IV. Hortatory Narrative

IV. HORTATORY NARRATIVE
1. The Book of Judith
The hortatory narrative was a peculiar species of literature which was frequently cultivated during our period. Stories of a purely fictitious character were composed which the author no doubt intended to be regarded as founded on fact though at the same time the object in view was not so much to impart historical information as to use these stories as a vehicle for conveying moral and religious lessons and exhortations. From the incidents narrated—and which are taken from the history of the Jewish people or from the life of certain individuals—the readers are expected to learn the truth that the fear of God is after all the highest wisdom for God always delivers His children in some wonderful way in the end although for a little He may bring them into circumstances of trouble and danger.
The history of Judith is a narrative of this description. The following is an outline of the story. Nebuchadnezzar the king of Assyria (sic!) calls upon the peoples of Asia Minor and among them the inhabitants of Palestine to furnish him with troops to help him in the war he was waging against Arphaxad the king of Media. As those who received this summons did not think proper to comply with it Nebuchadnezzar as soon as he had vanquished Arphaxad sent his general Holofernes with a large force against the nations of the West with the view of chastising them for their disobedience. Holofernes executes his orders devastates the various countries one after another and demolishes their sanctuaries in order that Nebuchadnezzar alone might receive the worship due to God (1-3). When he got as far as the plain of Esdrelon the Jews who had just returned from the captivity and had newly re-established their worship (sic! in Nebuchadnezzar’s time) prepare to offer resistance. By order of Joakim the high priest they intercept Holofernes on his way to Jerusalem at Fort Betylua (Βετυλούα; Latin Bethulia) opposite the plain of Esdrelon (4-6).[2378] Now when Holofernes was besieging Betylua and the distress within the town had reached a climax a wealthy beautiful and pious widow called Judith resolved to save her people by an act of daring (7-9). Richly attired and having no one with her but a bondwoman she betakes herself to the enemy’s camp and there under the pretext of wishing to show him how to get to Jerusalem she contrives to obtain an interview with Holofernes. This latter reposes confidence in her and is charmed with her beauty. After spending three days in the camp she is called upon to be present at a banquet at the conclusion of which she is left alone with Holofernes in his tent. But the general is so intoxicated with wine that Judith now finds an opportunity for carrying out her design. She accordingly takes Holofernes’s own sword and cuts off his head with it. She then manages to get away from the camp without being observed while the slave brings away the head of Holofernes in a bag. Having thus accomplished her object she returns to Betylua where she is welcomed with grest rejoicings (10-13). When the enemy discovered what had been done they fled in all directions and were without difficulty mown down by the Jews. But Judith was extolled by all Israel as their deliverer (14-16).
[2378] The town of Βετυλούα (Bethulia) is mentioned nowhere else (except by Christian pilgrims who on the ground of our story point sometimes to one place and sometimes to another as the spot where it stood). That the town actually existed however is hardly to be doubted for it is scarcely likely that the author would also hare to invent an artificial geography to suit his story. On the probable site of the place see Robinson’s Palestine iii. pp. 337 sq. Idem Modern Biblical Researches p. 443. Fritzsche in Schenkel’s Bibellex. i. 431. Guérin Samarie i. pp. 344-350. The Palestine pilgrim Theodosius (ed. Gildemeister 1882) speaks in § xx. of Betulia ubi Olofernes mortuus est as being in the extreme south of Palestine twelve miles south of Raphia. There no doubt a place of this name must have existed (see Wesseling Vetera Romanorum itineraria p. 719. Kühn Die städtische und bürgerliche Verfassung des römischen Reichs ii. 367 sq. Gildemeister’s notes to Theodosius). But this cannot have been the locality in question for our Betylua must have been much farther north viz. in Samaria.
