[Literature.—Fritzsche,Die Bücher Tobiä und Judith erklärt, in “Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen” (1853); Hoffman,Auszüge aus syrischen Akten persischer Märtyrer, pp. 182 ff. (1880); Fuller, in Wace, 1, pp. 149-240 (1888); Conybeare, Rendel Harris, and Agnes Smith Lewis,The Story of Ahikar from the Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Greek and Slavonic Versions(1898); a second and large edition of this work was issued early in 1914; Löhr, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 135-147; Smend,Alter und Herkunft des Achikarromans und sein Verhältniss zu Aesop(1908); Schürer, II, iii. pp. 37-44, German ed., III, pp. 237-258 (1909); Nau,Histoire et Sagesse d’Ahikar(1909); E. Meyer,Der Papyrusfund von Elephantine, pp. 102-128 (1912); Ungnad,Aramäische Papyrus aus Elephantine, pp. 62-82 (1911); Simpson, in Charles, I, pp. 174-241; Harris, Lewis, and Conybeare, in Charles, II, pp. 715-784 (translations of the Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic and Greek Versions, as well as of the Aramaic fragments from Elephantiné) (1913). See also the articles on “Tobit” in theEncycl. Brit.by Robertson Smith, in theEncycl. Bibl.by Erbt, in Hastings’Dict. of the Bibleby Marshall, and in theJewish Encycl.by Toy.]
[Literature.—Fritzsche,Die Bücher Tobiä und Judith erklärt, in “Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen” (1853); Hoffman,Auszüge aus syrischen Akten persischer Märtyrer, pp. 182 ff. (1880); Fuller, in Wace, 1, pp. 149-240 (1888); Conybeare, Rendel Harris, and Agnes Smith Lewis,The Story of Ahikar from the Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic, Greek and Slavonic Versions(1898); a second and large edition of this work was issued early in 1914; Löhr, in Kautzsch, II, pp. 135-147; Smend,Alter und Herkunft des Achikarromans und sein Verhältniss zu Aesop(1908); Schürer, II, iii. pp. 37-44, German ed., III, pp. 237-258 (1909); Nau,Histoire et Sagesse d’Ahikar(1909); E. Meyer,Der Papyrusfund von Elephantine, pp. 102-128 (1912); Ungnad,Aramäische Papyrus aus Elephantine, pp. 62-82 (1911); Simpson, in Charles, I, pp. 174-241; Harris, Lewis, and Conybeare, in Charles, II, pp. 715-784 (translations of the Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Ethiopic and Greek Versions, as well as of the Aramaic fragments from Elephantiné) (1913). See also the articles on “Tobit” in theEncycl. Brit.by Robertson Smith, in theEncycl. Bibl.by Erbt, in Hastings’Dict. of the Bibleby Marshall, and in theJewish Encycl.by Toy.]
Before we come to deal with the Book of Tobit it will be well, for reasons which will become apparent as we proceed, to relate the story of Achikar the Wise. This story must at one time have been very widespread and popular. It has come down to us in several forms which differ largely from each other, but which are, nevertheless, all variations of the same story in their essence. A much mutilated form of the story was found among the recently discovered Aramaicpapyriof Elephantiné, which showsthat it was current among the Jews at least as early as the fifth centuryB.C.
The following account is drawn from the various versions, and is only an outline of the main points.
Sennacherib, King of Assyria, had a vizier named Achikar, a wise and erudite scribe. He conducted the affairs of the kingdom wisely and well. When the king died, and Esarhaddon his son reigned in his stead, Achikar continued to hold the same office. In course of time Achikar became very rich, and he had many wives, and built many castles; but he had no son. And as he grew old he felt the want of a son more and more. Then he prayed earnestly that he might have a son. In reply to his prayer it was told him that no son should be granted him, but that he must instead adopt Nadin,[373]his nephew. This Achikar did, and educated Nadin carefully, teaching him all manner of wisdom. Now when Achikar felt the weakness of old age coming upon him he besought the king that he would appoint Nadin vizier in his place. This the king consented to do; and Nadin was made vizier. But Nadin did not follow the wise counsels which he had received from Achikar; but scattered his words, as it were, to the wind; and he ill-treated the servants and handmaidens of his uncle, and slew his horses, and harmed his mules. And when Achikar sought to correct the misguided course of his adopted son, Nadin slandered him in the ears of the king, and accused him of traitorous intercourse with the enemies of the kingdom, laying at the same time forged letters before the king in proof of Achikar’s guilt. Then the king showed the letters to Achikar, and sought an explanation; but Achikar was so horrified and taken aback that he could not utter a word.[374]The king, taking this as a sign of guilt, gave command that Achikar should be put to death. But the officer, Nabusemakh, to whom this command was given, had, years ago, been indebted to Achikar for the saving of his life when he had been the victim of a false accusation similar to that now made against Achikar. So Nabusemakh spared Achikar’s life, and hid him secretly in a hiding-place underground. In Achikar’s place a slave was executed who was already under sentence of death. Now when Pharaoh, king of Egypt, heard of the death, as he supposed, of the wise vizier, he rejoiced greatly, and sent a letter of the following import to Esarhaddon:
