Book Of Tobit

Hastings' Dictionary of the Bible

Tobit, Book Of . See Apocrypha, § 8 .

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

one of the deutero-canonical books of the Old Test., standing in most editions of the original between the Epistle of Jeremiah and. the Book of Judith, but in the A. V. between 2 Esdr. and Judith. It is chiefly interesting for the insight which it gives us into the superstitious notions of the Jews during the period of the Apocrypha.

I. Title. — In the Greek the book is called simply Tobit ( Τωβίτ , Τωβείτ ) in the old MSS. At a later time the opening words of the book, Βίβλος Λόγων Τωβιτ , were taken as a title. In Latin MSS. it is styled Tobis, Liber Thobis, Liber Tobic (Sabatier, p. 706), Tobit Et Tobias, Liber Utriusque Tobice (Fritzsche, Einleit. § 1). In the A. V. it is superscribed "The book of the words of Tobit, etc., who, in the time of Eiemessar (Shalmaneser), king of the Assyrians, was led captive out of Thisbe, which is at the right hand of Kydios of Nephthalim in Galilee, above Aser." The word Tobit is probably a Hebrew form טוֹבית , signifying Goodness, a name very appropriate in a narrative of virtue suffering, yet rewarded.

II. Design And Contents. — The object of this book is to show that God, in his mysterious providence, permits sore calamities to befall the most pious and God-fearing in the very act of, and apparently for, obeying his commandments, but that he at the same time exercises a special care over them in the midst of their sufferings, vouchsafes them a happy issue out of all their trials, and holds them up to the world at large as patterns of patience under tribulations, as such who have been deemed worthy of being tried and purified, and who have demonstrated that the effectual and fervent prayer of a "righteous man availeth much." The method adopted by the writer for working out this design will be seen from the following analysis of the book itself.

Tobit

a Jew of the tribe of Naphtali, who strictly observed the law and remained faithful to the Temple service at Jerusalem ( Tobit 1:4-8), was carried captive to Assyria by Shalmaneser. While in captivity he exerted himself to relieve his countrymen, which his favorable position at court ( Ἀγοραστής ,  Tobit 1:13, "purveyor") enabled him to do, and at this time he was rich enough to lend ten talents of silver to a countryman, Gabael of Rages, in Media. But when Sennacherib succeeded his father, Shalmaneser, the fortune of Tobit was changed. He was accused of burying the Jews whom the king had put to death, and was only able to save himself, his wife, Anna, and his son Tobias, by flight. On the accession of Esar-haddon, he was allowed to return to Nineveh, at the intercession of his nephew, Achiacharuts, who occupied a high place in the king's household ( Tobit 1:22); but his zeal for his countrymen brought him into a strange misfortune. As he lay one night in the court of his house, being unclean from having buried a Jew whom his son had found strangled in the market-place, sparrows "muted warm dung into his eyes," and he became blind. Being thus disabled, he was for a time supported by Achiacharus, and after his departure (read Ἐπορεύθη ,  Tobit 2:10) by the labor of his wife. On one occasion he falsely accused her of stealing a kid which had been added to her wages, and in return she reproached him with the miserable issue of all his righteous deeds. Grieved by her taunts, he prayed to God for help; and it happened that on the same day Sara, his kinswoman ( Tobit 6:10-11), the only daughter of Raguel, also sought help from God against the reproaches of her father's household. For seven young men wedded to her had perished on their marriage-night by the power of the evil spirit Asmodsus (q.v.); and she thought that she should "bring her father's old age with sorrow unto the grave" ( Tobit 3:10). So Raphael was sent to deliver both from their troubles. In the meantime Tobit called to mind the money which he had lent to Gabael, and dispatched Tobias, with many wise counsels, to reclaim it (ch. 4). On this Raphael (under the form of a kinsman, Azarias) offered himself as a guide to Tobias on his journey to Media, and they "went forth both, and the young man's dog with them," and Anna was comforted for the absence of her son (ch. 5). When they reached the Tigris, Tobias was commanded by Raphael to take "the heart, and liver, and gall" of "a fish which leaped out of the river and would have devoured him," and instructed how to use the first two against Asmodaeus, for Sara, Raphael said, was appointed to be his wife (ch. 6). So when they reached Ecbatana, they were entertained by Raguel, and, in accordance with the words of the angel, Sara was given to Tobias in marriage that night, and Asmodaeus was "driven to the utmost parts of Egypt," where "the angel bound him" (ch. 7, 8). After this Raphael recovered the loan from Gabael (ch. 9), and Tobias then returned with Sara and half her father's goods to Nineveh (ch. 10). Tobit, informed by Anna of their son's approach, hastened to meet him. Tobias, by the command of the angel, applied the fish's gall to his father's eyes and restored his sight (ch. 11). After this Raphael, addressing to both words of good counsel, revealed himself, and "they saw him no more" (ch. 12). On this Tobit expressed his gratitude in a fine psalm (ch. 13); and he lived to see the long prosperity of his son ( Tobit 14:1-2). After his death Tobias, according to his instruction, returned to Ecbatana, and "before he died he heard of the destruction of Nineveh," of which "Jonas the prophet spake" ( Tobit 14:15;  Tobit 14:4).

III. Historical And Religious Character Of The Book.

1. There are three theories about the reality of this story.

(1.) The opinion that this book records proper history was universally held by the Christian Church up to the time of the Reformation, and has even since been maintained by bishop Gray ( A Key To The 0. T. p. 620, etc., ed. 1857), Welte (Einleit. p. 84 sq.), Scholz (Einleit. 2, 594 sq.), and most Roman Catholic writers. In support of this opinion may be urged,

a. The minute account which it gives of Tobit's tribe, his pedigree, place of birth, the time in which he lived, his family, his condition and employment, his captivity, poverty, blindness, recovery, age, death, and place of burial (1, 1, 13, 20, 21; 2, 10; 11:13; 14:11-13);

b. The exactness of the historical remarks about the Assyrian kings (1, 2, 13, 15, 21), without deriving the names Ε᾿Νεμέσσαρος (=Shalmaneser) and Σαχερδονός from the Old Test., as well as the correctness of the geographical points (1, 14; 2, 21; 3, 7; 6:1, 11); c. The impossibility of tracing the main: features of the narrative to any Old Test. prototype, and of explaining them on the hypothesis of fiction. The obscure place Thisbe is given as Tobit's place of birth (1, 2), and many minute particulars of his life are described which have in themselves nothing whatever to do with the plot, and which can only be accounted for on the reality of the events. On the other hand, Bertholdt (Einleit. § 579) has given a summary of alleged errors in detail (e.g. 1,,2, "Naphtali," comp. with  2 Kings 15:29;  2 Kings 6:9, Rages, said to have been founded by Sel. Nicator), but the question turns rather upon the general complexion of the history than upon minute objections, which are often captious and rarely satisfactory (comp. Welte, Einleit. p. 84-94).

