigns in the East ... his journey westward”; “the pursuit and slaughter of his army by the Jews”; the naming of characters:
“Even the less important personages are regularly called by their proper names” - as being “... all just such details as we expect to see employed by a story-teller who, without being very well informed, wishes to make his tale sound like a chapter of history...”.
Despite such comments, the major focus of this relatively short article of Torrey’s, Bethulia (“The city on which everything depended was Bethulia, or rather Betylūa ... which commanded the main road by which the [Assyrian] army was advancing into Judea.
On this fact the whole story turns”.), will be found by the author, Torrey, to fit perfectly, even down to its finest details - geographically, topographically, strategically, etc. - with the ancient city of Shechem.
Strangely, the otherwise not “very well informed” author of the Book of Judith will all of a sudden become precisely accurate when it comes to his geographical description “of the region where the principal action of the story takes place” (p. 161):
But in the frequent descriptions with which the writer gives of the region where the principal action of the story takes place, the geographical and topographical details are introduced in such number and with such consistency as to show that he is describing locations with which he was personally familiar. Nor is it difficult to determine, in general, what region he had in mind.
[End of quote]
Might not the pinpoint accuracy of this major part of the Book of Judith, as so brilliantly shown by Torrey (see further below), inspire us to return to an age-long view about the Book of Judith that it was indeed the narration of an historical event?
And might not the consistent naming of its major and minor characters, far from being a device by which the author “wishes to make his tale sound like a chapter of history”, be evidence instead – along with those priceless Shechem details – in favour of the book’s being a reliable account?
I had encountered the same species of argument - that proliferation of detail might indicate an exaggerated or desperate attempt by the author “to make his tale sound like a chapter of history” (Torrey) - in my university thesis:
A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
with regard to Judith’s lengthy genealogy, “... this is a kind of desperate measure to give the book a semblance of authenticity” (Volume Two. p, 65):
Judith is introduced in 8:1 with an impressive Simeonite genealogy, going back (as we
already read in Chapter 5, p. 129) some sixteen generations, to two known Simeonite chieftains, Salamiel and Sarasadai (var. Shelumiel and Zurishaddai), contemporary with
Moses, even appointed by Moses (cf. Numbers 2:12). Thus Judith was of noble stock. And so we read (Judith 8:1): “[Judith] was the daughter of Merari son of Ox son of Joseph son of Oziel son of Elkiah son of Ananias son of Gideon son of Raphain son of
Ahitub son of Elijah son of Hilkiah son of Eliab son of Nathanael son of Salamiel son of
Sarasadai son of Israel”. ....
- Proponents of the historicity of [the Book of Judith] argue that it would have been quite pointless for the author to have gone to all that trouble of listing so extensive a genealogy if the person Judith never existed.
- Critics, though, claim the opposite:1301 that this is a kind of desperate measure to give
the book a semblance of authenticity.
In the next verse (v. 2), as noted by Pope,1302 “... we are given details about the death of Judith’s husband [Manasses] which (viii, 2-4) can hardly be attributed to art, but are
rather indications that Judith represents a really existing heroine”.
Moreover there is - as we read and discussed in the previous chapter - an approximately
millennium-long tradition of historicity associated with [the Book of Judith]. ....
[End of quote]
In this thesis I located the entire drama of Judith in the context of the eastern and western campaigns of the Assyrian king, Sennacherib (the “Nebuchadnezzar” of the Book of Judith), and his eldest son.
More recently, though, I have corrected my previous historical identification of Israel’s arch-foe, “Holofernes”. See e.g. my article:
"Nadin" (Nadab) of Tobit is the "Holofernes" of Judith
There are many other strong pointers, too, towards the historicity of the book as noted in my thesis (p. 29):
[Carey A.] Moore continues on with certain arguments in favour of [the Book of Judith’s] historicity, beginning with this general remark:1216 “The book purports to be a historical account. Moreover, it has all the outward trappings of one, including various kinds of dates, numerous names of well-known persons and places, and, most important of all, a quite believable plot”. All of this data - what Leahy called “the minute historical, geographical, chronological and genealogical details [that] indicate a straightforward narrative of real events” - was what impressed upon me (back in the early 1980’s, my first recollection of having read [the Book of Judith]) that here was an account of a real history (albeit an anciently written one).