Pharaoh, king of Egypt, to Esarhaddon,[375]king of Assyria and Nineveh, greeting. I am planning to build a castle between heaven and earth; wherefore seek out and send me from thy kingdom a man who is a skilled architect, that he may give me reply concerning all that I shall ask him. And when thou shalt send me such a man, I will collect and send thee the revenue of Egypt for three years. And if thou send me not a man who shall give me reply concerning all that I ask him, then do thou collect and send me the tribute of Assyria and Nineveh for three years, by the hands of these ambassadors that come to thee.[376]
Pharaoh, king of Egypt, to Esarhaddon,[375]king of Assyria and Nineveh, greeting. I am planning to build a castle between heaven and earth; wherefore seek out and send me from thy kingdom a man who is a skilled architect, that he may give me reply concerning all that I shall ask him. And when thou shalt send me such a man, I will collect and send thee the revenue of Egypt for three years. And if thou send me not a man who shall give me reply concerning all that I ask him, then do thou collect and send me the tribute of Assyria and Nineveh for three years, by the hands of these ambassadors that come to thee.[376]
Then Esarhaddon took counsel with Nadin and all the wise men as to what should be done; and they were in much perplexity, for they found no one among their number sufficiently wise to build a castle betwixt heaven and earth. Thereupon, Nabusemakh came and told the king how that he had spared Achikar’s life. The king, so far from punishing Nabusemakh for having disobeyed the royalcommand, was only too delighted to hear that Achikar was still alive, and richly rewarded Nabusemakh. Then Achikar was brought, and declared himself ready and able to answer all that the king of Egypt should ask. When Achikar came to the court of the king of Egypt he said he would show the king how to build a castle betwixt heaven and earth. Then he asked that lime and stone and clay and workmen might be held in readiness. When all was prepared Achikar let out of a box which he had brought with him two eagles with ropes tied to their feet; upon each eagle he set a boy; and as the eagles soared upward and remained betwixt heaven and earth, the boys began to shout: “Bring bricks, bring clay, that we may build the king’s castle, for we are standing idle.” But the king found no means of supplying them with bricks and clay up in the air, and had perforce to give up the idea of building a castle betwixt heaven and earth. Thus did Achikar the Wise deliver king Esarhaddon from his embarrassment. Achikar was placed again at the head of the royal household and greatly honoured. On being asked by the king what else he desired, he replied: “Bid them give me my son Nadin, that I may teach him a further lesson; for he has forgotten my former teaching.” Then Achikar caused Nadin to be bound and thrashed; after which he was confined in a dark chamber at the entrance to Achikar’s house; and every time Achikar went in or out he uttered precepts of wisdom for Nadin’s benefit. Finally Nadin “swelled up like a bag and died.”
The moral of the story, with which it concludes, is given thus: “To him that doeth good, what is good shall be recompensed; and to him that doeth evil, what is evil shall be rewarded. And he that diggeth a pit for his neighbour, filleth it with his own stature.”
This story of Achikar the Wise must have enjoyed greatpopularity in ancient times, for it has come down to us in various forms; and its existence among the Jews, in the fifth century, living at such an out-of-the-way spot as Elephantiné, is eloquent testimony of how widespread the knowledge of the story was. That the various forms differ from each other very much is quite in the natural order of things, for a popular story not only undergoes change when passed from hand to hand, but sometimes it may assume a form almost unrecognizable at first, and only when the essentialtraitsare sought behind the external appearance can the kernel of the original story be recognized. It is, therefore, not surprising that great differences are found in the Syriac, Arabic, Armenian, Aramaic, Aethiopic, Hebrew, Slavonic and Greek forms of the story which are still preserved. But in the case of all these, in spite of variations of form and matter, and in spite of the addition of many extraneous details drawn from different sources, the original story lies imbedded and shows itself to have been utilized to a greater or less extent.
Now the particular interest that the story of Achikar the Wise has for the study of the Book of Tobit lies in the fact that the writer of the latter utilized the former in the composition of his book; he assumes, moreover, as we shall see, a knowledge of the story of Achikar the Wise among his readers.