(2.) The opinion that it is a moral fiction was first thrown out by Luther ( Vorrede Aufs Buch Tobia [Bible, ed. 1534]), and has since been maintained by Rainold ( Censur. 1, 726), J. A. Fabricius, Buddens ( Hist. Eccles. 2, 489), Paul Faginus, Eichhorn ( Einleit. p. 401 sq.), Bertholdt ( Einleit. 5, 2477 sq.), De Wette ( Einleit. § 309), Gutmann ( Die Apokryphen. p. 143), Ewald ( Gesch. D. V. J. 4 :233 sq.), Fritszche ( Kurgef. Exeget. Handb. Z. D. Apokryphen, 2, 14 sq.), Davidson ( The Text Of The O.T. Considered, p. 1001), Vaih Ü ger (in Herzog's Real-Encyklop. S.V. "Tobias"), Gratz (Gesch. der Juden, 4:180 [2nd ed. 1866]), etc. In support of this opinion it is urged-a. The narrative is completely isolated; and though the events pretend to have occurred before and shortly after the fall of Nineveh (B.C. 606), no other document written at a later period refers to them. It bears a strong likeness to the tales of the Thousand and One Nights, with the obvious exception that the writer has a considerable acquaintance and sympathy with the writings of the Old Test. He writes in a pleasing style, and with a good deal of power. But he is clearly at variance with the sacred books of the holy nation on important points both of fact and principle. Tobit's age, his wife's, who died after him, and that of his son are much beyond the ordinary limit of old age in his day, and bring us back to the times of the patriarchs. He was fifty-eight years of age when he lost his sight, in the reign of Esar-haddon, and lived one hundred years after that time. Now, if, according to Rawlinson, Esar-haddon began to reign B.C. 680, Tobit must have survived the fall of Nineveh (B.C. 625 or 606), of which, he is made to prophesy (14, 4). He also takes no account of Sargon, who comes-in between Shalmaneser and Sennacherib. He removes to Ely-mais, and yet is found at Nineveh (11, 16), though he does not intimate his return, unless it be in 3, 17, where he speaks of coming home. b. The name Tobit does not occur in the Old Test., and belongs to a later age. c. The form, spirit, and tone of the narrative show that it belongs to a very late period. The doctrine of good and evil spirits (3, 8; 6:14; 8:3; 12:15), the ascription of human lusts to spiritual beings (vi, 14), the notion of the seven presence-angels bringing the prayers of the pious before the Divine throne (12, 12, 15), the marriage instrument ( כתובה ), and the legal benediction pronounced over tie wedded pair (7, 13, 14), are of post-Babylonian origin... 1. The stories of the angel Raphael in a human form giving a false account of himself as being a kinsman of Tobit (5, 12), of Tobit becoming blind in both eyes by the falling of some dung of sparrows (2, 10), and of the marvelous fish (6, 2-5) are beyond all matter of fact. The modes of repelling evil spirits and curing blindness betray a superstitious or trifling mind. The angel is made to feign himself a man, a Jew of a family known to Tobit, and to be the voucher for the false charms which are introduced. Although the extraordinary character of the details, as such, is no objection against the reality of the occurrences, yet it may be fairly urged that the character of the alleged miraculous events, when taken together, is alien from the general character of such events in the historical books of Scripture; while there is nothing exceptional in the circumstances of the persons, as in the case of Daniel, which might serve to explain this difference.

(3.) The view that the narrative is based upon a real occurrence preserved by tradition, but poetically embellished to suit the spirit of the time in which it was written, is maintained by Arnald, Dereser, Ilgen, Keil, etc. The fact that there are different recensions and embellishments of the story, and that the Midrash Tanchuma (pericope האזינו ) gives an independent version of it, seems to show that it was traditionally handed down from the time when the occurrence took place. It is quite possible that some real occurrences, preserved by tradition, furnished the basis of the narrative, but it does not follow by any means that the elimination of the extraordinary details will leave behind pure history (so Ilgen). As the book stands it is a distinctly didactic narrative. Its point lies in the moral lesson which it conveys, and not in the incidents. The incidents furnish lively pictures of the truth which the author wished to inculcate, but the lessons themselves are independent of them. Nor can any weight be laid on the minute exactness with which apparently unimportant details are described (e.g. the genealogy and dwelling-place of Tobit, 1, 1, 2; the marriage festival, 8:20; 11:18, 19, quoted by Ilgen and Welte), as proving the reality of the events, for such particularity is characteristic of Eastern romance, and appears again in the Book of Judith. The writer in composing his-story necessarily observed the ordinary form of a historical narrative.

2. The religious character of the book is one of its most important and interesting features, inasmuch as it shows the phases of faith which obtained prior to the advent of Christ, and explains many points in the New Test. Few probably can read the book in the Sept. text without assenting to the favorable judgment of Luther on its merits. Nowhere else is there preserved so complete and beautiful a picture of the domestic life of the Jews after the Return. There may be symptoms of a tendency to formal, righteousness of works out; as yet the works are painted as springing from a living faith. The devotion due to Jerusalem is united with definite acts of charity (1, 6-8) and with the prospect of wider blessings (13, 11). The giving of alms is not a mere scattering of wealth, but a real service of love (1, 16, 17; 2, 1-7; 4, 7-11, 16), though at times the emphasis which is laid upon the duty is exaggerated (as it seems) from the special circumstances in which the writer was placed (12, 9; 14:10). Of the special precepts one (4, 15, Ὃ Μισεῖς Μηδενὶ Ποιήσης ) contains the negative side of the golden rule of conduct ( Matthew 7:12),.which in this partial form is found among the maxims of Confucius. But it is chiefly in the exquisite tenderness of the portraiture of domestic life that the book excels. The parting of Tobias and his mother, the consolation of Tobit (5, 17-22), the affection of Raguel (7, 4-8), the anxious waiting of the parents (10, 1-7), the son's return (9, 4; 11), and even the unjust suspiciousness of the sorrow of Tobit and Anna (2, 11-14) are painted with a simplicity worthy of the best times of the patriarchs. Almost every family relation is touched upon with natural grace and affection: husband and wife, parent and child, kinsmen, near or distant, master and servant, are presented in the most varied action, and always with life-like power (1, 22; 2, 10, 13, 14; 5, 14, 15, 17-22; 7,3-8, 16; 8:4-8; 10:1-7; 11:1-13; 12:1-5, etc.). Prayer hallows the whole conduct of life (4, 19; 6:17; 8:5-8, etc.); and even in distress there is confidence that in the end all will be well (4, 6, 14, 19), though there is no clear anticipation of a future personal existence (3, 6).

The most remarkable doctrinal feature in the book is the prominence given to the action of spirits, who, while they are conceived to be subject to the passions of men and material influences (Asmodaeus), are yet not affected by-bodily wants, and manifested only by their own will (Raphael, 12:19). Powers of evil ( Δαιμόνιον , Πνεῦμα Πονηρόν , 3, 8, 17; 6:7, 14, 17) are represented as gaining the means of injuring men by sin, while they are driven away and bound by the exercise of faith and prayer (8, 2,3). On the other hand, Raphael comes among men as "the healer" (comp. Dillmann, Das Buch Henoch, C. 20), and, by the mission of God (3, 17; 12:18), restores those whose good actions he has secretly watched (12, 12, 13), and "the remembrance of whose prayers he has brought before the Holy One" (12, 12). This ministry of intercession is elsewhere expressly recognized. Seven holy angels, of whom Raphael is one, are specially described as those "which present the prayers of the saints, and which go in aid out before the glory of God" (12, 15). It is characteristic of the same sense of the need of some being to interpose between God and man that singular prominence is given to the idea of" the glory of God," before which these archangels appear as priests in the holiest place (8, 15; 12:15); and in one passage "the angel of God" (5, 16, 21) occupies a position closely resembling that of the Word in the, Targums and Phlilo (De Muet Norn. § 13, etc.). Elsewhere blessing is rendered to "all the holy angels" (11, 14, Εὐλογημένοι as contrasted with Εὐλογητός ; comp.  Luke 1:42), who are themselves united with "the elect" in the duty of praising God forever (8:15). This mention of "the elect" points to a second doctrinal feature of the book, which it shares with Baruch alone of the Apocryphal writings, the firm belief in a glorious restoration of the Jewish people (14:5; 103, 9-18). But the restoration contemplated is national, and not the work of a universal Savior. The Temple is described as "consecrated and built for all ages" (1:4), its feasts are "an everlasting decree" (v. 6), and when it is restored the streets of Jerusalem shall say, "Blessed be God which hath extolled it forever" (13:18). In all there is not the slightest trace of the belief in a personal Messiah.