Moore again:1217
Typical of genuine historical accounts, Judith includes a number of quite specific dates …:
the twelfth year … of Nebuchadnezzar (1:1)
In [Nebuchadnezzar’s] seventeenth year (1:13)
in the eighteenth year on the twenty-second day of the first month (2:1)
and exact periods of time:
feasted for four whole months (1:16)
stayed there a full month (3:10)
blockaded them for thirty-four days (7:20)
hold out for five more days (7:30)
a widow … for three years and four months (8:4)
It took the people a month to loot the camp (15:11)
For three months the people continued their celebrations in Jerusalem (16:20)
as well as some vague and imprecise expressions of time:
during the wheat harvest (2:27)
they had returned from exile only a short time before … Temple had just
recently been rededicated (4:3)
For many days the people … kept on fasting (4:13)
At one time they settled (5:7)
and settled there for a long while (5:8)
settled there as long as there was food (5:10)
There they settled for a long while (5:16) …
died during the barley harvest (8:2)
For there has not been in our generation (8:18)
today is the greatest day of my whole life (12:18)
more than he had ever drunk on a single day since he was born (12:20) …
[End of quotes]
As to how the author could possibly have known that “Holofernes” drank (in Judith’s presence) “more than he had ever drunk on a single day since he was born (12:20) …”, see e.g. my article:
Author of the Book of Judith
Charles Torrey has completely nailed it
[Jan] Simons thinks that the reference in the Vulgate to the Assyrians coming at this stage to “the Idumæans into the land of Gabaa” (Judith 3:14) should more appropriately be rendered “the Judæans ... Gabaa”. Gabaa would then correspond to the Geba of the Septuagint
in the Esdraelon (Jezreel) plain.
Let us follow the march of the Assyrian commander-in chief through the eyes of Charles C. Torrey, in his article “The Site of Bethulia” (JSTOR, Vol. 20, 1899), beginning on p. 161:
When the army of Holofernes reached the Great Plain of Jezreel, in its march southward, it halted there for a month (iii. 9 f.) at the entrance to the hill country of the Jews. According to iii. 10, "Holofernes pitched between Geba and Scythopolis." This statement is not without its difficulties. We should perhaps have expected the name Genin, where the road from the Great Plain enters the hills, instead of Geba.
The latter name is very well attested, however, having the support of most Greek manuscripts and of all the versions. The only place of this name known to us, in this region, is the village Geba (Gěba‘) ... a few miles north of Samaria, directly in the line of march taken by Holophernes [Holofernes] and his army, at the point where the road to Shechem branches. It is situated just above a broad and fertile valley where there is a fine large spring of water. There would seem to be every reason, therefore, for regarding this as the Geba of Judith iii. 10; as is done, for example, by Conder in the Survey of Western Palestine, Memoirs, ii, p. 156, and by G. A. Smith, Historical Geography of the Holy Land, p. 356. There is nothing in the sequel of the story to disagree with this conclusion. According to the narrator, the vast 'Assyrian' army, at the time of this ominous halt, extended all the way from Scythopolis through the Great Plain to Genin, and along the broad caravan track … southward as far as Geba.
Torrey will proceed to make excellent sense of the geography of this impressive (but ill-fated) Assyrian campaign.
Jan Simons (The Geographical and Topographical Texts of the Old Testament, E. J. Brill, Leiden, 1959) will later do a reasonable job of accounting for the earlier part of the Assyrian campaign, from its leaving from the city of Nineveh until its arrival at the plain of Esdraelon – the phase of the campaign that Torrey will dismiss as “mere literary adornment” (on p. 160):
With regard to a part of these details, especially those having to do with countries or places outside of Palestine, it can be said at once that they are mere literary adornment, and are not to be taken seriously. Such for example are the particulars regarding Nebuchadnezzar’s ... journey westward ....