It should be said at the outset that the best form of the Greek text of the Book of Tobit is that ofCodex Sinaiticus; it is this text which has been utilized here.[377]
The first and most obvious point of interest in this connection centres in the person of Achikar. In the Book ofTobit he appears, when first mentioned, quite incidentally, as though he were well known.[378]In i. 21, 22, after the assassination of Sennacherib by his two sons has been referred to, it continues: “And they fled unto the mountains of Ararat, and Sacherdonos [Esarhaddon] his son reigned after him; and he appointed Acheikaros [Achikar], the son of Anael my brother, over all the tribute of his kingdom, and he had authority over all the conduct of affairs. Then Acheikaros put me right [i.e. with the king], and I came down unto Nineveh. For Acheikaros had been the chief cup-bearer, and (keeper) of the signet,[379]and the chief minister, and overseer of the tribute under Sennachereim [Sennacherib], king of Assyria, and Sacherdonos appointed him a second time (to these offices).”
This agrees with what is said about the position of Achikar in the story given above.
In xi. 18 it is said that Achikar and Nadab, his cousin, came to the wedding of Tobias. This sudden mention of Nadab, who has not been referred to before in the book, in connection with Achikar is curious as it stands, and shows clearly enough that the writer of the book must have been familiar with the story of Achikar, and that he assumed the same of his readers. The slight variation in the form of the name (Nadab for Nadin), and his being called the cousin instead of the nephew of Achikar, does not affect the main point.
But the most striking proof that the writer of Tobit utilized the story of Achikar is seen by his reference to it in xiv. 10: “And now do thou, my child, go forth from Nineveh, and abide not here. In the day in which thou buriest thy mother with me, in that self-same day tarry no longer in these parts. For I see that there is much unrighteousnessin her [i.e. Nineveh], and much deception is practised in her, and they are not ashamed. Behold, my child, what things Nadab did to Acheikaros who nourished him; was he not brought living into the earth? And God requited his iniquity before his face; and Acheikaros came forth into the light, and Nadab entered into eternal darkness because he sought to slay Acheikaros. In that he [i.e. Acheikaros] showed me mercy he came forth out of the snare of death which Nadab set for him; and Nadab fell into the snare of death, and it destroyed him.” The real kernel of the Achikar story is contained in these words, namely that Achikar brought up an adopted son who betrayed his benefactor by causing him to dwell in darkness underground; but ultimately Achikar is saved and Nadab suffers the fate which he had designed for his benefactor. Thus righteousness triumphs, and Nemesis overtakes the wicked. It is round this story that the wisdom of Achikar is woven; and some of the wise sayings of Achikar are re-echoed in Tobit, which further illustrates the indebtedness of the writer to the Achikar story; a few examples of this may be given:
There are other minor indications of the writer of Tobit having utilized the Achikar story, such as the unusual double description of the empire, “Assyria and Nineveh,” in the earliest recension of our book[381](xiv. 4, 15, cp. i. 3), which occurs also in the Achikar story (i. 1); but thedatagiven are sufficient to show that the Achikar story is without doubt one of the sources of the Book of Tobit. The object which the writer had in introducing some of the Achikar story elements into his book was probably that it might be popularized thereby. The Achikar story must have been immensely popular when one remembers the manifold forms in which it has come down to us; and the Book of Tobit, by being in some sort connected with it, would have commended itself to Gentiles, as well as to Jews.
That the author of our book utilized other non-Jewish sources in composing it is very probable. There is, for example, a striking resemblance in one or two particulars between the Book of Tobit and the “Story of the grateful dead man,” an Armenian tale, according to which a wealthy man was once riding through a forest when he came upon some men misusing a corpse; on inquiring the reason for this he is told that the dead man had owed them money; he pays the dead man’s debt, and buries the corpse. He then continues his journey home. Now in the city in which he dwelt therelived a rich man who had an only daughter; she had married five husbands, but in each case the husband had died on the night of the wedding. The hero of the tale resolves, at the instance of an unknown serving-man, to seek this woman in marriage in spite of what has occurred. He succeeds in his desire. But on the night of the wedding there issues forth from the mouth of his bride a serpent which seeks to bite him and thus kill him; but the unknown serving-man, who had been keeping guard, slays the serpent, and thus saves the life of the bridegroom, to whom he then makes himself known as the dead man whose corpse the bridegroom had buried in the forest.[382]Thetraitscommon to this story and the Book of Tobit are so marked that it is difficult to believe that there is no connection between the two; that the latter is indebted to the former is probable because of the very widespread existence of the “Story of the grateful dead man” in various forms in Asia and Europe.[383]
Another possible source, but less striking than that just referred to, is “The Tractate of Khons,” which was originally written for the purpose of propagating the cult of the Egyptian god Khons; in it occurs the story of a beautiful princess who was possessed by a demon, but by the help of Khons the demon was expelled and the princess cured.[384]