As our book happens to have found a place in the Christian Bible not only Catholic but also many Protestant theologians have felt it to be their duty to defend the historical character of the narrative (as was still done on the Protestant side above all by O. Wolff 1861). But the historical blunders are so gross and the hortatory purpose so obvious that one cannot venture to assume even a nucleus of fact. The book is a piece of fiction composed with the view of encouraging the people to offer a brave resistance to the enemies of their religion and their liberties. The standpoint of the author is already entirely that of Pharisaic legalism. It is precisely the scrupulous care with which she observes the laws regarding purifications and meats that is so much admired in Judith while it is plainly enough intimated that it was just for this reason that she had had God upon her side. But the story points to a time when danger threatened not only the people themselves but their religion as well. For Holofernes demands that Nebuchadnezzar should be worshipped instead of God. This is suggestive of Daniel and the Maccabaean age. Consequently the origin of the book may with great probability be referred to this period (so also Fritzsche for example and Ewald Hilgenfeld 1861 Nöldeke). Seeing that the author appears to be quite as deeply interested in political as in religious liberty probably we ought to understand him as referring not to the earlier days of the insurrection but to a somewhat later period. It would hardly be advisable to come so far down as the Roman age for the political background (the high priest as supreme head of the Jewish commonwealth the Hellenistic cities as independent towns and subject to the suzerain only to the extent of having to furnish troops in time of war) corresponds far more with the Greek than the Roman period. It is entirely out of the question to refer the composition of the book to the time of Trajan (so Hitzig Grätz and above all Volkmar who finds in it a disguised account of Trajan’s campaigns); for the story of Judith was already known to Clement of Rome (toward the end of the first century of our era).
Jerome had the book before him in a Chaldee text (see below). How far this agreed with or differed from our Greek text we are not in a position to say exactly for we have no means of knowing to what extent Jerome followed the Chaldee text when he was preparing the Latin one. In any case judging from internal grounds it is tolerably certain—and moreover almost universally acknowledged—that our Greek text is a translation of a Hebrew (or Aramaic) original (see Movers in the article mentioned below and Fritzsche Handb. p. 115 sq.).
In the time of Origen the book was not in use among the (Palestinian) Jews nor was any Hebrew text of it known to exist for in Epist. ad African. chap. xiii. he says: Ἑβραῖοι τῷ Τωβίᾳ οὐ χρῶνται οὐδὲ τῇ Ἰουδήθ: οὐδὲ γὰρ ἔχουσιν αὐτὰ ἐν ἀποκρύφοις ἑβραϊστί· ὡς ἀπʼ αὐτῶν μαθόντες ἐγνώκαμεν. It may therefore be conjectured that the Hebrew original was lost at an early period and that the Chaldee text with which Jerome was acquainted was a later version based upon the Greek one. For yet later Jewish versions see Zunz Die gottesdienstl. Vorträge der Juden p. 124 sq. Lipsius “Jüdische Quellen zur Judithsage” (Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1867 pp. 337-366).
Use in the Christian Church: Clement of Rome chap. lv.: Ἰουδὶθ ἡ μακαρία. Tertullian De monogam chap. xvii.: Nec Joannes aliqui Christi spado nec Judith filia Merari nec tot alia exempla sanctorum (!). Clement of Alexandria Strom. ii. 7. 35 iv. 19. 118 (Judith being expressly mentioned in the latter passage). Origen Fragm. ex libro sexto Stromatum in Jerome adv. Rufin. Book I. (Lommatzsch xvii. 69 sq.): Homo autem cui incumbit necessitas mentiendi diligenter attendat ut sic utatur interdum meudacio quomodo condimento atque medicamine; ut servet mensuram ejus ne excedat terminos quibus usa est Judith contra Holophernem et vicit eum prudenti simulatione verborum. Further quotations in Origen are to be found: Comm. in Joann. vol. ii. chap. xvi. (Lommatzsch xi. 279). In Lib. Judicum homil. ix. 1 (Lommatzsch xi. 279); De Oratione chap. xiii. (Lommatzsch xvii. 134); De Oratione chap. xxix. (Lommatzsch xvii. 246). For the further history of the use see the history of the canon.