I quoted Simons, for instance, in Volume Two, pp. 49-51 of my university thesis:
A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
Commentators have not found it easy to unravel geographically, in its various stages, the [Book of Judith] narrative of the Assyrian army’s march westwards (2:19-3:9). A difficulty is that the account of its route, from Nineveh to its eventual arrival in northern Israel, varies from version to version. .... Nevertheless, Simons has made quite a good attempt to unravel [Book of Judith’s] geography here. He begins with the Assyrian army’s departure, from Nineveh:1270
a) v. 21: after mentioning NINEVE [Nineveh] as Holofernes’ starting-point this verse deals with the first stage of the expedition, i.e. a “three days march” which brings the army to the border of the enemy country, viz. to “the plain of Bectileth”, which was apparently the site of a base-camp close to the general area of military operations (similar to the camp on the plain (of) Esdrelon [Esdraelon] … before the final stage of these operations: iii 10);
b) v. 22 relates the opening proper of the military operations, viz. by saying that the army leaves the base-camp on the plain and moves up the mountain-land εἰς τὴν ὀρεινήν.
c) V. 27: (from this mountain-land) the army “descends into the plain of DAMASCUS”, the territory first to suffer;
d) V. 28: the chastisement of the land of DAMASCUS causes a panic in the “coastland” (παραλία) from where several cities mentioned by name send ambassadors to offer submission (iii 1 ff.).
As regards the cartographic interpretation of this part of the expedition preceding that attack on Judaea … itself we submit the following remarks:
Independently of every hypothesis or reconstruction of Holofernes’ expedition it appears that the transmitted text does not mention Cilicia … (v. 21) as its objective or partial goal. Moreover, “Upper Cilicia” as an indication of the location of “the plain Bectileth” (“Bectileth near the mountain which lies to the left – north – of Upper Cilicia” or Cilicia above the Taurus Mountains) is completely out of the way which starts at NINEVE and is directed towards Syria-Palestine.
We suspect, therefore, that τῆς ἄνω Κιλικίας has been inserted (perhaps in replacement of some another original reading) in order to adjust the account of the campaign to the terms of I 7 and I 12.
Secondly, “the plain of Bectileth” mentioned as the terminus of the first stage of
Holofernes’ advance seems to us simply the Syrian beqã‘ ... between Libanos and Antilibanos … mentioned in I 7.
Holofernes’ base-camp was not in the centre of the plain (“ἀπὸ Βεκτιλὲθ” 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 “gebel esh-sherqi”: …).
It is this mountain-ridge (ὀρεινή) which the army has to climb (v.22) before “sweeping down (κατέβη) on the plain of DAMASCUS” (V. 27).
In the third place the text names (v. 28) the coastal towns, where the fate of DAMASCUS raises a panic. Most of these names create no problems:
SIDON = saidã
TYRUS = sûr
JEMNAA = Jamnia ….
AZOTUS = isdûd ….
ASCALON = ‘asqalãn ….
Some mss. add: GAZA = ghazzeh.
Though Simons does not specify here to which particular ‘mss.’ he is referring, Moore tells us that “LXXs, OL, and Syr add “and Gaza”.”1271 Simons continues:
The remaining two are obscure. OCINA seems to have been somewhere between TYRUS and JEMNAA and is for this reason usually identified with ‘ACCO = ‘akkã …. Sour, 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.
[End of quotes]
Further down p. 51, and continuing on to p. 52, I wrote – again making reference to Simons:
The next crucial stopping point of the Assyrian army after its raids on the region of Damascus will effectively be its last: “Then [Holofernes] came toward Esdraelon, near Dothan, facing the great ridge of Judea; he camped between Geba and Scythopolis, and remained for a whole month in order to collect all the supplies for his army” (v. 9).
Simons thinks that the reference in the Vulgate to the Assyrians coming at this stage to “the Idumæans into the land of Gabaa” (3:14) should more appropriately be rendered “the Judæans ... Gabaa”.1274 Gabaa would then correspond to the Geba of the Septuagint in the Esdraelon (Jezreel) plain. (It has of course no connection at all with the ‘Geba’ discussed on p. 6 of the previous chapter, which was just to the north of Jerusalem). Judah’s reabsorbing of this northern region (Esdraelon) into its kingdom would have greatly annoyed Sennacherib, who had previously spoken of “the wide province of Judah” (rapshu nagû (matu) Ya-û-di).1275 Naturally the Israelites would have been anticipating (from what Joel called the “northern army”) a first assault in the north. And that this was so is clear from the fact that the leaders in Jerusalem had ordered the people to seize the mountain defiles in Samaria as well as those in Judah ([Book of Judith] 4:1-2; 4-5):
When the Israelites living in Judea heard how Holofernes, general-in-chief of Nebuchadnezzar king of the Assyrians, had treated the various nations, first plundering their temples and then destroying them, they were thoroughly alarmed at his approach and trembled for Jerusalem and the Temple of the Lord their God. … They therefore alerted the whole of Samaria, Kona, Beth-horon, Belmain, Jericho, Choba, Aesora and the Salem valley.