Comparisons have often been made between the Book of Tobit and Job, but from the outline which has been given it is obvious that the resemblance is only superficial, though  Tobit 2:14 was probably suggested by  Job 2:9-10, while the differences are such as to mark distinct periods. In Tobit the sorrows of those who are afflicted are laid at once in prayer before God, in perfect reliance on his final judgment, and then immediately relieved by Divine interposition. In Job the real conflict is in the soul of the sufferer, and his relief comes at length with humiliation and repentance ( Job 42:6). The one book teaches by great thoughts; the other by clear maxims translated into touching incidents. The contrast of Tobit and Judith is still more instructive. These books present two pictures of Jewish life and feeling, broadly distinguished in all their details, and yet mutually illustrative. The one represents the exile prosperous and even powerful in a strange land, exposed to sudden dangers, cherishing his national ties, and looking with unshaken love to the Holy City, but still mainly occupied by the common duties of social life; the other portrays a time of reproach and peril, when national independence was threatened, and a righteous cause seemed to justify unscrupulous valor. The one gives the popular ideal of holiness of living, the other of courage in daring. The one reflects the current feeling at the close of the Persian rule, the other during the struggles for freedom.

IV. Original Language, Versions, Condition Of The Text, Etc. —

1. The whole complexion of the book shows that it is of. Palestinian origin, and hence many have assumed that the languages in which the traditional story was first written down were Hebrew and Aramaic. Indeed, Jerome tells us that he made his Latin version from the Aramaic in one day, with the assistance of a Jew, who, being skilled in both Hebrew and Chaldee, dictated to him the import thereof in Hebrew ("Exigitis, ut-librum Chaldaeo sermone conscriptum ad Latinum stylum traham, librum utique Tobiae quem Hebraei de catalogo divinarum Scripturarum secantes his quae Hagiographa [Apocrypha] memorant, manciparunt. Feci satis desiderio vestro, non tamen meo studio. Et quia vicina est Chaldseorum lingua sermoni Hebraico, utriusque linguae pertissimum loquacem reperiens unius diei laborem arripui, et quidquid; ille mihi, Hebraicis verbis expressit,-hoc ego accito notario sermonibus Latinis exposui" [Praf. in Tob.]). This has been thought to be corroborated by the fact that some of the difficulties in the Greek text can be removed on the supposition of a Hebrew original. Thus Ἔκχεον Τοὺς Ἄρτους Σου Ἐπὶ Τὸν Τάφον Τῶν Δικαίων (4:17), which has no sense, seems to be a mistranslation of שלח לחמ ִבקרב הצריקי ; the translator, by a transposition of the last two letters, having read בקבר instead of בקרב and שפ instead of שלח , as is evident from the antithetical clause, "Land give it not to the wicked," in harmony with the traditional injunction להחזיק ידי עוברי עברה אסור , It Is Not Lawful To Strengthen The Hands Of The Transgressor. So also Καὶ Εὐλόγησε Τωβίας Τὴν Γυναῖκα Αὐτοῦ ( 9, 6) may be accounted for only the supposition that it is a mistranslation of the Hebrew ויבר ִטוביה את אשתו . The correct rendering of it requires that either Gabael should be taken as the subject — i.e. "And He ( I.E. Gabael) Saluted Tobias With His Wife" — or that both Tobias and his wife should be the subject — i.e. "and Tobias and his wife saluted them," i.e. the two comers, Azarias and the servant. See also.  Tobit 5:11-12;  Tobit 5:18;  Tobit 6:9; arid for the Hebraizing style, 1,1; 13; 3, 5; 5, 14; 14:19; De Wette, Einleit. § 310; Gratz, Geschichte,: 4:466 (2nd ed.). On the other hand, superior clearness, simplicity, and accuracy of the Sept. text prove conclusively that this is nearer the original than any other text which is known, if it be not, as some have supposed (Jahn and Fritzsche doubtfully), the original itself. Indeed, the arguments, which have been brought forward to show that it is a translation are far from conclusive. The supposed contradictions between different parts of the book, especially the change from the first (1-3, 6) to the third person (3:7-14), from which Ilgen endeavored to prove that the narrative was made up of distinct Hebrew documents, carelessly put together, and afterwards rendered by one Greek translator, are explicable on other grounds; and the alleged mistranslations (3:6; 4:19, etc.) depend rather on errors in interpreting the Greek text than on errors in the text itself. The style, again, though harsh in parts, and far from the classical standard, is not more so than some books which were undoubtedly written in Greek (e.g. the Apocalypse); and there is little, if anything, in it which points certainly to the immediate influence of an Aramaic text. ( Tobit 1:4, Εἰς Πάσας Τὰς Γενέας Τοῦ Αἰῶνος ; comp.  Ephesians 3:21;  Tobit 1:22, Ἐκ Δευτέρας ;  Tobit 3:15, Ἵνα Τί Μοι Ζῆν ;  Tobit 5:15, Τίνα Σοι Ἔσομαι Μισθὸν Διδόναι ;  Tobit 14:3, Προσέθετπ Φοβεῖσθαι , etc.) To this it may be added that Origen was not acquainted with any Hebrew original ( Ep. Ad Afric. 13); and the Chaldee copy which Jerome used, as far as its character can be ascertained, was evidently a later version of the story. On the other hand, there is no internal evidence against the supposition that the Greek text is a translation. The Greek offers some peculiarities-in vocabulary:  Tobit 1:6, Πρωτοκουρία , i. . e. Ἡ Ἀπαρχὴ Τῶν Κουρῶν ,  Deuteronomy 18:4;  Deuteronomy 1:7, Ἀποπρατίζομαι ;  Deuteronomy 1:21, Ἐκλοιστία ;  Deuteronomy 2:3, Στραγγαλόω , etc.: and in construction,  Deuteronomy 13:7, Ἀγαλλιᾶσθαι Τὴν Μεγαλωσύνην ;  Deuteronomy 12:4, Δικαιοῦσθαί Τινι ;  Deuteronomy 6:19 , Προσάγειν Τινί (intrans.);  Deuteronomy 6:6, Ἐγγίζειν Ἐν , etc. But these furnish no argument on either side.

2. There are extant different Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Hebrew texts of this book, differing more or less from one another in the details of the narrative; but yet, on the whole, so far alike that it is reasonable to suppose that all were derived from one written original, which was modified in the course of translation or transcription.

Besides the Greek text of the Sept. which was adopted into this version because it was that-of the Greek Church, there is a recension, one fragment of which (1:1-2, 2) is contained in the Cod. Sinaiticus (or Cod. Frid. Augustanus, ed. Tischendorf [Leips. 1846]), and another (6:9-13) in. the last three MSS. (44, 106, 107) of Holmes and Parsons.

Of Latin translations we have the ante-Hieronymian version, which was first published by Sabatier (Bibliorun Sacrosrum Latince Versiones Antiquae, 1743) from two MSS. of the 8th century, and which, according to the investigations of Fritzsche (p. 1 sq.), is mostly made from the recension of the Greek text, but partly (vi, 15-17; 7:15-18; 8:14-17; 12:6- 9, 11-22; 13:6-18) also from the common text, while 10:1-11, 19 is from a mixture of both texts. In this edition of the Vetus Latina, Sabatier also published, in the form of notes and as various readings, two other codd., one being of the same age as the MSS. of the ante-Hieronymian version, belonging to the library of St. Germanuts (No. 15), and concluding (13, 12) with Explicit Tobijustus; and the other belonging to the Vatican (No. 7). The text of the latter differs so materially from the other MSS. that it is regarded as an independent version, though emanating from the same Greek source. It is less barbarous and more fluent in style, as well as more explicit its renderings, and it is to be regretted that it has survived as a fragment, containing only 1, 1-6; 12 (Bibl. Lat. 2, 706). There also, existed another Latin version, as is evident from the quotations of this book contained in the Speculum of Augustine, which Angelo Mai has published (Spicilegium Romanorum, 9:21-23). As to the Vulgate Latin version, Jerome tells us, as we have seen, that he made it in one day from the Syro- Chaldaic. It differs very materially from the Greek, and is evidently derived from a different form which this traditional story assumed in a different part of the country. The treatment of the text in this recension is very arbitrary, as might be expected from the above account, which Jerome gives of the mode in which it was made; and it is of very little critical value, for, it is impossible to distinguish accurately the different elements which are incorporated in it. It is evident that in this process Jerome made some use of the Old Latin version, which he follows almost verbally in a few places: 3, 3-6; 4:6,7, 11. 23, etc.; but the greater part of the version seems to be an independent work. On the whole, it is more concise than the Old Latin; but it contains interpolations and changes, many of which mark the asceticism of a late age: 2, 12-14 (parallel with Job); 3, 17-23 (expansion of 3, 14); 6:17 sq. (expansion of 6:18); 9:11, 12; 12:13 ("et quia acceptus eras Deo, necesse fuit ut tentatio probaret te" ).