The Greek text exists in three different recensions: (1) The original text which is that given in the majority of manuscripts and among others also in the Codex Vaticanus (marked in the critical apparatuses as No. ii.) Alexandrinus (No. iii.) and Sinaiticus (No. x.). (2) A revised text viz. that of Codex 58 (according to numbering of the manuscripts in Holmes and Parsons). It is on this text also that the Latin and Syriac versions are based. (3) Another recension though akin to the one just mentioned is to be found in Codices 19 and 108. On the editions see p. 10.
Of the early versions the following call for special mention in the case of our book as well: (1) The Latin and that (a) the Vetus Latinus (previous to Jerome) for which Sabatier collated five manuscripts in which the deviations from each other are found to be so great as entirely to corroborate what Jerome says about the multorum codicum varietas vitiosissima in his day (Sabatier Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae vol. i. Remis 1748 pp. 744-790). On the relation of the texts to one another and to the Greek text see Fritzsche’s Commentar p. 118 sqq. (b) Jerome’s translation (= Vulgata) on the origin of which he himself says in the preface (Opp. ed. Vallarsi x. 21 sq.): Apud Hebraeos liber Judith inter apocrypha (al. hagiographa) legitur … Chaldaeo tamen sermone conscriptus inter historias computatur. Sed quia hunc librum Synodus Nicaena in numero sanctarum scripturarum legitur computasse acquievi postulationi vestrae immo exactioni et sepositis occupationibus quibus vehementer arctabar huic unam lucubratiunculam dedi magis sensum e sensu quam ex verbo verbum transferens. Multorum codicum varietatem vitiosissimam amputavi: sola ea quae intelligentia integra in verbis Chaldaeis invenire potui Latinis expressi. According to this his own confession the work is a free rendering and one too that was executed somewhat hurriedly. It was based upon the old Latin version. Comp. Fritzsche’s Commentar p. 121 sq. For the criticism of the text see Thielmann Beiträge zur Textkritik der Vulgata insbesondere des Buches Judith a school program Speier 1883. (2) The Syriac Version on which and its editions see p. 11. The London Polyglot gives in addition to the Greek text only the Latin Vulgate and the Syriac version.
For the exegetical aids generally see p. 11. Commentaries: Fritzsche Die Bücher Tobi und Judith erklärt (Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Apokryphen 2 vols.) Leipzig 1853. O. Wolff Das Buch Judith als geschichtliche Urkunde vertheidigt und erklärt Leipzig 1861. The older literature in Fabricius Biblioth. graec. ed. Harles iii. 736-738. Fürst Biblioth. Judaica ii 51 (under “Jehudit”). Volkmar Handb. der Einl. in die Apokryphen i. 1 (1860) pp. 3-5. Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. i. 496.
Special disquisitions: Montfaucon La vérité de l’histoire de Judith Paris 1690. Movers “Ueber die Ursprache der deuterokanonischen Bücher des A. T.” (Zeitschr. für Philos. und kalhol. Theol. Part 13 1835 p. 31 sqq. [on Judith exclusively]). Schoenhaupt Etudes historiques et critiques sur le livre de Judith Strasb. 1839. Reuss art. “Judith” in Ersch and Gruber’s Allg. Enc. § ii. vol. xxviii. (1851) p. 98 sqq. Nickes De libro Judithae Vratislav. 1854. Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record vol. iii. 1856 pp. 342-363 vol. xii. 1861 pp. 421-440. Volkmar “Die Composition des Buches Judith” (Theol. Jahrbb. 1857 pp. 441-498). Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1858 pp. 270-281. R. A. Lipsius ibid. 1859 pp. 39-121. Hitzig ibid. 1860 pp. 240-250. Volkmar Handbuch der Einleitung in die Apokryphen Part 1 Div. 1 Judith 1860. Hilgenfeld Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. 1861 pp. 335-385. K. H. A. Lipsius “Sprachliches zum Buche Judith” (Zeitschr. f. wissensch. Theol. 1862 pp. 103-105). Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel vol. iv. (3rd ed. 1864) p. 618 sq. Grätz Gesch. der Juden vol. iv. (2nd ed. 1866) note 14 p. 439 sqq. R. A. Lipsius “Jüdische Quellen zur Judithsage” (Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. Theol. 1867 pp. 337-366). Fritzsche in Schenkel’s Bibellex. iii. 445 sqq. The introductions of Jahn Eichhorn Bertholdt Welte Scholz Nöldeke De Wette-Schrader Reusch Keil Kaulen Kleinert Reuss (see p. 12).