They occupied the summits of the highest mountains and fortified the villages on them; they laid in supplies for the coming war, as the fields had just been harvested.
I continue with Torrey’s article, where he has just noted the crucial strategic importance of Bethulia (p. 162):
This city could 'hold the pass' through which it was necessary that Holofernes, having once chosen this southward route, should lead his army in order to invade Judea and attack Jerusalem. This is plainly stated in iv. 7: …. "And Joachim wrote, charging them to hold the pass of the hill-country; for through it was the entrance into Judea, and it would be easy to stop them as they came up, because the approach was narrow”. When the people of Betylūa comply with the request of the high priest and the elders of Jerusalem, and hold the pass. (iv. 8), they do so simply by remaining in their own city, prepared to resist the approach of Holofernes. So long as they continue stubborn, and refuse to surrender or to let the enemy pass, so long their purpose is accomplished, and Jerusalem and the sanctuary are safe. This is made as plain as possible in all the latter part of the book; see especially viii, 21 ff., where Judith is indignantly opposing the counsel of the chief men of the city to surrender: "For if we be taken, all Judea will be taken … and our sanctuary will be spoiled; and of our blood will he require its profanation. And the slaughter of our brethren, and the captivity of the land, and the desolation of our inheritance, will he turn upon our heads among the nations wheresoever we shall be in bondage. And we shall be an offence and a reproach in the eyes of those who have taken us captive .... Let us show an example to our brethren, because their lives hang upon us, and upon us rest the sanctuary and the house and the altar." That is, the city which the writer of this story had in mind lay directly in the path of Holofernes, at the head of the most important pass in the region, through which he must necessarily lead his army. There is no escape from this conclusion.
After making this emphatic statement, Torrey will refer to two other sites “which have been most frequently thought of as possible sites of the city, Sanur and Mithiliyeh” (see below).
The latter of these, Mithiliyeh, or Mithilia, was my own choice for Judith’s Bethulia - following Claude Reignier Conder - when writing my thesis, but it was based more on romantic feel than on solid military strategy – though the name fit had seemed quite solid. Thus I wrote (pp. 70-71):
Conder identified this Misilya - he calls it Mithilia (or Meselieh) - as Bethulia itself:[1]
… Meselieh … A small village, with a detached portion to the north, and placed on a slope, with a hill to the south, and surrounded by good olive-groves, with an open valley called Wâdy el Melek (“the King’s Valley’) on the north. The water-supply is from wells, some of which have an ancient appearance. They are mainly supplied with rain-water.
In 1876 I proposed to identify the village of Meselieh, or Mithilia, south of Jenin, with the Bethulia of the Book of Judith, supposing the substitution of M for B, of which there are occasional instances in Syrian nomenclature. The indications of the site given in the Apocrypha are tolerably distinct. Bethulia stood on a hill, but not apparently on the top, which is mentioned separately (Judith vi. 12).
There were springs or wells beneath the town (verse 11), and the houses were above these (verse 13).
The city stood in the hill-country not far from the plain (verse 11), and apparently near Dothan (Judith iv. 6). The army of Holofernes was visible when encamped near Dothan (Judith vii. 3, 4), by the spring in the valley near Bethulia (verses 3-7). ‘The site usually supposed to represent Bethulia – namely, the strong village of Sanûr – does not fulfil these various requisites; but the topography of the Book of Judith, as a whole, is so consistent and easily understood, that it seems that Bethulia was an actual site’.
Visiting Mithilia on our way to Shechem … we found a small ruinous village on the slope of the hill. Beneath it are ancient wells, and above it a rounded hill-top, commanding a tolerably extensive view. The north-east part of the great plain, Gilboa, Tabor, and Nazareth, are clearly seen. West of these are neighbouring hillsides Jenin and Wâdy Bel’ameh (the Belmaim, probably of the narrative); but further west Carmel appears behind the ridge of Sheikh Iskander, and part of the plain of ‘Arrabeh, close to Dothan, is seen. A broad corn-vale, called “The King’s Valley”, extends north-west from Meselieh toward Dothan, a distance of only 3 miles.