The Syriac version is made from the two different recensions of the Greek; 1, 1-7, 9 being a translation of the common Greek text of the Sept.; while 7:10, etc., is from a text represented by the above-named three MSS. (44, 106,107) of Holmes and Parsons, according to the marginal annotations in Usher's MS.

Neubauer has lately discovered a Chaldee version among the MSS. of the Bodleian Library, which may prove to be a copy of that to which Jerome refers as the basis of his version.

There are four Hebrew versions of this book, the one first published in Constantinople, 1517; then with a Latin translation by Paul Fagius, and adopted in Walton's Polyglot (Lond. 1657), vol. 4. It is a free translation of the common Greek text, made by a learned Jew in the 12th century. The second is that first published with a Latin translation by Sebastian Minister (Basle, 1542; then again in 1549, 1556, 1563), and has also been inserted in Walton's Polyglot. This Hebrew version is more in harmony with the Vetus Latina ; and the author of it, who was a Jew, is supposed to have flourished in the 5th century. The: third Hebrew version was made from the common Greek text by J. S. Frinkel (Leips. 1830); and the fourth is by J. Siebenberger — it was published in Warsaw, 1840, with a Judaeo- German translation, a Hebrew commentary, and an elaborate Hebrew introduction.

As to the versions of the Reformation, Luther made his translation from the Vulgate; the Swiss-Zurich Bible (1531) is also from the Vulgate.: Coverdale (1535), as usual, followed the Zurich version, (See Coverdale); and he again was followed by Matthew's Bible (1537), Lord Cromwell's Bible (1539), — Cranmer's Bible (1540), and the Bishops Bible (1568). The Genevan version (1560) is the first made from the Greek, and our present A.V. (1611), as in most cases, followed the Genevan version, though this was interdicted by James I.

3. The first complete edition of the book was by Ilgen ( Die Gesch. Tobi'S … mit … einer Einleit. verssehen [Jen. 1800]), which, in spite of serious defects due to the period at which it was published, contains the most full discussion of the contents. The edition of Fritzsche (Exeget. Handb. [Leips. 1853], vol. 2) is concise and scholar like, but leaves some points without-illustration, In England the book, like the rest of the Apocrypha, seems to have fallen into neglect.

V. Author, Date, And Place Of Composition. — As 12 :20 tells us that Raphael, before his Disappearance, commanded Tobit and his son Tobias to record the events; of their lives; and, moreover, since Tobit, in the first three chapters, speaks in the first person, while (ch. 13) his prayer is introduced by the statement Καὶ Τωβὶτ Ἔγραψε Προσευχὴν Εἰς Ἀγαλλίασιν Καὶ Ειπεν ; the Church universal, up to the time of the Reformation, believed that Tobit himself wrote this book (B.C. cir. 600) as far as ch. 14; that 14:1-11 was written by his son Tobias; and that 12:12-15 was added by -the editor of this document immediately after the death of Tobias. This opinion is shared by bishop Gray, Prideaux, and others, who modify it by submitting that it was compiled from the memoirs of Tobit and Tobias; while Ilgen maintains that 1, 1-3, 7; 13:1-8, were written by Tobit in Assyria, B.C. 689; 3, 8-12, 2-22; 14:1-15, were written in Palestine, B.C. cir. 280; and that from these two Hebrew documents the Chaldee version was made B.C. cir. 120, which Jerome translated into Latin. Modern critics, however, conclude, from the whole complexion of the book, its angelology, theology, etc., that it is a post-Babylonian production, and that it was -written by a Palestinian Jew. But these critics differ very materially about the precise date when the book was compiled, as will be seen from the following table:

The Catholic Church — Bishop Gray, Ilgen	B.C.	689-600
Ewald		350
Herzfeld		300
Bertholdt		250-200
Eichhorn	A.D.	10
Fabricius		100
Gr Ä tz		130

But though internal evidence leaves it beyond the shadow of a doubt that the book was compiled after the Babylonian captivity, yet the arguments adduced by Gratz (Geschichte, 3, 466, 2nd ed.) to prove that it was written after the destruction of the Temple, and during, the persecutions of Hadrian, are inconclusive. The reference to the destruction of the Temple (13, 10, 16; 14:4) is designed to refer to what took place in the reign of Zedekiah, when Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem and burned the sanctuary (2 Kings 25). The other remark of this learned historian-viz. that the bread of heathens ( Ἄρτος Τῶν Ἐθνῶν = פת נכרים ), of which Tobit speaks ( 2 Kings 25:1;  2 Kings 25:10), was first interdicted shortly before the destruction of the Temple by Titus is based upon restricting the term Ἄρτος to Actual Bread, whereas it signifies Food generally, and this was prohibited long before the Christian era (comp. Daniel 1, 5). Indeed, the book is singularly devoid of the stringent Halachic expansions of the Mosaic enactments which obtained in later times: it contains no allusion whatever to the rewards in a future life, and has no reference to the party-strifes which were so rampant at the time of Christ, traces of which might naturally be expected in it if it had been written in or after the time of Christ. It is therefore most probable that the book was written B.C. cir. 250-200.

VI. Canonicity And Authority. — Like the other deutero-canonical books, Tobit'was, never included in the canon by the synagogue. This is established beyond the shadow of doubt, not only from the list of the Hebrew Scriptures given by the Jews themselves in the Talmud (BabaBathra, 14), but from the oldest catalogues of the canon furnished by Christian fathers, such as Melito, Origen, etc. Indeed, Origen distinctly states that neither Tobit nor Judith was ever received h, the Jews as Sacred Scripture- ῾Εβραῖοι Τῷ Τωβίᾷ Οὐ Χρῶνται ( Ep. Ad Affric. § 13; comp. De Orat. 1, 14).

It was, however, different in the Greek Church, where the text of the Sept. was received as canonical. There appears to be a clear reference to it in the Latin version of the Epistle of Polycarp (c. 10, eleemosyna de morte liberat;  Tobit 4:10;  Tobit 12:9). In a scheme of the Ophites, if there be no corruption in the text, Tobias appears among the prophets (Iren. 1, 30,11).. Forming part of the contents of this version, Clement of Alexandria quotes  Tobit 4:15;  Tobit 12:8,-as taken from - Ἡ Γραφή , Scripture (Strom . 2, 23,139). But though Origen himself also quoted it as Scripture, yet it is ranked by Christians among such as were read to the catechumens, and contains a plainer and less elevated doctrine ( In Numbers Homil. 20). Even Athanasius, when writing without any critical regard to the canon, quotes Tobit as Scripture ( Apol. C. Arian. § 11, Ὡς Γέγραπται ,  Tobit 12:7); but when he gives a formal list of the sacred books, he definitely excludes it from the canon, and places it with other Apocryphal books among the writings which were to be read by those who were but just entering on Christian teaching, and desirous to be instructed in the rules of piety" ( Ep. Fest. p. 1177, ed. Migne). This distinction, however, between Canonical and Apocryphal afterwards disappeared, to a great extent, in the Greek Church, as is seen from the fact that Bar-Hebraeus places Tobit among the sacred books in his Nomocanon of the Antiochenian Church (Mai, Script. Vett. Nova Collectio, 53; comp. Fritzsche, p. 18).