2. The Book of Tobit
The Book of Tobit is a work of a similar character to that of Judith only it does not move in the domain of political history but in that of biography though like it it addresses its exhortations not to the people at large but to the individual reader. Tobit the son of Tobiel of the tribe of Naphtali who in the days of Shalmaneser king of Assyria had been taken captive to Nineveh relates how both before and after going into captivity even under the succeeding kings Sennacherib and Esarhaddon he and his wife Anna and his son Tobias had always lived in strict accordance with the requirements of the law. Besides this he had been particularly in the habit of interring the bodies of such of his countrymen as had been put to death by the Assyrians and allowed to lie unburied. One day after performing a kind service of this sort he lay down to sleep in the open air (in order that denied as he was by contact with a dead body he might not communicate the defilement to his house) when some sparrow’s dung fell upon his eyes in consequence of which he lost his sight (1-3:6). At the same time there was living in Ecbatana in Media a pious Jwesss called Sarah the daughter of Raguel who already had had seven husbands but all of whom had been put to death on the marriage night by the evil spirit Asmodeus (3:7-17). Meanwhile the aged Tobit remembered in the midst of his distress that on one occasion he had left ten talents of silver at Rages in Media in charge of one Gabael a member of his own tribe. Consequently when he saw that his end was approaching he sent his son Tobias to Rages with instructions to get the money which he was to retain as his patrimony. Tobias sets out taking with him a fellow-traveller this latter however being in reality no other than the angel Raphael (4-5). On his way Tobias bathes in the Tigris and while doing so he catches a fish. At the angel’s behest he takes out the fish’s heart liver and gall and carries them away with him. Having now reached Ecbatana they take up their quarters at the house of Raguel. This latter recognises in Tobias one of her own relations and gives him her daughter Sarah to be his wife. As soon as the new-married couple had entered the bride-chamber Tobias acting on the instructions of the angel raises a smoke by burning the heart and the liver of the fish which had the effect of expelling the demon Asmodeus who was bent on disposing of him too precisely as he had disposed of the former husbands of Sarah. Thus the fourteen days of marriage festivity were allowed to pass by without disturbance or interruption the angel having meanwhile taken the opportunity to go to Rages to get the money from Gabael (6-9). After the marriage celebrations were over Tobias returns to Nineveh to his parents accompanied by Sarah his wife and there he contrives to cure his father’s blindness by anointing his eyes with the gall of the fish (10-12). Full of gratitude to God Tobit chants a song of praise and continues to live for nearly a hundred years longer. Tobias also lives to the age of 127 years (13-14).
The plot of the story is well contrived there is great variety of details and the various threads joined on at different points in the narrative are skilfully interwoven with each other. Consequently as a literary product our book is decidedly superior to that of Judith. But the religious standpoint is exactly the same. Here too as in Judith the whole stress is laid upon the strict observance of the law of which the practice of deeds of kindness also forms a part. And in connection with this we at the same time get some instructive glimpses of the superstition of the time. As the whole story centres in the dispersion it would seem from this that the author wrote mainly for the Jews of the dispersion. By holding up those patterns of excellence before the eyes of his readers he hopes to produce such an impression upon the minds of those of his countrymen scattered among the Gentiles as may lead them to adhere no less faithfully to the law and to observe it in an equally strict and conscientious manner. In consequence of the purpose of the book being as here described it is impossible to determine whether it had it? origin in Palestine or in the dispersion.