There is a low shed formed by rising ground between two hills, separating this valley from the Dothain [Dothan] plain; and at the latter site is the spring beside which, probably, the Assyrian army is supposed by the old Jewish novelist to have encamped. In imagination one might see the stately Judith walking through the down-trodden corn-fields and shady olive-groves, while on the rugged hillside above the men of the city “looked after her until she was gone down the mountain, and till she had passed the valley, and could see her no more”. (Judith x 10) – C. R. C., ‘Quarterly Statement’, July, 1881.
[End of quotes]
But Torrey tells us why neither Mithilia, nor Sanur, would have figured in the march of Holofernes (p. 163):
This absolutely excludes the two places which have been most frequently thought of as possible sites of the city, Sanur and Mithiliyeh, both midway between Geba and Genin. Sanur, though a natural fortress, is perched on a hill west of the road, and "guards no pass whatever" (Robinson, Biblical Researches, iii. 152 f.). As for Mithiliyeh, first suggested by Conder in 1876 (see Survey of Western Palestine, ‘Memoirs’, ii. 156 f.), it is even less entitled to consideration, for it lies nearly two miles east of the caravan track; guarding no pass, and of little or no strategic importance. Evidently, the attitude, hostile or friendly, of this remote village would be a matter of indifference to a great invading army on its way to attack Jerusalem. Its inhabitants, while simply defending themselves at home, certainly could not have held the fate of Judea in their hands; nor could it ever have occurred to the writer of such a story as this to represent them as doing so.
He the proceeds to contrast the inappropriateness of these sites with the significant Shechem:
Again, having once accepted the plain statement of the writer that the army during its halt extended from Scythopolis to Geba, there is the obvious objection to each and all of the places in this region which have been suggested as possible sites of Betylūa (see those recorded in G. A. Smith, /. c, p. 356, note 2; Buhl, Geographie des alien Paldstina, p. 201, note), that they are all north of Geba.
From the sequel of the story we should be led to look for the pass occupied by Betylūa at some place on the main road not yet reached by the army. It is plainly not the representation of the writer that a part of the host of Holofernes had already passed it.
And finally, Betylūa is unquestionably represented as a large and important city. This fact is especially perplexing, in view of the total absence of any other mention of it. Outside of this one story the name is entirely unknown. On the other hand, nothing can be more certain than that the author of the book of Judith had an actual city in mind when he wrote. Modern scholars are generally agreed in this conclusion, that whatever may be said of the historical character of the narrative, the description of Betylūa and the surrounding country is not a fiction.
Shechem, he says, “meets exactly the essential requirements of the story” – it and no other site in the entire area (p. 164):
… no other city between Jezreel and Jerusalem can compete with [Shechem] for a moment in this respect. When the advance guard of Holofernes' army halted in the broad valley below Geba, it was within four hours' march of the most important pass in all Palestine, namely that between Ebal and Gerizim. Moreover, this was the one pass through which the army would now be compelled to proceed, after it had once turned westward at Bethshan and chosen the route southward through Genin. We see now why the narrator makes Holofernes encamp "between Scythopolis and Geba." It is a good illustration of the skill which he displays in telling this story. Having advanced so far as this, it was too late for the ‘Assyrians’ to choose another road. As for the city Shechem, which was planted squarely in the middle of the narrow valley at the summit of the pass … its attitude toward the invaders would be a matter of no small importance.
As to why Shechem might be called “Bethulia” in the Book of Judith, the explanation may be in the following statement by Dr. John Osgood: “W. Ross in Palestine Exploration Quarterly (1941), p. 22–27 reasoned, I believe correctly, that the Bethel of Jeroboam must be Shechem, since it alone fills the requirements”. https://creation.com/techlets
Bethulia’s water sources seized
“... it is worthy of notice that of all of the cities of Palestine, Shechem was the one most likely to suggest to a narrator this precise manner of reducing a stronghold to submission, by cutting off from it the springs which were the source of its water supply”.