In the Latin Church Tobit was regarded with greater sacredness. Cyprian often quotes it as Holy Writ (De Opere et Eleemosynis Liber). Hilary cites it to prove the intercession of angels (In  Psalms 129:7), and tells us that some Christians added both Tobit and Judith to the other two-and-twenty canonical books to make up their canon of four-and-twenty books ( Prol. In Psalms 15 ) . Lucifer quotes it as authoritative ( Pro Athan. 1, 871). Augustine includes it with the other Apocrypha of, the Sept. among "the books which the Christian Church received" (De Doctr. Christ. 2, 8). This is expressed still more distinctly in the Speculum (p. 1127, C., ed. Par. 1836): "Non sunt omittendi et hi [libri] quos quidem ante Salvatoris adventum constat esse conscriptos, sed eos non receptos a Judaeis recipit tamen ejusdem Salvatoris ecclesia." The preface from which these words are taken is followed by quotations from Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, and Tobit. In this Augustine was followed by tie mass of the later Latin fathers. Ambrose, in especial, wrote an essay on Tobias, treating of the evils of usury, in which he speaks of the book as "prophetic" in the strongest terms (De Tobia, l, 1; comp. Hexcem. 6:4). Jerome, however, followed by Rufinus, maintained the purity of the Hebrew canon of the Old Test., and, as has been seen, treated it very summarily.

The third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397), Innocent I (405), and the councils of Florence (1439) and Trent (1546), declared it canonical. Indeed, in the old Roman Missal and in the Missal of Sarum there is a proper mass of Raphael, the archangel, and it is ordered in the prefatory rubric that the office be celebrated for pilgrims, travelers, sick persons, and demoniacs. This is followed by two short prayers, one addressed to God and the other to Raphael (comp. Arnald, Dissertation on Asodcus).

As to the Reformed Church, though Luther was the first who separated the deutero-canonical from the canonical books, yet he entertained the highest opinion of the book of Tobit. "If it is history," says the great Reformer, "it is fine holy history; but if fiction, it is indeed right beautiful, wholesome, profitable fiction, and. play of an ingenious poet.... It is, therefore, profitable and good for us Christians to read this book as the production of an excellent Hebrew poet, who treats not on frivolous, but solid, matters" (Vorrede zum Buche-Tobia, in his translation of the Bible, ed. 1534). In the Anglican Church the book of Tobit is looked upon with still greater favor- 4, 7-16 is quoted in: the Homilies as the counsel of the holy father Toby (On A In2s-deeds, pt. 1); 4:10 is cited as a lesson taught by "the Holy Ghost in Scripture" (ibid. pt. 2)-; and 12:8 is adduced to show that the angel Raphael, told Tobias that "fasting used with prayer is of great efficacy" (Of Fasting, pt. 2). Passages of Tobit are also incorporated in the liturgy; 4:7-9 is among the passages used at the offertory; 3, 3, according to the Latin Vulgate, is introduced into the litany; 6:17, according to the Vulgate, is alluded to in the preface to the Marriage Service; while in the prayer following immediately after the versicles and responses in the same service in the First Book of Prayer of Edward VI, the following sentence is used: "And as thou didst send the angel Raphael to Thobie and Sara, the daughter of Raquel, to their great comfort, so vouchsafe to send thy blessing upon these thy servants" (Parker Society's ed. p. 131)..

VII. Commentaries. — The following are the special exegetical helps on this Apocryphal book: Fagius, Tobice Liber (Isny, 1542, 4to; also in the Lond. Polyglot, 1657, fol.); Miinster, סֵפר טוֹבַי (Basle, 1542, i549,1556, 1563, 4to; also in Walton's Polyglot); Drusius, Tobias Graece (Franeck. 1591, 8vo; also in his Criticae Sacrae); Senarius, In Libros Tobie, Judith, etc. (Mainz, 1610, fol.); Drexel, Tobias Illustratus (Mun. 1611, 1.2mo); Sanctius, In Libros Ruth, Tobias, etc. (Lugd. 1628, fol.); Justinian, Tobias Illustratus (Colossians 1629, fol.); Van Mauden, Tobias Delineatus (Antw. 1631, fol.); Βίβλος Λόγων Τωβίτ , etc. (in the eds. of the Apocrypha, F. ad M. 1634,1757, 8vo; by Augusti [Leips. 1804, 8vo]; Apel [ib." 1836, 8vo]); Celada, Conmmenztarius in Tob. fist. (Lugd. 1644, fol.); Anon. Tobie, Judith, et Esther, avec Explication (Paris, 1688, 8vo); Van der Hardt,Emnigma Tobice, etc. (Helmnst. 1728, 4to); Aden, סֵפֵר טוֹבַיָּה .(Amst. 1736, 8vo); Sabatier, Liber Tobit (in the Vetus Latina [Par. 1751, fol.], vol. 1); Seller, Pred. Ü b. d. B. Tobias (Munich, 1780, 8vo); Le Clerc, Liber Tobice (Par. 1785, 8vo); Bauer, Das B. Tobias Erklar (Bramb. — Wiirtzb. 1787, 1793. 12mo); Eichhorn, Ueb. d. B. Tobias (in his Bibliothek, 2, 410-440 [ Leips. 1787-1800 ]); Ilgen, Die Gesch. Tobi's (Jen. 1800, 8vo); Hbpfner, Historia Tobice Graec (Viternb. 1802, 4to); Dereser, Tobias, Judith u. Esther erklar (Frankfort-on-the Main, 1803, 1833, 8vo); Paur, Das B. Tobias bearbeitet (Leips. 1817, 8vo); Van Ess, Liber Tobice (Tub. 1822, 8vo); Frainkel, Das B. Thobi (in his אִחֲרוֹנַיםִ כְּתוּםַים [Leips. 1830, 8vo]); Siebenberger. חִיֵּי טוֹבַיָּה (Heb. translation and commentary [Warsaw, 1839, 8vo]); Guttmann, Die Apokr. Des A. T. (Altona, 1841,8vo); Cittadini and Bottari, Libri Di Tobia, Giuditta, E Ester (Ven. 1844, 8vo); Fritzsche, Die Biicher Tobi Und Judith ( Vol. 2 of the Kurzgejf Exeg. Handb. [Leips. 1853,8vo]); Reusch, Das B. Tobias Erklart (Freib. 1857, 8vo); Sengelmann, Das B. Tobit Erklart (Hamb. 1857, 8vo). (See Apocrypha).

International Standard Bible Encyclopedia

tō´bit  :

1. Name

2. Canonicity

3. Contents

4. Fact or Fiction?

5. Some Sources

6. Date

7. Place of Composition

8. Versions

9. Original Language

Literature

1. Name:

The book is called by the name of its principal hero which in Greek is Τώβιτ , Tṓbit , Τωβείτ , Tōbeit and Codex N Τωβείθ , Tōbeı́th . The original Hebrew word thus transliterated ( טוביּה , ṭōbhı̄yāh ) means "Yahweh is good." The Greek name of the son is Τωβίας , Tōbı́as , a variant of the same Hebrew word. In the English, Welsh, etc., translations, the father and son are called Tobit and Tobias respectively, but in the Vulgate both are known by the same name - T obias - the cause of much confusion. In Syriac the father is called Ṭobı̄ṭ , the son Ṭobiya , following apparently the Greek; the former is not a transliteration of the Hebrew form given above and assumes a different etymology, but what?

2. Canonicity:

Though this book is excluded from Protestant Bibles (with but few exceptions),  Tobit 4:7-9 is read in the Anglican offertory, and at one time Tobias and Sarah occupied in the marriage service of the Anglican rubrics the position at present held by Abraham and Sarah. For the position of the book in the Septuagint, Vulgate and English Versions of the Bible, see Judith , 2.

3. Contents:

The Book of Tobit differs in essential matters in its various versions and even in different manuscripts of the same versions (compare the Septuagint). The analysis of the book which follows is based on the Septuagint's Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus, which English Versions of the Bible follow. The Vulgate differs in many respects.

The book tells of two Jewish families, living, one at Nineveh, the other at Ecbatana, both of which had fallen into great trouble, but at length recovered their fortunes and became united by the marriage of the son of one to the daughter of the other. Tobit had, with his brethren of the tribe of Naphtali, been taken captive by Enemessar (= Shalmaneser). remaining in exile under his two successors, Sennacherib and Sarchedonus (Esar-haddon). During his residence in the Northern Kingdom (Israel) and after his removal to Nineveh (Assyria), he continued faithful to the Jewish religion and supported the observances of that religion at Jerusalem. Moreover, he fasted regularly, gave alms freely. and buried such of his fellow-countrymen as had been put to death with the approval or by the command of the Assyrian king. Notwithstanding this loyalty to the religion of his fathers and the fact that he buried Jewish corpses intended to be disgraced by exposure, he like other Jews (Daniel, etc.) won favor at court by his upright demeanor and was made steward of the king's estate. Under the next king (Sennacherib) all this was changed, for he not only lost his high office but was deprived of his wealth, and came perilously near to losing his life. Through an accident (bird dung falling into his eyes) he lost his sight, and, to make bad worse, his wife, in the manner of Job's, taunted him with the futility of his religious faith. Job-like he prayed that God might take him out of his distress.

Now it happened that at this time another Jewish family, equally loyal to the ancestral faith, had fallen into similar distress - R aguel, his wife Edna and his daughter Sarah, who resided at Ecbatana (Vulgate "Rages"; compare  Tobit 1:14 ) in Media. Now Sarah was an only daughter, comely of person and virtuous of character. She had been married to seven successive husbands, but each one of them had been slain on the bridal night by the demon Asmodeus, who seems to have been eaten up with jealousy and wished no other to have the charming maid whom he loved. The parents of Tobias at Nineveh, like those of Sarah at Ecbatana, wished to see their only child married that they might have descendants, but the marriage must be in each case to one belonging to the chosen race ( Tobit 3:7-15; but see 7, below). The crux of the story is the bringing together of Tobias and Sarah and the frustration of the jealous murders of Asmodeus. In the deep poverty to which he had been reduced Tobit bethought himself of the money (ten talents, i.e. about 3,500 British pounds) which he had deposited with one Gabael of Rages. The Septuagint's Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus have Rhágoi ) in Media (see   Tobit 1:14 ). This he desired his son to fetch; but the journey is long and dangerous, and he must have a trustworthy guide which he finds in Raphael, an angel sent by God, but who appears in the guise of an orthodox Jew. The old man is delighted with the guide, whom, however, he first of all carefully examines, and dismisses his son with strict injunctions to observe the Law, to give alms and not to take to wife a non-Jewish (EV "strange") maiden ( Tobit 4:3 ff). Proceeding on the journey they make a halt on reaching the Tigris, and during a bath in the river Tobias sees a fish that made as if it would devour him. The angel tells him to seize the fish and to extract from it and carefully keep its heart, liver and gall. Reaching Ecbatana they are hospitably lodged in the home of Raguel, and at once Tobias falls madly in love with the beautiful daughter Sarah, and desires to have her for wife. This is approved by the girl's parents and by Raphael, and the marriage takes place. Before going together for the night the angel instructs the bridegroom to burn the heart and liver of the fish he had caught in the Tigris. The smoke that resulted acted as a countercharm, for it drove away the evil spirit who nevermore returned (  Tobit 8:1 ff). At the request of Tobias, Raphael leaves for Rages and brings from Gabael the ten talents left in his charge by Tobit. Tobias and his bride led by the angel now set out for Nineveh amid the prayers and blessings of Raguel and with half his wealth. They are warmly welcomed by the aged and anxious parents Tobit and Anna, and Tobias' dog which he took with him (  Tobit 5:16 ) was so pleased upon getting back to the old home that, according to the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) rendering, he "ran on before as if bringing the news ..., showing his joy by fawning and by wagging his tail" (Vulgate  Tobit 11:9; compare English Versions of the Bible 11:4). Upon reaching his father, acting upon Raphael's directions, Tobias heals Tobit's demon-caused blindness by applying to the old man's eyes the gall of the fish, whereupon sight returns and the family's cup of happiness is full. The angel is offered a handsome fee for the services he has rendered, but, refusing all, he declares who he is and why he was sent by God, who deserves all the praise, he none. Tobit, having a presentiment of the coming doom of Nineveh, urges his son to leave the country and make his home in Media after the death of his parents. Tobias is commanded to write the events which had happened to him in a book (12:20). We then have Tobit's hymn of praise and thanksgiving and a record of his death at the age of 158 years ( Tobit 13;  14 ). Tobias and Sarah, in accordance with Tobit's advice, leave for Ecabatana. His parents-in-law follow his parents into the other world, and at the age of 127 he himself dies, though not before hearing of the destruction of Nineveh by Nebuchadnezzar (14:13-15).

4. Fact or Fiction?:

Luther seems to have been the first to call in question the literal historicity of this book, regarding it rather in the light of a didactic romance. The large number of details pervading the book, personal, local and chronological, give it the appearance of being throughout a historical record; but this is but part of the author's article. His aim is to interest, instruct and encourage his readers, who were apparently in exile and had fallen upon evil times. What the writer seeks to make clear is that if they are faithful to their religious duties, giving themselves to prayer and almsgiving, burying their dead instead of exposing them on the "Tower of Silence," as did the Persians, then God would be faithful to them as He had been to Tobit.

That the book was designed to be a book of religious instruction and not a history appears from the following considerations: (1) There are historical and geographical inaccuracies in the book. It was not Shalmaneser (Enemessar) who made the tribes of Naphtali and Zebulun exiles in Assyria, but Tiglath-pileser (734); see  2 Kings 15:29 . Sennacherib was not the son of Shalmaneser (Tobit 1:15), but of Sargon the Usurper. Moreover, the Tigris does not lie on the way from Nineveh to Ecbatana, as Tobit 6 f imply.

(2) The prominence given to certain Jewish principles and practices makes it clear that the book was written on their account. See  Tobit 1:3 ff, Tobit's integrity, his support of the Jerusalem sanctuary, his almsgiving, etc.: ( a ) he buries the dead bodies of Jews; ( b ) he and his wife pray; ( 100 ) he teaches Tobias to keep the Law, give alms, etc. Note in particular the teaching of Raphael the angel (  Tobit 12:6 ff) and that contained in Tobit's song of praise (  Tobit 13 ).

(3) The writer has borrowed largely from other sources, Biblical and non-Biblical, and he shows no regard for correctness of facts so long as he succeeds in making the teaching clear and the tale interesting. The legend about the angel who pretended to be an orthodox Jew with a proper Jewish name and pedigree was taken from popular tradition and could hardly have been accepted by the writer as literally true.

For oral and written sources used by the author of Tobit see the next section. A writer whose aim was to give an exact account of things which happened would hardly have gone to so many sources belonging to such different times, nor would he bring into one life events which in the sources belong to many lives (Job, etc.).

5. Some Sources:

The Book of Tobit is dependent upon older sources, oral or written, more than is the case with most books in the Apocrypha. The following is a brief statement of some of these:

(1) The Book of Job.

Besides belonging to the same general class of literature as Job, such as deals with the problem of suffering, Tobit presents us with a man in whose career there are alternations of prosperity and adversity similar to those that meet us in Job. When Anna reproaches her husband for continuing to believe in a religion which fails him at the critical moment ( Tobit 2:14 ), we have probably to see a reflection of the similar incident in Job ("renounce God and die" ( Job 2:9 )).

(2) The Book of Sirach.

There are so many parallels between Sirach and Tobit that some kind of dependence seems quite clear. Take the following as typical: Both lay stress on the efficacy of alms-giving ( Tobit 4:11;  12:9; compare  Sirach 3:30;  29:12;  40:24 ). Both teach the same doctrine of Sheol as the abode of feelingless shades to which the good as well as the bad go ( Tobit 3:6,10;  13:2 , compare  Sirach 46:19;  14:16;  17:28 ). The importance of interring the dead is insisted upon in both books ( Tobit 1:17;  2:3,7;  4:3 f; compare   Sirach 7:33;  30:18;  38:16 ). The same moral duties are emphasized: continued attention to God and the life He enjoins ( Tobit 4:5 f, 19; compare   Sirach 6:37;  8:8-14;  35:10;  37:2 ); chastity and the duty of marrying within one's own people ( Tobit 4:12 f; 8:6; compare   Sirach 7:26;  36:24 ); proper treatment of servants ( Tobit 4:14; compare  Sirach 7:20 f); the sin of covetousness (  Tobit 5:18 f; compare   Sirach 5 ); see more fully Speaker's Apocrypha , I, 161 f.