The date of the composition of the work can only be fixed within tolerably wide limits. Comparatively speaking it may be regarded as most certain of all that the book was written previous to the building of the temple of Herod. No doubt Hitzig thought (Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1860 p. 250 sqq.) that we were bound to assume that it was written after the destruction of the temple by Titus because among the predictions at the close of the book it is above all foretold that the temple will be rebuilt again with great magnificence (13:16 f. 14:4 5). But on more careful consideration we will find it probable that the author wrote when the temple of Zerubbabel was still standing. He places himself at the standpoint of the Assyrian age and from this he predicts first of all the destruction of the temple by the Chaldaeans and then its reconstruction where however he distinguishes between two things: (1) the restoration of an unpretending structure till the lapse of a definite period; and (2) the rebuilding with extraordinary magnificence and splendour that is to take place at the expiry of this period (14:5: καὶ οἰκοδομήσουσι τὸν οἶκον οὐχ οἷος ὁ πρότερος ἕως πληρωθῶσι καιροὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος· καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἐπιστρέψουσιν ἐκ τῶν αἰχμαλωσιῶν καὶ οἰκοδομήσουσιν Ἱερουσαλὴμ ἐντίμως· καὶ ὁ οἶκος τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῇ οἰκοδομηθήσεται εἰς πάσας τὰς γενεὰς τοῦ αἰῶνος οἰκοδομῇ ἐνδόξῳ καθὼς ἐλάλησαν περὶ αὐτῆς οἱ προφῆται). The historical structure with which the author is acquainted is therefore more unpretending than the former one the temple of Solomon (οὐχ οἷος ὁ πρότερος). For surely he could hardly have expressed himself as he does if he was already acquainted with the temple of Herod. If this latter then forms the terminus ad quem for the composition of our book the safest course would he to say that it was written in the course of the last two centuries before Christ. For we are precluded by the whole spirit of the book from going farther back.
In preparing his Latin version of our book Jerome made use of a Chaldee text precisely as in the case of the Book of Judith (see below). Such a text is still extant in the shape of a manuscript that only at a comparatively recent date found its way into the Bodleian library at Oxford from which Neubauer took his edition (The Book of Tobit a Chaldee text etc. ed. by Neubauer Oxford 1878). Both texts the Latin of Jerome and the Chaldee one are marked by a singular peculiarity common to themselves and to themselves alone. The peculiarity in question is this that while according to the Greek text and the other versions Tobit in the first section (1:1-3:6) tells his story in the first person and only changes to the third after Sarah makes her appearance in the narrative Jerome and the author of the Chaldee text on the other hand make use of the third person from beginning to end. From this it is highly probable that Jerome had before him if not exactly our Chaldee text at all events one very much akin to it (that our Chaldee text is only the reproduction of an older one is probable for other reasons see below). But the peculiarity just referred to also serves to prove at the same time that our Chaldee text is not based upon the Greek one. For the inserting of the third person all through is clearly an afterthought while the transition from the first to the third correctly represents the original text. But there is no ground whatever for supposing that our Greek text is a version based upon a Semitic original. For the two Hebrew texts which were printed in the sixteenth century are also later products (see below). On the other hand there are numerous peculiarities of diction (for example the phrase καλὸς καὶ ἀγαθός 7:7) which serve to confirm the view that the Greek must have been the original text.[2379]
[2379] Comp. also Fritzshe’s Commentar p. 8. Nöldeke Monatsberichte de Bevliner Akademie 1879 p. 61.
It would appear from what Origen asserts that in his time our book was not in use among the (Palestinian) Jews and that a Hebrew text was unheard of (Origen Epist. ad African. chap. xiii.; for the terms of the passage see p. 35. Idem De oratione chap. xiv. = Lommatzsch xvii. 143: τῇ δὲ τοῦ Τωβὴτ βίβλῳ ἀντιλέγουσιν οἱ ἐκ περιτομῆς ὡς μὴ ἐνδιαθήκῳ). But that it came to be received with favour not long after is proved by the existing Semitic manuscripts with one of which Jerome was already acquainted.
Its use in the Christian Church is already evidenced by the apostolic Fathers. Comp. 2 Clem. xvi. 4 = Tob_12:8 (on which see Harnack’s notes to 2 Clem.). Epist. Polycarp. x. 2 = