The first question as to the character of the book that naturally arises is whether, or how far, it is historical. The opening words of the book are in themselves sufficient to show that the writer is not to be looked upon as a historian. He says, “In the twelfth year of the reign of Nebuchadnezzar, who reigned over the Assyrians in Nineveh ...”; and again in ii. 1 ff. it is narrated how in his eighteenth year he sent Holofernes to undertake the campaign in the west. But further, in iv. 2, 3 it says that the people were exceedingly afraid at the approach of Holofernes, and were troubled for Jerusalem, and for the temple of the Lord their God; “because they were newly come up from the Captivity, and all the people of Judæa were lately gathered together; and the vessels, and the altar, and the house, were sanctified after the profanation.” How utterly unhistorical all this is can be seen at once by referring to 2 Kings xxiv., xxv., and Jeremiah xxxix., xl. Nebuchadnezzar was king of _Babylon_ (Nineveh fell in B.C. 608), and it was in the eighteenth year of his reign (B.C. 586) that Jerusalem was besieged and captured for the second time, the first time being in 597; and so far from the people having newly come up from the Captivity, it was just in this year that a further exportation of Jews took place. The return from the Captivity was, at the earliest, in B.C. 536, the rebuilding of the Temple took place some twenty years later. Then, again, in iv. 6-8 Joakim the high-priest is represented as supreme ruler; but as a matter of fact Gedaliah had been appointed by Nebuchadnezzar as governor over the cities of Judah (2 Kings xxv. 22, Jer. xl. 5).