(3) The Ahikar Legend.

We now know that the story of Ahikar referred to in  Tobit 14:10 existed in many forms and among many ancient nations. The substance of the legend is briefly that Achiqar was prime minister in Assyria under Sennacherib. Being childless he adopted a boy Nadan (called "Aman" in 14:10) and spared no expense or pains to establish him well in life. Upon growing up the young man turns out badly and squanders, not only his own money, but that of Achiqar. When rebuked and punished by the latter, he intrigues against his adoptive father and by false letters persuades the king that his minister is a traitor. Achiqar is condemned to death, but the executioner saves the fallen minister's life and conceals him in a cellar below his ( Aḥiḳar ' s ) house. In a great crisis which unexpectedly arises the king expresses the wish that he had still with him his old and (as he thought) now executed minister. He is delighted to find after all that he is alive, and he loses no time in restoring him to his lost position, handing over to him Nadan for such punishment as he thinks fit.

There can be no doubt that the "Achiacharus" of Tobit ( Ἀχιάχαρος , Achiácharos , 1:21 f; 2:10; 11:18; 14:10), a nephew of Tobit, is the Achiqar of the above story. George Hoffmann of Kiel ( Auszuge aus syrischen Akten persiacher Martyrer ) was the first to connect the Achiqar legend with the Achiacharus of Tobit, though he believed that the story arose in the Middle Ages under the influence of Tobit. Modern scholars, however, agree that the story is of heathen origin and of older date than Tobit. Rendel Harris published a Syriac version of this legend together with an Introduction and translation (Cambridge Press, 1898), but more important are the references to this tale in the papyri found at Elephantine and recently published by Eduard Sachau, Aramaic Papyrus und Ostraka , (1911,147 ff). This last proves that the tale is as old as 400 Bc at least. For lull bibliography on the subject (up to 1909) see Schurer, Gjv 4, III, 256 ff. See also The Story of Ahikar from the Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Greek, Slavonic versions by Conybeare, J. Rendel Harris and A. S. Lewis, 1898, and in particular Histoire et Sagesse d'Ahikar , paragraph Francois Nace, 1909.

(4) The Book of Esther:

The occurrence in  Tobit 14:10 of "Aman" for "Nadan" may show dependence upon Esther, in which book Haman, prime minister and favorite of Ahasuerus (Xerxes, 485-464 BC) exhibits treachery comparable with that of Nadan. But Esther seems to the present writer to have been written after and not before Tobit (see Century Bible , "Esther," 299 ff). It is much more likely that a copyist substituted, perhaps unconsciously through mental association, the name Haman for that which stood originally in the text. Marshall ( Hdb , IV, 789) thinks that the author of Tobit was acquainted with the Book of Jubilees, but he really proves no more than that both have many resemblances. In its angelology and demonology the Book of Jubilees is much more developed and belongs to a later date (about 100 BC; see R.H. Charles, Book of Jubilees , 56 ff, 58 ff). But the two writings have naturally much in common because both were written to express the sentiments of strict Jews living in the 2nd century BC.

6. Date:

This book seems to reflect the Maccabean age, an age in which faithful Jews suffered for their religion. It is probable that Judith and Tobit owe their origin to the same set of circumstances, the persecutions of the Jews by the Syrian party. The book belongs therefore to about 160 BC. The evidence is external and internal.

(1) External.

( a )   Tobit 14:4-9 implies the existence of the Book of Jonah and also the completion and recognition of the prophetic Canon (about 200 BC). ( b ) Since Sirach is used as a source, that book must have been written, i.e. Tobit belongs to a later date than say 180 BC. ( 100 ) The Christian Father Polycarp in 112 Ad quotes from Tobit, but there is no earlier allusion to the book. The external evidence proves no more than that Tobit must have been written after 180 Bc and before 112 AD.

(2) Internal.

( a )   Tobit 14:5 f seems to show that Jonah was written while the temple of Zerubbabel was in existence, but before this structure had been replaced by the gorgeous temple erected under Herod the Great: i.e. Tobit was written before 25 BC. ( b ) The stress laid upon the burial of the dead suits well the period of the Syrian persecution, when we know Antiochus Epiphanes allowed Jewish corpses to lie about unburied. ( 100 ) We have in Tobit and Judith the same zeal for the Jewish Law and its observance which in a special degree marked the Maccabean age. Noldeke and Lohr (Kautzsch, Apok. des Altes Testament , 136) argue for a date about 175 BC, on the ground that in Tobit there is an absence of that fervent zeal for Judaism and that hatred of men and things non-Jewish which one finds in books written during the Maccabean wars. But we know for certain that when the Maccabean enthusiasm was at its height there existed all degrees of fervor among the Jews, and it would be a strange thing if all the literature of the time represented but one phase of the national life.

7. Place of Composition:

We have no means of ascertaining who wrote this book, for the ascription of the authorship to Tobit (1:1 ff) is but a literary device. There are, however, data which help in fixing the nationality of the writer and the country in which he lived. That the author was a Jew is admitted by all, for no other than a Jew could have shown such a deep interest in Jewish things and in the fortunes of the Jewish nation. Moreover, the fact that Tobit, though member of the Northern Kingdom, is represented as worshipping at the Jerusalem temple and observing the feasts there (1:4-7) makes it probable that the author was a member of the Southern Kingdom wishing to glorify the religion of his country.

That he did not live in Palestine is suggested by several considerations: (1) The book describes the varying fortunes of Jews in exile so completely and with such keen sympathy as to suggest that the writer was himself one of them. (2) The affectionate language in which he refers to Jerusalem and its religious associations ( Tobit 1:4 ff) is such as a member of the Diaspora would use. (3) The author nowhere reveals a close personal knowledge of Palestine. That Tobit, the ostensible author (1:1), should be set forth as a native of Galilee (1:1 f) is due to the art of the writer.

Assuming that the book was written in a foreign land, opinions differ as to which. The evidence seems to favor either Persia or Egypt. In favor of Persia is the Persian background of the book. Asmodeus ( Tobit 3:8,17 ) is the Pers Aēšma daeva . The duty of burying the dead is suggested to the Jewish writer by the Persian (Zoroastrian) habit of exposing dead bodies on the "Tower of Silence" to be eaten by birds. Consanguineous marriages are forbidden in the Pentateuch (see   Leviticus 18:6 ff); but they are favored by Tobit 1:9; 3:15; 4:12; 7:4. The latter seems to show that Tobias and Sarah whom he married were first cousins. Marriages between relatives were common among the Iranians and were defended by the magicians as a religious duty. One may say it was allowed in the particular case in question on account of the special circumstances, the fewness of Jews in the parts where the families of Tobit and Raguel lived; compare   Numbers 36:4 ff for another special case. The fact that a dog is made to accompany Tobias on his journey to Ecbatana (Tobit 5:17; 11:4) favors a Persian origin, but is so repugnant to Semitic ideas that it is omitted from the Hebrew versions of this story (see Dog ). For an elaborate defense of a Persian origin of Tobit see J. H. Moulton, The Expository Times , XI, 157 ff; compare H. Maldwyn Hughes, The Ethics of Jewish Apocryphal Literature , 42 ff. The evidence is not decisive; for a knowledge of Iranian modes of thought and expression may be possessed by persons living far away from Iranian territory. And at some points Tobit teaches things contrary to Zoroastrianism. Noldeke and Lohr hold that the book was composed in Egypt, referring to the facts that the demon Asmodeus on being overcome flees to Egypt (8:3) and that there were Jews in Egypt who remained loyal to their ancestral faith and were nevertheless promoted to high places in the state. The knowledge of Mesopotamia shown by the author is so defective (see 4, above) that a Mesopotamian origin for the book cannot be conceived of.