In the first part of the book, chapters i.-iii., Tobit relates how he, his wife Anna, and his son Tobias, had been carried away captive to Nineveh in the days of Shalmaneser, kingof Assyria; he emphasizes his loyalty to the Law, saying that he and his family had always been careful in keeping the ordinances of the Law both when they lived in their own land as well as in the land of their exile. He mentions specially his ardent zeal in giving alms, and in according decent burial to those of his race who had been murdered and whose dead bodies had been cast out of the walls of the city. Once when he was about to sit down to table at the feast of Pentecost he bade his son go out and seek someone who was in want and bring him in to partake of the feast. Tobias, his son, went forth accordingly; but he soon returned and reported to his father that one of his race had but now been murdered, and that his body lay in the market-place. Tobit went out forthwith, and took up the body from the street and laid it in one of the chambers till sunset, when he intended to bury it. And when the sun was set, he digged a grave and buried the dead body. But as he had touched a dead body he was unclean, and therefore could not re-enter his house, lest by contact he should cause others to be unclean,[385]so he laid down in the courtyard by the side of a wall, and because it was hot he left his face uncovered; but the droppings of some sparrows fell into his eyes, and he became blind. There follows here a short section (ii. 11-14) about Anna, which is quite out of place. The story is taken up again at chapter iii., which tells of Tobit’s sorrow at his affliction, and of his prayer to God that he may die (verses 1-6). Then a new element in the story is introduced. Sarah, the daughter of Raguel of Ecbatana in Media, suffers reproach because she has no child, although she has had seven husbands; each of these husbands had, however, been slain by Asmodæus, “the evil demon,” on the night of his wedding. Sarah, like Tobit, prays in her great affliction that she may die. Tobit and Sarah, though they know nothing of each other, have therefore this in common, that they areboth in dire distress. Before proceeding with his story the narrator adds a note for the comfort of his readers to the effect that God had sent Raphael, the angel, to heal them both: “in the case of Tobit to remove the white films from his eyes, that he might see the light of God with his eyes; and in the case of Sarah, the daughter of Raguel, to give her for a wife to Tobias, the son of Tobit, and to unbind Asmodæus the evil demon from her” (iii. 17).
The next section, chapters iv.-xi., which forms the bulk of the book, deals with the journey of Tobias to Media in order to bring back money which Tobit had left in trust with Gabael. The advice which Tobit gives his son preparatory to his starting is contained in iv. 3-21. He also bids his son find a trusty companion who will travel with him; this he does, the companion being none other than the angel Raphael, who had been sent by God for the purpose. Raphael, of course, does not reveal himself to Tobias. Then the departure takes place (v.-vi. 2).
Soon after they started they met with an adventure, for one evening as Tobias was washing in the river a great fish caught him by the foot; but with his companion’s help the fish was caught and brought to land. His companion the angel, who has taken the name of Azarias, bids him keep the gall and the liver and the heart of the fish, for the two latter when burned make a smoke which will drive away demons, while the gall is efficacious for curing white films which may have formed themselves on the eyes of a man. Tobias does as he is bidden (vi. 2-9). On their nearing Ecbatana Raphael tells Tobias that he must marry Sarah the daughter of Raguel as being nearest of kin; but Tobias expresses his fears that he may fall a victim to the same evil demon who had already caused the death of Sarah’s seven husbands. Thereupon Raphael reminds him of the liver and heart of the fish, which Tobias had kept, and he is told to place them upon the ashes of incense at the proper time, when the smellof the smoke will drive the demon away (vi. 10-18). On their arrival at the house of Raguel they are welcomed by their host; Raphael makes all arrangements with regard to the marriage between Tobias and Sarah. At the proper time Tobias burns the liver and heart of the fish with all success; there is rejoicing and feasting in the house of Raguel (vii., viii.). At Tobias’ request Raphael goes to Gabael and fetches the money belonging to Tobit (ix.).
In the meantime Tobias’ parents are beginning to feel anxious about his long delay (x. 1-7a). Tobias and his wife, Sarah, however, return to Nineveh to the great joy of Tobit and Anna. The first act of Tobias on seeing his blind father again is to bring out the gall of the fish and apply it to the latter’s eyes; the beneficial effect is immediate; Tobit regains his sight, and weeps for joy (x. 7b-xi. 8).
The last section of the book (xii.-xiv.) tells of Raphael making himself known to Tobit, and of the wisdom of Raphael, after which is added an account of Raphael’s ascension (xii.); the two last chapters give the prayer of Tobit (xiii.), and his last words (xiv.).
In various important particulars the writer of the Book of Tobit and Ben-Sira occupy the same religious standpoint; in others a certain divergence is to be noticed which points to a development of doctrine. A brief examination of the religious standpoint of the two writers is, therefore, both interesting and instructive.
(a) We will refer first to those points in which the teaching is identical.