Charles C. Torrey
Charles C. Torrey will continue to be our guide as we follow the Assyrian army on its march towards “The Site of Bethulia” (JSTOR, Vol. 20, 1899, pp. 164-167):
The first approach of some of the enemy to the city is narrated in vi. 10ff. The servants of Holofernes, with their prisoner, Achior, after leaving the camp, passed first through the plain; their road then ascended through a mountainous region; passing through this, they at length arrived at the springs below 'Betylūa' [Bethulia] (vs. 11).
This describes perfectly the way from the plain below Geba over the mountain to Shechem (see Baedeker, Palästina ... p. 225-228), whether the steeper direct path is taken, or the longer road by Samaria, which would be more likely to be chosen for the approach of such an army. The spring below the city might be the present beit el-mā, beside the road, fifteen minutes from Shechem (the ‘fine large fountain' mentioned by Robinson, l. c., p. 136); or even the ‘ain el-quṣab, in the valley just below the western gate of the present city of Nābulus [Nablus]. All the valley on this side is abundantly supplied with water.
From this time on, definite hints are frequently given in the narrative as to the location of the city and the nature of the surrounding country. The features of the description are as follows:
- Below the city and at no great distance, on the side from which the invaders came, was a valley of considerable extent (vii. 3, x. 11, xiv. 2, etc.). Here were the springs (πηγαί) above mentioned (vi. 11; also vii. 3, xii. 7). This valley, into which Holofemes and the advance guard of his army now moved, lay on the west side of the city, as appears from the verse vii. 18, which describes the surrounding of the city by the hostile forces (cf. vss. 13, 20). Troops were sent to the north ("in the direction of Dothan," which would be northward from any point on the road south of Geba), others "toward the south," others "toward the east"; the main body of the army remaining in the plain where they had pitched, i. e., on the west. Finally, this valley — or at least the upper end of it — was in plain view from the walls of the city (vi. 11 f., vii. 6, x. 10; cf. xiv. 2, 11f.).
- As for the city itself, the statements regarding its situation are both explicit and consistent. As has already been seen, the first and most important requirement of the narrative for ‘Betylūa' is that it should occupy the summit of an important pass. With this requirement the various bits of description inserted here and there by the writer correspond admirably. One who approached the city from the plain where the army was encamped, ascended through a narrowing valley (xiii. 10, cf. x. 10; the translation has φάραγξ in the former passage). At the head of the valley, a short distance back from the brow of the hill, stood the city (vi. 12 ... x. 10, xiii. 10, xiv. 11). Rising above the city, and overlooking it, were mountains (vii. 13, 18, xv. 3). No one can read these verses describing the immediate neighborhood of ‘Betylūa' without feeling sure that the writer had an actually existing city before his mind's eye. Nor does there seem to be any room for doubt, in view of the remarkable correspondence of this description with that of Shechem and its surroundings, that the latter city, and no other, was in his thoughts when he wrote.
- .... it is worthy of notice that of all of the cities of Palestine, Shechem was the one most likely to suggest [sic] to a narrator this precise manner of reducing a stronghold to submission, by cutting off from it the springs which were the source of its water supply. What is more, investigation of the narrative at this point will be found to bring most striking confirmation of the conclusion already reached. ‘Betylūa' is not represented as an especially strong fortress. As a large and strongly-built city, perched in the narrow saddle between high mountains, it had an important advantage of position, and its warriors could defend themselves for some time, provided they remained within their own walls. This fact is stated ... in vii. 10; cf. iv. 7. But elsewhere the city does not appear to be thought of as one whose strength rendered it especially difficult of capture. .... 1, xi. 9, 10).
It was in order that Holofernes might punish them to his satisfaction without the loss of any of his army (vii. 11 f.) that he is advised by the Edomites and Moabites to cut off the water supply from the city. The modern city of Nābulus is full of running water, and springs are to be found everywhere.
