Online Encyclopedia

Search over 40,000 articles from the original, classic Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th Edition.

TOBIT, THE BOOK OF

Online Encyclopedia
Originally appearing in Volume V26, Page 1042 of the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica.
» Make a correction to this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Spread the word: del.icio.us del.icio.us it!

See also:

TOBIT, THE See also:BOOK OF , one of the books of the Old Testament Apocrypha. It is a See also:good specimen of the religious novel, a See also:form of literature invented by the See also:Jews. The See also:romance may be read in a beautiful See also:dress in the Revised Version of the See also:English Apocrypha. It was never admitted into the Jewish See also:canon, but it was admitted into the See also:Christian Canon at the See also:Council of See also:Carthage (A.D. 397). In the See also:Roman See also:Church it still forms a See also:part of the See also:Bible, but by the Church of See also:England it is relegated to the position of those other books which " the Church See also:cloth read for example of See also:life and instruction of See also:manners, but yet doth it not apply them to establish any See also:doctrine " (See also:art. vi.). Some verses (Tob. iv. 7-9), however, are read in the See also:offertory; and Tobias and Sarah once occupied the position now held by See also:Abraham and Sarah in the See also:marriage service. The Book of Tobit has reached us in See also:Greek, Latin, See also:Syriac, Aramaic and See also:Hebrew versions; of these the Hebrew are the latest, and need not be considered. Of the Greek there are three forms. One is in the Vatican and Alexandrian See also:MSS.; another is in the Sinaitic. Both these texts are to be found in Swete's See also:Septuagint, the former denoted by B, and the latter by a.

B is the See also:

common See also:text, which is followed in the English Apocrypha. Nevertheless s is See also:fuller, except in ch. iv., and more intelligible; it is also more Semitic than B. The two must have behind them a common See also:original, for they throw See also:light upon one another, and the full meaning of a passage is sometimes only to be got from a See also:combination of both. The fullness of a often runs into superfluities, which are' retrenched in B. The third Greek text is only a partial one (vi. 9-xiii. 8). It may be derived from a study of Codices 44, 1o6, 107 in See also:Holmes and See also:Parsons, which diverge from the Vatican text throughout the part indicated. Of the Latin there are two See also:chief forms, the old See also:translation, sometimes called the Itala, and that of See also:Jerome in the See also:Vulgate. The Itala was published by See also:Pierre See also:Sabatier at See also:Paris in 1751, and is reproduced in the Book of Tobit by Neubauer (See also:Clarendon See also:Press, 1878). It agrees very fairly with a, except in the See also:matter of proper names. Jerome's version is from the Aramaic, or, as it used to be called, the See also:Chaldee.

It cost the See also:

saint one See also:day's See also:work. He describes in his See also:preface the method of its See also:production. He procured the services of a See also:man who was See also:familiar with Chaldee and Hebrew. This man translated to him out of Chaldee into Hebrew, while Jerome dictated to a shorthand writer his own translation into Latin. The workwas done at the See also:request of two Christian bishops, Chromatius and See also:Heliodorus. Jerome does not mention the Itala, but it is See also:plain that he was indebted to it. The Syriac text is said to be based on a Greek version. It was only in 1878 that the Aramaic version was brought to light, being published by Adolph Neubauer from a unique MS. in the Bodleian Library. It agrees with ti and the Itala, but resembles the Vulgate in having nothing in the first See also:person. According to Neubauer, it is the very text which was used by Jerome, after See also:allowance has been made for the arbitrary methods of the Rabbis and of Jerome himself. But the Aramaic version has Greek birthmarks (see especially p. 7, See also:line 18), which other scholars than its editor have thought decisive against its originality.

It was held by See also:

Robertson See also:Smith (after See also:Noldeke) to be " in the highest degree probable that the Greek text is original." But the Greek text appears to be itself a translation from some Semitic source. Was this source Hebrew or Aramaic? The forms 'AOilP and 'AOoupeias in xiv. 4, 15 of show that, at least, that See also:chapter is See also:drawn from Aramaic, not from Hebrew. But that chapter does not appear in all the versions, and so may be later than the See also:rest. With regard to the date of See also:composition there is the widest difference of See also:opinion. See also:Ewald refers it to the end of the See also:Persian See also:period, about 350 B.C. (an opinion which See also:Westcott declared to be " almost certainly correct ") ; Kohut thinks that the book was composed in See also:Persia under the See also:Sassanid See also:Dynasty, about A.D. 250. But Tobit is already quoted as " scripture " by See also:Clement of See also:Alexandria (Strom. ii. 139, p. 503 See also:Pott).

The words of Tobit (xii. 8, 9) seem almost to have been See also:

present to the writer of ii. Clement (xvi. 4). The date of this document is uncertain; but in See also:Irenaeus (i. 28, § 5) in his refutation of the Kabbalistic See also:heresy of the See also:Ophites, we find Tobias figuring as a See also:prophet, on the same level as See also:Haggai. Earlier still the Book of Tobit is quoted, though not by name, in the See also:Epistle of See also:Polycarp to the See also:Philippians (x. 2; Tob. iv. ro. Cf. Prov. xii. 2; Ecclus. See also:xxix. 12).