With regard to the Temple cultus at Jerusalem it will suffice to quote one passage from each book to show the identity of view; in Tobit i. 6-8 occur these words: “I used to go to Jerusalem with the firstfruits and the firstlings and the tenths of the cattle and the first shearings of thesheep, and give them to the priests, the sons of Aaron, for the altar, and the tenth of the corn and the wine and oil and pomegranates and the rest of the fruits to the sons of Levi, who ministered at Jerusalem ...” (cp. ii. 1-9). Quite in accordance with this are Ben-Sira’s words in vii. 29-31:
Fear God with all thy heart,And reverence His priests.With all thy strength love Him that made thee,And forsake not His ministers.Glorify God and honour the priest,And give them their portion as it is commanded thee;The food of the trespass-offering, and the heave-offering of the hand,The sacrifices of righteousness, and the offerings of holy things(xxxv. 1-11, xlv. 14-16).
Fear God with all thy heart,And reverence His priests.With all thy strength love Him that made thee,And forsake not His ministers.Glorify God and honour the priest,And give them their portion as it is commanded thee;The food of the trespass-offering, and the heave-offering of the hand,The sacrifices of righteousness, and the offerings of holy things(xxxv. 1-11, xlv. 14-16).
Fear God with all thy heart,
And reverence His priests.
With all thy strength love Him that made thee,
And forsake not His ministers.
Glorify God and honour the priest,
And give them their portion as it is commanded thee;
The food of the trespass-offering, and the heave-offering of the hand,
The sacrifices of righteousness, and the offerings of holy things
(xxxv. 1-11, xlv. 14-16).
Both writers lay much stress on other legal ordinances, above all on Prayer and Almsgiving; these do not need illustrating, as they are so often spoken of in either book; but two points, thespiritand theefficacyof almsgiving, are worth special mention: in Tobit iv. 16 it is said: “Let not thine eye be grudging when thou givest alms,” and a similar spirit of whole-heartedness is enjoined in Ecclesiasticus xviii. 15-18:
My son, bring no blemish on thy good deeds,Nor in giving any gift cause grief through words....The gift of an envious man consumeth the eyes.
My son, bring no blemish on thy good deeds,Nor in giving any gift cause grief through words....The gift of an envious man consumeth the eyes.
My son, bring no blemish on thy good deeds,
Nor in giving any gift cause grief through words....
The gift of an envious man consumeth the eyes.
In like manner the efficacy of alms is spoken of by both writers in an identical sense; in Tobit iv. 10 it is said: “Alms delivereth from death, and suffereth not to come into darkness”; and Ben-Sira says:
A flaming fire doth water quench,So doth almsgiving atone for sin.
A flaming fire doth water quench,So doth almsgiving atone for sin.
A flaming fire doth water quench,
So doth almsgiving atone for sin.
Both writers, moreover, use the word as almost synonymous with righteousness. Fasting, strange to say, receives practically no notice in Tobit,[386]though Ben-Sira insists uponits right use (xxxiv. 26). On one other point of legal observance, however, both writers lay similar emphasis; in Tobit ii. 8, 10 Tobit says: “And when the sun was set, I went and digged a grave and buried him.... And the same night I washed myself and came into my courtyard and lay down to sleep ...”; the observance of this legal precept is referred to by Ben-Sira in these words:
He who washeth after (contact with) a dead body, and toucheth it again,What hath he gained by his bathing? (xxxiv. 25).
He who washeth after (contact with) a dead body, and toucheth it again,What hath he gained by his bathing? (xxxiv. 25).
He who washeth after (contact with) a dead body, and toucheth it again,
What hath he gained by his bathing? (xxxiv. 25).
The similarity of the religious standpoint of these two writers may be further illustrated by theiruniversalisticattitude and their teaching on thefuture life. Although, normally, Ben-Sira looks upon Israel as pre-eminently the nation upon which God’s interest is centred he shows a broader outlook in such a passage as xviii. 1-14:
... As a drop of water from the sea, or as a grain of sand,So are man’s few years in the eternal days.Therefore is the Lord long-suffering towards them,And poureth out His mercy upon them....The mercy of man is exercised upon his own kin,But the mercy of God is extended to all flesh,Reproving, and chastening, and teaching,And bringing them back as a shepherd his flock....
... As a drop of water from the sea, or as a grain of sand,So are man’s few years in the eternal days.Therefore is the Lord long-suffering towards them,And poureth out His mercy upon them....The mercy of man is exercised upon his own kin,But the mercy of God is extended to all flesh,Reproving, and chastening, and teaching,And bringing them back as a shepherd his flock....
... As a drop of water from the sea, or as a grain of sand,
So are man’s few years in the eternal days.
Therefore is the Lord long-suffering towards them,
And poureth out His mercy upon them....
The mercy of man is exercised upon his own kin,
But the mercy of God is extended to all flesh,
Reproving, and chastening, and teaching,
And bringing them back as a shepherd his flock....
Tobit, in like manner, contemplates all men as coming within the pale of God’s mercy:
I exalt my God, and my soul shall rejoice in the King of heaven;Of His greatness let all men tell,And let them give Him thanks in Jerusalem....A bright light shall shine unto all the ends of the earth;Many nations shall come from afar,And the inhabitants of the utmost ends of the earth unto Thy holy name;With their gifts also in their hands unto the King of heavenGenerations of generations shall utter rejoicing in TheeAnd Thy name that is elect unto the generations of eternity(xiii. 7-11; cp. xiv. 4-6).
I exalt my God, and my soul shall rejoice in the King of heaven;Of His greatness let all men tell,And let them give Him thanks in Jerusalem....A bright light shall shine unto all the ends of the earth;Many nations shall come from afar,And the inhabitants of the utmost ends of the earth unto Thy holy name;With their gifts also in their hands unto the King of heavenGenerations of generations shall utter rejoicing in TheeAnd Thy name that is elect unto the generations of eternity(xiii. 7-11; cp. xiv. 4-6).
I exalt my God, and my soul shall rejoice in the King of heaven;
Of His greatness let all men tell,
And let them give Him thanks in Jerusalem....
A bright light shall shine unto all the ends of the earth;Many nations shall come from afar,And the inhabitants of the utmost ends of the earth unto Thy holy name;
A bright light shall shine unto all the ends of the earth;
Many nations shall come from afar,
And the inhabitants of the utmost ends of the earth unto Thy holy name;
With their gifts also in their hands unto the King of heavenGenerations of generations shall utter rejoicing in TheeAnd Thy name that is elect unto the generations of eternity(xiii. 7-11; cp. xiv. 4-6).
With their gifts also in their hands unto the King of heaven
Generations of generations shall utter rejoicing in Thee
And Thy name that is elect unto the generations of eternity
(xiii. 7-11; cp. xiv. 4-6).
The belief of both writers concerning the future life is identical, it follows the normal teaching of the Old Testament; there is, therefore, no belief in the resurrection (see Ecclus. xvii. 27, 28, xxviii. 6, xl. 11, etc., and Tobit iii. 10, iv. 10, xii. 9, xiii. 2); at the same time, one is perhaps justified in seeing the foreshadowing of a developed belief in such words as these: “Lord, command that I be released from this distress, let me go to the everlasting place, and turn not Thy face, O Lord, away from me” (Tobit iii. 6).
(b) A definite doctrinal development is to be discerned in two directions; while in a number of passages the doctrine of God in each book is the same as normally taught in the Old Testament, in Tobit there is a distinct tendency to introduce the idea of an intermediate agency between God and men; this is seen in the activity of the angel Raphael, who is sent to fulfil God’s purposes, e.g. iii. 16, 17: “At the self-same time the prayer of both was heard before the glory of God; and Raphael was sent to heal them both; ...” and in xii. 12-14 Raphael says: “And now, when thou didst pray, and Sarah, I did bring the memorial of your prayer before the glory of the Lord; and when thou didst bury the dead, likewise....” It is also worth noting that instead of speaking of God directly, expressions such as “the glory of God” (as in the two passages just quoted), and the “Name” (iii. 11, viii. 5, xi. 14, xii. 6, xiii. 18) are used; stress is thus laid on the transcendental character of God in a manner which reminds one of the later developments of Judaism regarding this subject. Closely connected with what has just been said is the developed doctrine of angels in the Book of Tobit; in addition to the passages just quoted reference may be made to xi. 14: “Blessed is God, and blessed is His great name, and blessed are all His angels”; and xii. 15: “I am Raphael, one of the seven angels, which stand and enter before the glory of the Lord.” Such ideas show a decided development of belief on the subject of angelsas compared with the teaching of Ben-Sira, for in his book there is scarcely any reference to angels, xlii. 16 (and, possibly, xliii. 26) being the only one. It is the same with the subject of demonology, which has no place in the teaching of Ben-Sira, while in Tobit the references to Asmodæus “the evil demon” (iii. 8, 17, cp. vi. 14) and to methods of exorcism (vi. 7-9, 16-18, viii. 2, 3) show that belief in the activity of demons had begun to assume a position of considerable importance in popular superstition.
This comparison between the religious standpoint of the writer of Tobit and that of Ben-Sira shows that there is much affinity between the two, and leads to the conclusion that, in the main, though not in all respects, both belong to the same school of thought. We have seen that Ben-Sira represented the point of view of those who may be regarded as the precursors of what developed into the Sadducæan party after the Maccabæan struggle. The writer of the Book of Tobit approximates to this standpoint upon the whole, though in some respects he inclines to other directions. Loyalty to the Law and belief in Providence, as we have pointed out in another chapter, are not incompatible with the Sadducæan position; the prominent stress laid on almsgiving and its efficacy (iv. 10, xii. 9) does not differ from the teaching of Ben-Sira on the subject. In his universalistic attitude, though like Ben-Sira an ardent Israelite, the writer of Tobit follows in the teaching of the greatest prophets, and in this differs fundamentally from the standpoint of those who, later, developed into the party of the Pharisees. That there is no teaching on the resurrection in passages where one would justly look for it had such a doctrine been held, points in the same direction.
On the other hand, the developed teaching on the transcendental character of God, the angelology and demonology, and the slight indications of the beginning of eschatological teaching, point away from the position indicated. This factis full of interest as showing that prior to the Maccabæan struggle no hard and fast lines were drawn between different schools of thought, although definite tendencies were distinctly observable. We are inclined to see in the writer of the Book of Tobit a thinker whose natural tendency was to follow in the wake of the old conservative school, but who was not uninfluenced by the rising thought of the Apocalyptists (see xiii. 1-18, xiv. 3-7), and who felt that much of what was taught by theChassidimwas of permanent value. InChassidismwere contained the germs[387]of what before long developed into the Apocalyptic Movement and Pharisaism; as long as these only remained tendencies there was nothing fundamentally antagonistic in either, and in the writer of the Book of Tobit we see this exemplified. This helps us, by the way, to understand why we find later specifically apocalyptictraitsin Pharisaic teaching, and specifically Pharisaictraitsin Apocalyptic teaching; and this in spite of the pronounced antagonism which in course of time arose between the two. This fact is to be explained not so much on the assumption that one influenced the other, as that both descended from the same ancestor, viz.Chassidism.
From what has just been said we are led to the conclusion that our book belongs to the same period as that of Ecclesiasticus, though perhaps slightly later in that period than the latter book. Its doctrinal standpoint, like that of Ecclesiasticus, is pre-Maccabæan. That there is not the slightest reference to the Maccabæan struggle points in the same direction. Various reasons, some of them rather forced, have been put forward to show that the book is of much later date, others to prove that it is much earlier; but we feelconvinced that the surest guide to the date of a Jewish book written between those two great historical landmarks, the time of Ezra and the beginning of the Christian era, is its doctrinal standpoint.[388]This, taken as a whole, can in the case of our book only point to a time previous to the Maccabæan struggle; for, after this, parties antagonistic to each other became definitely formed, and such an attitude as that of the writer of the Book of Tobit was then unthinkable; he must then have been either a Sadducee or a Pharisee or an Apocalyptist (Essenism does not come into consideration here), whereas, in point of fact, he shows a mixture of all three tendencies. The book is not necessarily later than Ecclesiasticus, for although it does in some respects show a development of doctrine it is quite possible for contemporaries to be in substantial agreement and yet for one to hold slightly more advanced views on certain points than another. Our book may thus be assigned to a date not much later thanB.C.175 and not earlier thanB.C.190.
A careful study of the book shows no reason for questioning its integrity; the author has obviously utilized different materials in composing his story, but apart from minor details, his composition has not been added to by other writers.
The place of origin of the book cannot be decided with any certainty; it lies between Palestine and Egypt, though the balance of probability points to the latter. The book was written for the Jews of the Dispersion; this is clear from such words as the following:
Give thanks unto Him before the Gentiles, ye children of Israel,For He hath scattered you among them,And there He hath shown you His greatness;And extol ye Him before all the living (xiii. 3, 4),
Give thanks unto Him before the Gentiles, ye children of Israel,For He hath scattered you among them,And there He hath shown you His greatness;And extol ye Him before all the living (xiii. 3, 4),
Give thanks unto Him before the Gentiles, ye children of Israel,
For He hath scattered you among them,
And there He hath shown you His greatness;
And extol ye Him before all the living (xiii. 3, 4),
and the writer himself says he is in captivity in xiii. 6:
I, in the land of my captivity, give Him thanks.
I, in the land of my captivity, give Him thanks.
I, in the land of my captivity, give Him thanks.
That this land cannot be either the Far East, Persia, Assyria, Babylonia, or Media, as has been held by different scholars, is shown by Simpson, who says that “such surmises are, at the outset, negatived by the author’s ignorance of Eastern geography and his acceptance of the ordinary standards of Greek and Roman geographies. That the Tigris flowed between Nineveh and Media was an idea common among the Greeks; that Ecbatana was situated in a plain was a constant Western fallacy, and is repeated in Diodorus ii. 13, 6, in a passage dependent on Ctesias.”[389]Another, apparently small, point also suggests Egypt; it is said in vi. 3 that “a great fish leaped up out of the water, and would have swallowed the foot of the young man ...”; no ordinary fish would do this kind of thing, it points rather to a crocodile of the Nile, and this was probably in the writer’s mind; “this conjecture,” in the words of Robertson Smith, “is raised almost to certainty when we read in Kazwini i. 132 that the smell of the smoke of a crocodile’s liver cures epilepsy, and that its dung and gall cure leucoma, which was the cause of Tobit’s blindness. Very similar statements as to the medicinal virtues of the crocodile occur in Greek and Latin writers.”[390]
Further, the sources utilized by the writer of the book suggest Egypt as the place of its origin; “only Egyptian Jews could need an antidote to theTractate of Khons,” and this seems to have been one main purpose of the book.[391]Finally, if, as seems upon the whole probable, the book was originally written in Greek, a further reason for regarding Egypt as its original home is offered. Some scholars are strong advocates of a Semitic (Hebrew or Aramaic) original, but to give details of the reasons for either contention wouldinvolve technicalities which would be inappropriate here. It must suffice to say that the Greek as a whole does not read like a translation, whatever may be the case in isolated instances. If one reads the Greek of Ecclesiasticus, which is admittedly a translation, and compares it with that of the Book of Tobit, the difference is enormous, and forces one to believe that if Tobit was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, its Greek form must be not a translation, but a paraphrase.[392]
It is, however, quite possible that the home of the writer was Palestine, and that for some reason or other he was compelled to spend some considerable time in Egypt. Ben-Sira’s grandson, who was evidently a native of Palestine, came into Egypt and continued there and issued his grandfather’s book in a Greek form while living there. On the supposition that the writer of Tobit was a native of Palestine sojourning in Egypt the Aramaic traits in his book could be explained in a quite natural way.
There are a few passages in the Book of Tobit which, on being compared with similar ones in the Gospels, illustratethe truth that Christ inculcated much of the teaching of Judaism with which His hearers were already familiar, and which therefore had His approval. In iv. 8, 9 we read: “As thy substance is, give alms of it according to thine abundance; if thou have much, according to the abundance therefore give alms; if thou have little, bestow it, and be not afraid to give alms according to that little; for thou layest up a good treasure for thyself against the day of necessity.” The spirit of this teaching is endorsed, but made more spiritual, in the familiar words of Matthew vi. 19-21: “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth ... but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven ... for where thy treasure is, there will thy heart be also.” An even more pointed illustration is seen on comparing Tobit xii. 8-10 with Matthew vi. 1-6; the former runs: “Better is prayer with truth, and alms with righteousness, than riches with unrighteousness; it is better to give alms than to lay up gold ...”; in Matthew vi. 1-6 almsgiving and prayer are likewise placed together, only here again the teaching is fuller and deeper. Again, in Tobit iv. 15 it is said: “What thou thyself hatest, do to no man”; this negative injunction is put positively in Matthew vii. 12: “All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them” (cp. Luke vi. 31). Once more, in Tobit iv. 16 the command is given: “Give of thy bread to the hungry, and of thy garments to them that are naked”; this reminds one irresistibly of Matthew xxv. 35, 36: “I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me....”
That St. Paul was well acquainted with the Book of Tobit, and was influenced by it, seems to come out clearly in some passages in his epistles; thus the words in 2 Corinthians ix. 9, “Let each man do according as he hath purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or of necessity,” echo what is saidin Tobit iv. 7, 16, “As thy substance is ...” (quoted above) and in verse 16: “Let not thine eye be grudging when thou givest alms” (cp. 1 Cor. xvi. 2, 2 Cor. viii. 12). Although the identical injunction is given in Tobit iv. 12aand 1 Thessalonians iv. 3, and in Tobit iv. 15band Ephesians v. 18, they do not necessarily imply that St. Paul was indebted to this book for them because they are so general in character. On the other hand, the thought in Romans vi. 23, “For the wages of sin is death,” seems to be derived from Tobit xii. 10: “They that commit sin and unrighteousness are enemies to their own life.” In the first epistle to Timothy the influence of our book may also be discerned in a few cases; thus, in vi. 6 the words, “But godliness with contentment is great gain,” are in their essence closely analogous to what is written in Tobit iv. 21: “And fear not, my child, because we have become poor; thou hast much wealth, if thou fear God and avoid every kind of sin, and do the things which are good in the sight of the Lord thy God.” In the same way, the passage already quoted, Tobit iv. 9, “... for thou layest up a good treasure for thyself against the day of necessity,” is spiritualized in 1 Timothy vi. 19: “... laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on the life which is life indeed.” It is also worth mentioning that the expression “King eternal” in 1 Timothy i. 17 occurs also in Tobit xiii. 6.
In a few other passages identity of thought and verbal similarities are of interest: the combination of good works and almsdeeds is found in Tobit i. 3 and Acts ix. 36; in Tobit xii. 12 the words, “I did bring the memorial of your prayer before the glory of the Lord,” reminds one forcibly of Acts x. 4: “Thy prayers and thine alms are gone up for a memorial before God.” The idea of binding the devil occurs both in Tobit viii. 3 and Revelation xx. 2, and the description of the new Jerusalem in Tobit xiii. 16-18 hassome distinct points of similarity with the fuller picture given in Revelation xxi. 10-21.
In most of the cases given above the verbal similarity is more striking when read in the original Greek.