8. Versions:

Tobit exists in an unusually large number of manuscripts and versions showing that the book was widely read and regarded as important. But what is peculiar in the case of this book is that its contents differ largely - and not seldom in quite essential matters - in the various manuscripts, texts and translations (see 3. above).

Tobit has come down to us in the following languages:

(1) Greek.

Manuscripts of the Greek text belong to three classes: ( a ) that found in the uncials Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus, BA, (which are almost identical) and most Greek manuscripts; our English and other modern translations are made from this; ( b ) that of Codex Sinaiticus which deviates from ( a ) often in important matters. The old Latin tallies with this very closely; ( 100 ) that of Codices 44,106,107 (adopting the numbers of Holmes and Parsons), which largely coincides with ( b ). From 7:10 onward this text forms the basis of the Syriac (Peshitta) version Opinions differ as to which of these three Greek texts is the oldest. Fritzsche, Noldeke and Grimm defend the priority of BA. In favor of this are the following: This text exists in the largest number of manuscripts and translations; it is most frequently quoted by the Fathers and other early writers; it is less diffuse and more spontaneous, showing less editorial manipulation. Ewald, Reusch, Schurer, Nestle and J. Rendel Harris hold that א represents the oldest Greek text. Schurer ( Gjv 4 ,III, 243) gives the principal arguments for this view (compare Fuller, Speaker's Commentary , I, 168 f) is much fuller than BA. Condensation (compare BA) is much more likely, Fuller and Schurer say, than expansion (Codex Sinaiticus); but this is questioned. In some cases, Codex Sinaiticus preserves an admittedly better text, which is of course true often of the Septuagint and even the minor versions as against the Massoretic Text.

(2) Latin.

(i) The Old Latin based on Codex Sinaiticus found in (i) the editions published in 1751 by Sabbathier ( Bib. Sac. Latin versions Antiq .); (ii) in the Book of Tobit (A. Neubauer, 1878). This text exists in at least three recensions. (b) The Vulgate, which simply reproduces Jerome's careless translation made in a single night; see (3). In Judith and Tobit, the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) is in every respect identical with its translation made by Jerome.

(3) Aramaic (a term which strictly embraces Syriac).

( a ) That from which Jerome's Jewish help made the Hebrew that formed the basis of Jerome's Latin version. We have no copy of this (see next section). ( b ) That published by Neubauer ( Book of Tobit, a Chaldee Text ) which was found by him imbedded in a Jewish Midrash of the 15th century. Neubauer was convinced and tried to prove that this is the version which Jerome's teacher put into Hebrew and which therefore formed the basis of Jerome's own version In favor of this is the fact that in   Tobit 1 through 36, and therefore throughout the book, Tobit is spoken of in the third person alike in this Aramaic (Chaldee) version and in Jerome's Latin translation; whereas in all the other versions (compare chapters 1 through 36) Tobit speaks in the first person ("I," etc.). But the divergences between this Aramaic and Jerome's Latin versions are numerous and important, and Neubauer's explanations are inadequate (op. cit., 6 ff). Besides, Dalman ( Grammatik des jud.-palest. Aramaic , 1894,27-29) proves from the language that this version belongs to the 7th century Ad or to a later time.

(4) Syriac.

The text of this version was first printed in the London Polyglot (Volume IV) and in a critically revised form in the Lib. Apocrypha. Vet. Test. Syriac of Lagarde . This text consists of parts of two different versions. The Hexaplar text based on the usual manuscripts (Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus etc.) is used from   Tobit 1:1 through 7:9. From 7:10 onward the text corresponds closely with the Greek, , א and ת especially in parts, with the manuscripts 44,106, 107. See fully Schurer, Gjv 4 , 244 ff.

(5) Hebrew.

None of the Hebrew recensions are old. Two Hebrew texts of Tobit have been known since the 16th century, having been printed then and often afterward. Both are to be found in the London Polyglot . ( a ) That known as Hebraeus Munsteri (HM), from the fact that it was published at Basel in 1542 by Sebastian Munster, though it had also been printed in 1516 at Constantinople. ( b ) That known as Hebraeus Fagii (HF), on account of the fact that Paul Fagius published it in 1542. It had, however, been previously published, i.e. in Constantinople in 1517. Hf introduces Biblical phraseology wherever possible. Since these are comparatively late translations they have but little critical value, and the same statement applies to the two following Hebrew translations discovered, edited and translated by Dr. M. Caster (see Psba , Xviii , 204 ff, 259 ff; Xix , 27 ff): ( a ) A H ebrew manuscript found in the British Museum and designated by him HL. This manuscript agrees with the Vulgate (Jerome's Latin Bible, 390-405 A.D.) and Aramaic at some points where the other authorities differ, and Dr. Gaster thinks it not unlikely that in Hl we have a copy of the original text. He has not been followed by any scholar in this opinion. (ii) Dr. Gaster copied some years ago from a Hebrew Midrash, apparently no longer existing, a condensed Hebrew version (HG) of Tobit. Like Hl it agrees often with the Vulgate and Aramaic against other versions and manuscripts.

(6) Ethiopic.

Dillmann has issued the ancient Ethiopic versions in his Biblia Veteris Testamenti Aethiopica , V, 1894.

9. Original Language:

The majority of modern scholars, who have a better knowledge of Sere than the older scholars, hold that the original text of Tobit was Semitic (Aramaic or Hebrew); so Ewald, Hilgenfeld, Graetz, Neubauer, Bickell, Fuller ( Speaker's Apocrypha ), Marshall ( Hdb ). In favor of this are the following considerations: (1) The existence of an Aramaic text in Jerome's day (see (3), above). (2) The proper names in the book, male and female, have a Semitic character. (3) The style of the writer is Semitic rather than Aryan, many of the expressions making bad Greek, but when turned into Semitic yielding good Aramaic or Hebrew. See the arguments as set out by Fuller ( Speaker's Apocrypha , I, 164 ff). Marshall ( Hdb , III, 788) gives his reasons for concluding that the original language was Aramaic, not Hebrew, in this opinion following Neubauer (op. cit.). Graetz ( Monatsschrift far Geschichte und Wissenschaft der Juden , 1879,386 ff) gives his grounds for deciding for a Hebrew original. That the book was written in Greek is the view upheld by Fritzsche, Noldeke, W.R. Smith, Schurer and Lbhr. The text of Codex Vaticanus and Codex Alexandrinus says Lohr, contains Greek of the most idiomatic kind, and gives no suggestion of being a translation.

Literature.

Much of the best literature has been cited in the course of the preceding article. See also "Literature" in article Apocrypha , for text, comms., etc., and the Bible Dicts., Encyclopedia Biblica (W. Erbt) and Hdb (J. T. Marshall). Note in addition the following: K. D. Ilgen, Die Geschichte Tobias, nach den drei verschiedenen Originalen, Griechisch, Lateinisch u. Syriac ., etc., 1800; Ewald, Gesch.3 , IV, 269-74; Graetz, Gesch.2, IV, 466 ff; Noldeke, "Die Texte des Buchs Tobit," Monatsschrift der Berlin Acad ., 1879,45 ff; Bickell, "A Source of the Book of Tobit," Athenaeum , 1890,700 ff; 1891,123 ff; I. Abrahams, "Tobit's Dog," Jewish Quarterly Review , I, 3,288 E. Cosquin, "Le livre de Tobie et l'histoire du sage Achiqar," Rev. Biblical Int ., VIII, 1899,50-82,519-31, rejects R. Harris' views; Margarete Plath, "Zum Buch Tobit," Stud. und Krit ., 1901,377-414; I. Levi, "La langue originale de Tobit," Rev. Juive , Xliv , 1902,288-91, Oxford Apocrypha, "Tobit" (full bibliography).