Now the martyrdom of Polycarp is assigned by C. H. See also:

Turner to the See also:year A.D. 156. We seem to have even a See also:quotation by St See also:Paul from the Book of Tobit (I Tim. vi. 19; Tob. iv. 9), in which the identity amid difference seems to show that the Apostle is See also:drawing, not from the Greek, but from the Semitic original. See also:Josephus displays no knowledge of the work, but he may have been animated by the same See also:prejudice as the See also:Pharisees of St Jerome's day, whose displeasure, that See also:father tells us, he had to See also:face in giving to Latin readers a book which was against their canon. (Preface to Tobit.) See also:Internal See also:evidence shows that the writer of the 14th chapter lived after the See also:building of the Second See also:Temple, which was " not as the first." In vv. 5 and 6 of that chapter Tobit is made to predict a glorious building of See also:Jerusalem and the Temple, which was to be followed by the See also:conversion of all the Gentiles. Such a passage might well have been penned when the See also:idea of See also:Herod's Temple was already in the See also:air. If so, this chapter may be supposed to have been written a little before 19 B.C., while the bulk of the work may have been indefinitely earlier.

As to the See also:

place of composition Persia, See also:Egypt and See also:Palestine have each had See also:advocates. One thing only appears fairly certain, namely, that the Greek versions were composed in Egypt. This conclusion could, we think, be established by an examination of the See also:language, especially of some technical terms of See also:administration. But the See also:tale itself carries us back to Persia. It has what See also:Moulton called an " Iranian background." The evil demon See also:Asmodeus (q.v.) is the Persian Aeshma Daeva. See also:Raphael, " one of the seven See also:holy angels, which present the prayers of the See also:saints, and go in before the See also:glory of the Holy One," resembles the protecting spirit Sraosha. And the See also:dog, the See also:companion of Sraosha, is there too. For Tobit differs from all other books of the Bible in containing the only polite reference to the dog. Tobias's dog indeed does nothing but accompany his See also:young See also:master on his See also:journey to See also:Ecbatana and back. But he is there as the companion and friend of man, which is See also:Aryan and not Semitic. So See also:alien indeed is this from the Semitic mind that in the Aramaic and Hebrew versions the dog does not appear. Even in s, the more Semitic of the two Greek versions, the dog has evidently been found an offence.

Mention of him is suppressed in v. 17, while in xi. 4, 6 Kbptos is made to go behind Tobias, instead of 6 Kbcov! The See also:

motive of the See also:story has been variously regarded as a See also:desire to insist upon the See also:duty of tithe-paying, upon that of See also:alms-giving, and upon that of burying the dead. The See also:Midrash given by Neubauer has no doubts on this point, as the story is immediately followed by the remark—" Behold we learn how See also:great is the See also:power of alms and See also:tithes!" But the third motive is equally apparent. Accordingly some have insisted that the story must have been composed at some period when Jewish dead were See also:left unburied, either in the See also:time of See also:Antiochus Epiphanes (2 Macc. v. ro), or in that of See also:Hadrian, after the revolt of See also:Bar-Cochebas. If our choice were limited to these two periods, we should certainly prefer the former. For the book carries within itself signs of See also:early date. It contains no Messianic expectation nor any reference to a future life. The last fact is obscured by the Vulgate. Even in the Itala the word aelerna is added in xii. 9 after saturabuntur vita.

A new See also:

interest has been added recently to the study of Tobit by the publication of the See also:Wisdom of Ahikar (Ahigar). In the Book of Tobit Ahikar is represented as the See also:prime See also:minister of See also:Sennacherib and his son Esar-Haddon, and is claimed by Tobit as his See also:nephew. There is a desire manifested to bring in Ahikar wherever possible (i. 21, 22; ii. 10; xi. 18; xiv. ro). The intention evidently is to bestow authority upon the fiction by connecting it with a story already known. See K. D. Ilgen, See also:Die' Geschichte Tobias nach drei verschiedenen Originalen (See also:Jena, 1800); Fritzsche, Handbuch zu den Apocryphen (See also:Leipzig, 1853); F. H. See also:Reusch, Das See also:Buch Tobias (See also:Freiburg, 1857); Scharer, Geschichte, 3rd edition; Ad.

Neubauer, The Book of Tobit (Ox;ord, 1878); Fuller in See also:

Speaker's Commentary (1888); E. J. See also:Dillon, Contemporary See also:Review (See also:March 1898); The Story of Ahikar, by See also:Conybeare, See also:Harris and See also:Lewis (See also:Cambridge, 1898) ; J. Rendel Harris, " The See also:Double Text of Tobit," See also:American See also:Journal of See also:Theology (See also:July 1899), PP- 541–554; Moulton, " The Iranian Background of Tobit," Expository Times (March 1900), pp. 257–260; B. F. Westcott in Smith's Dict. Bible; I. T. See also:Marshall in See also:Hastings's Dict. Bible; W. Erbt in Ency.

Bib.; See also:

Toy in Jewish Encyclopedia; Johannes See also:Muller, Beitrage zur Erklarung and Kritik See also:des Buches Tobit; and in the same See also:volume Alter and Herkunft des Achicar-See also:Romans and sein Verhdltniss zu See also:Aesop, by See also:Rudolf Smend. (ST G.

End of Article: TOBIT, THE BOOK OF

Additional information and Comments

There are no comments yet for this article.
» Add information or comments to this article.
Please link directly to this article:
Highlight the code below, right click, and select "copy." Then paste it into your website, email, or other HTML.
Site content, images, and layout Copyright © 2006 - Net Industries, worldwide.
Do not copy, download, transfer, or otherwise replicate the site content in whole or in part.

Links to articles and home page are always encouraged.

[back]
TOBIN, JOHN (1770-18o4) 		[next]
TOBOGGANING (Micmac Indian, tobaakan, sledge)

Site © 2006 - Net Industries