Robinson (Physical Geography of the Holy Land, p. 247) conjectured that "very many of these" were simply "branches from larger fountains brought down by underground conduits" to various parts of the city. .... The uppermost of these springs, the magnificent perennial rās el-‘ain, is the most celebrated of the fountains about Nābulus. From it proceeds the main canal of the system of ancient conduits above mentioned, built of large blocks of hewn stone. .... There are strong reasons for believing that the author of the book of Judith had this all-important spring in mind when he described the siege of Shechem. It must be evident that in his representation the spring from which the city was supplied was not the one in the valley, beside which the army encamped (vii. 3). This latter (the beit el-mā?) was of course in his camp (ἐν τῃ παρεμβολῃ, xii. 7) from the first. He also took possession of other waters still nearer the city (the ‘ain el-quṣab?), as narrated in vii. 6: “On the second day Holofernes led out all his horse in the sight of the children of Israel who were in Betylūa, and viewed the ascents to their city, and searched out the fountains of the waters, and seized upon them, and set garrisons of men of war over them; then he himself returned to his camp." But these springs, though important for him and his army, were not of any great value to the city, it would seem. It was just at this point that the Edomites and other old-time neighbors and enemies of Israel came to Holofernes with their advice concerning the fountain that supplied the city, of whose exist- ence he as yet knew nothing. Their counsel was the following (vs. 12 f.): .... "Remain in thy camp, and keep safe every man of thy host, and let thy servants get possession of the fountain of water that comes forth from the foot of the mountain, because all the inhabitants of Betylūa have their water thence; and they will perish of thirst, and will surrender their city." This advice was followed forthwith. The Moabites ... with five thousand of the ‘Assyrians,' went up and made their camp in the valley, or ravine ... where the springs were situated (i. e., in the above-mentioned valley south of Shechem, at the foot of Mount Gerizim), and cut off the water supply of the city (vs. 17) ; while the Edomites and Ammonites ("with twelve thousand of the Assyrians"; Syr., Vet. Lat.) went up on the mountains on the other side of the city (vs. 18). The correspondence of all this part of the narrative with the topography of Shechem is thus seen to be absolutely perfect.
.... The description of the Shechem water works, as we know them to have existed, is thus made as exact as any one could wish.' Nor do we know of any other city in Palestine to which water was brought by aqueducts from ‘a spring' ... on the south side. ....
[End of quotes]
In this context, Torrey is able to account also for Ekrebel [Acraba] (refer to his diagram on p. 169), though he is less sure about Chusi and Mochmur. Judith 7:18: “They sent some of their men to the southeast in the direction of Acraba, near Chusi, which is beside the Mochmur River”.
In my university thesis:
A Revised History of the Era of King Hezekiah of Judah
and its Background
I had relied on Charles and Simons for the identifications of these sites (Volume One, p. 63):
On the second day, Holofernes led out the cavalry in full view of the Israelites in Bethulia (v. 6). It was at this point that the local Edomite and Moabite leaders advised Holofernes that there was no need for him to risk any of his army in a ‘regular formation’ engagement, when he could simply bring the resisters to submission by cutting off their water supply (vv. 12, 13). Verses 16-18:
These words pleased Holofernes and all his attendants…. So the army of the Ammonites moved forward, together with 5000 Assyrians, and they encamped in the valley and seized the water supply and the springs of the Israelites. And the Edomites and Ammonites went up and encamped in the hill country opposite Dothan; and they sent some of their men toward the south and the east, toward Egrebeh, which is near Chusi beside the Wadi Mochmur. The rest of the Assyrian army remained encamped in the plain, and covered the whole face of the land. Their tents and supply trains spread out in great number, and they formed a vast multitude.
This latest strategy is geographically explained by Simons as follows:[2]
While a contingent of troops establishes itself (vii 17Z) in the αυλων (= 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”.
… According to vii 18b a platoon was also despatched to “egrebel (or: ecrebel) near chous on the brook Mochmour”. On the probable assumption that this statement refers to a reconnaissance or a predatory raid, the identification of egrebel with ‘aqrabeh, 12 kms se. of nãblus, is not at all impossible. Perhaps it is also supported by “qūzah” (= chous?) on the road nãblus-Jerusalem. “The brook Mochmour” may have left its name in an adapted Arabic form to wãdi el-ahmar (“the red wadi”). In the meantime the bulk of the army withdrew from the small sahl ‘arrãbeh to “the (great) plain (πεδίον)”, which it covered with its many tents (vii 18c).
Charles gives the same identifications as Simons for ‘Egrebel’ (‘Akraba’) and ‘Chous’ (‘Quzeh’), and for ‘Mochmour’ he has proposed “mod[ern] Makhueh, south of Nablus …”.[3]
....
[1] Survey of Western Palestine, vol. II, pp. 156-157. Emphasis added.
[2] Ibid, p. 501, # 1610.
[3] Op. cit, p. 255, n. 18.
