Some Short Biblical Stories

Israel and Outsiders
When the ten tribes of Northern Israel were carried off into captivity by the Assyrians after the fall of the northern Kingdom, they disappeared from history, though not from the imaginations of later peoples. The leaders of Judah, however, managed to emerge with their identity intact from the Babylonian captivity. They seem, in fact, to have clung more than ever to what separated them from other groups, and on their return, this exclusivist impulse led them to distrust, even disdain those who had been left behind in Palestine. Solomon may have had 700 wives from various peoples, but the rules against marrying outside of one's people were once more taken as important. This is the form of postexilic Judaism found in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah. There were other voices, however, and two of the Bible's narrative books, Ruth and Jonah, have often been read as parables critical of the policy of Ezra.

RUTH. The book of Ruth appears in Christian Bibles right after Judges, because its events are presumed to have occured in that time. In the Hebrew scriptures, on the other hand, it is found in the third and last grouping, "Writings."
- Date In general, the works found in the "Writings" are later in date of composition than those in the Law and the Prophets, so that the placement itself suggests that this is a relatively late work. Those who assign it to the post-exilic period note that the days of judges seem to be spoken of as long past (1.1), and that the institution of levirate marriage (Deuteronymy 25.5) also is spoken of as an obsolete custom (4.7). The language of the book is also said to contain some Aramaisms, which would suggest a late date. Editorial additions could explain some of these features, however, and other scholars see it as a folktale carried over from the period of the monarchy.
- Meaning. The argument that the book is postexilic is linked to an interpretation which sees it as concerned to highlight David's Moabite ancestry, implicitly undermining rules against intermarriage. At the opposite extreme, it can be read as a folk tale pure and simple, which has incorporated the Davidic genealogy at some relatively late date. Its focus then would be on the mutual devotion of Ruth and Naomi and on the exemplary conduct of Boaz in extending charity to the widowed and dispossessed.
JONAH. The story of Jonah, on the other hand, has been placed for some time in the scroll of the 12 prophets, though unlike its neighbors it is a rather satiric short narrative rather than a collection of prophecies.
- Date. The story's connection with the historical prophet mentioned in 2 Kings 14.25 is not readily apparent, and the historical background of the story itself is fairly vague. These characteristics and some minor linguistic considerations have led some to assign its composition to the postexilic period. The evidence for late dating is hardly overwhelming, however.
- Meaning. Again, those favoring a late date see the story as directed against the exclusivist policies of postexilic Judaism. The hostility to prophets, if that what it is, is not unlike that in Zechariah 13.1-5, another text that has been regarded as postexilic, at least in its later chapters. On the other hand, prophecies of doom for foreign nations are certainly common in all the prophets, and the book's stress on the compassion of God may be as important as its universalism.
- Historicity. Bible criticism has generally treated the book as a humorous parable, albeit more extended than most of the New Testament parables. There is, however, a long tradition of more literal treatments. In the latter case, it seems easier to deal with the events described as frankly miraculous, rather than stretch to look for naturalistic explanations.

Strong Women. One book is apocryphal, the other partly canonical, but the stories of Esther and Judith are both popular stories of how Israel was saved in time of peril by a beautiful woman.

ESTHER. In the case of Esther, the apocryphal portions are those which appeared only in the Greek Septuagint and were not accepted into the received Hebrew text. The differences are important. God is clearly in charge in the apocryphal version and not even mentioned in the canonical one. Rather than assume that someone took the trouble to eliminate him from the Hebrew versions, it seems easier to assume that the Greek version includes additions from various hands designed to make the morality of the tale more palatable.
- The Deposed Queen. The reluctance of Vashti to come show off her beauty to a bunch of drunks, even if she was to come fully clothed, has struck some commentators as more admirable than not. At the very least, King Ahasuerus looks ridiculous and easily manipulated. In the Hebrew 2.1, he remembers Vashti with affection, though we know he cannot recall his edicts. Some scholars suggest that this portion of the tale was originally separate and was added to explain why the position of Queen was open, though Ahasuerus would probably have had a harem anyway. Harem intrigues by eunuchs were certainly common enough.
- Names. The name Mordecai has aroused a certain amount of angst, since it apparently includes the name of the Babylonian god Marduk. Some commentators have wanted to derive the name from less obvious but less obnoxious sources, while others have suggested that the whole story was not originally Jewish but was taken over from Babylonian or Persian sources, much like Purim, the festival it purports to give the origin of. This seems unnecessary. People in strange lands often adopt or use names familiar to their hosts, even if they retain their family name among their kin. Given the animosity toward the Jews of the villain Haman and Mordecai's instruction that Esther conceal her Jewishness, it would have made sense for the ambitious Mordecai to go by a Gentile name in public.
- Purim. However popular, the feast of Purim is non-Mosaic, which is why a story explaining its origins could still remain controversial among the rabbis. Its name comes from the Babylonian word for "lots" (pur), and the feast may have a non-Jewish origin. It is not one of the major holy days of Judaism, and work is generally permitted on the day. Reading of the book of Esther is ordained for the day; this can be raucous, with booing and noise-makers at the name of Haman. It used to be common to burn an effigy of Haman. It is a day of giving gifts and charity, of masks and parades. Wine is drunk at the evening feast, and the Talmud includes an instruction to drink until one can no longer distinguish between the arur Haman ("Cursed is Haman") and baruch Mordechai ("Blessed is Mordechai").
JUDITH. Surviving only in Greek, though a Greek with a Hebrew inflection, Judith is a late book that did not make the rabbi's canon, though it has remained very popular.
- Historicity. Judith is pretty clearly meant as an instructive work of fiction, and its non-canonical status means that even literalists need not defend its historicity. It begins with a Babylonian king (Nebuchadnezzer) ruling the Assyrians, and his chief general (Holofernes) has a Persian name. The geography of the second chapter may be a bit confused as well. On this and on linguistic grounds, it is generally assumed that the book was written after the exile.
- The Story of Judith in Art. The combination of sex and violence has made the story of Judith popular with artists, especially in those periods when one needed religious subjects to indulge in those popular themes. Judith was dealt with by many Renaissance artists. A particular poignant case is Artemisia Gentileschi's painting of Judith Slaying Holofernes (1613), which she may have painted during the trial she brought charging her mentor Agostino Tasso with rape. She also painted a well-known Judith and Her Maidservant sometime in the same period. A second version of Judith Slaying Holofernes (1620) is very much like the first; it was hidden away as too horrific for many years but it now on exhibit due to revived interest in its painter. [There's a very misleading movie on her life.] Artemisia returned to the topic of Judith and Her Maidservant with the Head of Holofernes (1625) later.
  --Botticelli has two famous paintings of Judith carrying the head of her victim, Judith's Return to Bethulia (1470) and Judith Leaving the Tent of Holofernes (c. 1498?). The wistful face of a Botticelli Venus or Virgin is a bit unnerving when accompanied by a severed head.
  --A Donatello statue of Judith and Holofernes (c. 1458), originally commissioned by Cosimo de'Medici, stood in the public square of Florence for many years. Like David (defeating Goliath) and Brutus, Judith was seen as a symbol of Florentine independence.
  --Michelangelo has a treatment of Judith and Holfernes (1509) on the Sistine Chapel ceiling.
  --Caravaggio's Judith Beheading Holfernes (1598) is notable for the bloody treatment of Holofernes.
  --Further north, Lucas Cranach the Elder presents Judith with the Head of Holofernes (c. 1530) as an elegant German lady. [The painter was Martin Luther's best man at his wedding.]

Innocents Accused. Two apocryphal additions to Daniel are tales in which the falsely accused are vindicated and their accusers killed instead, a pattern also found in Esther. The Qumran fragments show that there were a variety of stories about Daniel in circulation.

SUSANNA. The story of Susannah and the elders has also long been a favorite with painters as providing a good excuse for picturing a young beauty bathing. Artemisia Gentileschi (see Judith above) first made her name with a painting of Susannah and the Elders (1610) done when she was still in her teens (and also did a Jael and Sisera [1620]). The puns on tree names (verses 54-59) suggest that it was originally written in Greek, though they could have been added later. Detective story authors sometimes cite this as an early example of their craft. There is nothing especially Jewish about this folk tale, unless one takes Daniel's criticism of procedure as referring to Deuteronymic law.
BEL & THE DRAGON. Something about Daniel seems to bring out the lions. Compare this tale with Daniel 6.16-28. These are folk tales illustrating Daniel's cleverness and bravery. The story of the idol pokes fun at idol worship in general. The dragon (snake) story is a bit odder; for one thing, such worship was not characteristic of Babylonian religion so far as we know. The lion's den story here is frankly miraculous.