Talk:Holofernes

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Bible Low‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religious texts (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religious texts, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Religious textsWikipedia:WikiProject Religious textsTemplate:WikiProject Religious textsReligious texts articles

Untitled[edit]

What is the original akkadian form of his name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.21.44.130 (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

None. This is not an Akkadian narrative. For the original language (Hebrew) in which this episode was described, see Book of Judith.--Wetman (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronistic terminology[edit]

There was no such word as "Jewish" at the time of the events discussed in this article; that was a later term applied to the ancient Hebrews after they were thrown out of their homeland by the Romans. A minor point, admittedly. I have changed the descriptions of Judith from "Jewish" to "Hebrew". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.22.213.29 (talk) 15:38, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The name Judith simply means "the Jewess", in the Greek transliteration, Ἰουδείθ. (see Jewish Encyclopedia link in the article). The date of a supposed action and the date of the narrative text that "tells the story" are often confused by naive readers.--Wetman (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would beware of dogmatically asserting it simply means 'Jewess' when (as mentioned in the summary lead of her wiki article) it is also stated "or "praised" - which another source phrases as "She who is to be praised". It is ironic that a common diminutive of the Christian name Judith - Jude - is also same as the German word for 'Jewess' although the latter is punctuated with an umlaut above the 'u'.Cloptonson (talk) 09:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Best to merge with Judith and Holofernes[edit]

Holofernes, aside from the question whether or not he was a historical figure at all, has no existence separate from the episode Judith and Holofernes.

Holofernes should redirect to Judith and Holofernes, as this is the object of almost every Wikipedia reader's search. Judith and Holofernes should have a hatnote directing readers to Holofernes (disambiguation). --Wetman (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dehumanising tone on Holofernes[edit]

While I agree about the chance given by the subject to picture a contrast, I would argue that it's not the kind suggested here. This one seems somewhat misjudged:

"Holofernes is depicted in [...]. As a painter's subject it offers the chance to contrast the flesh and jewls of a beautiful, festively attired woman with the grisly victim, an Old Testament parallel to the New Testament vignette of Salome with the head of John the Baptist."

Holofernes, even "as a painter's subject", is a man, therefore he, not it.
Why is the victim "grisly"? What's grisly, is what's happening to him! Esthetic counterpart of blaming the victim?

Is it only me, or the phrasing should be changed?

6birc (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replying ten years on, I have rephrased the passage, putting in 'he' for 'it' and clarifying it is the head (in decapitated form) that is grisly to behold.Cloptonson (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading assertion[edit]

" Hebrew versions of the tale identify Holoferenes as Nicanor whence the name "Holofernes" in the Greek version would be a deliberately cryptic name similar to the use of "Nebuchadnezzer" for Antiochus." In what Hebrew version is Holofernes given the Greek name Nicanor? The identification of "Nebuchadnezzer" with Antiochus is an attempt to give verisimilitude to the narrative.--Wetman (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is found in the Chronicles of Jerahmeel and the Megilat Antiochus, I'm reverting you. Kuratowski's Ghost (talk) 14:52, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd read once the name is Egyptian?[edit]

Maybe I'm remembering wrong. But since Egypt is a language that uses the same letter for R and L, it could make sense as a Hor(Horus) theophoric name. If he is based on Nicanor, what reason might there be to give him an Egyptian name?--JaredMithrandir (talk) 01:45, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Possible sources?[edit]

"Jewels in the Uffizi The Secrets of Depicted Gems" Author Silvia Malaguzzi links:

1. https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/renaissance-reformation/baroque-art1/baroque-italy/a/gentileschi-judith-slaying-holofernes

and

2. https://www.uffizi.it/en/online-exhibitions/jewels-in-the-uffizi

I found here: https://www.uffizi.it/en and possibly one in Italian? Perhaps here >> https://www.uffizi.it ? IrishLas (talk) 09:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holofernes 'seduced' by Judith?[edit]

Is it correct to write that Judith 'seduced' Holofernes? I understood the word meant to lead someone into sexual relations with the seducer but from my memory of reading the story in the Apocrypha (King James, New English and Jerusalem versions of the Bible) Judith merely encouraged Holofernes' interest (flirtation) without physically giving into his intended advances, pre-empted as they were by her beheading him when he was drunk on his bed. (I well recall the NEV verse saying that Holofernes was over-awed by her beauty and that 'he had planned to seduce her ever since he first saw her'.) I think a better word is needed that does not mislead the reader into thinking she had sexual relations with him (proverbial 'sleeping with the enemy').Cloptonson (talk) 09:50, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]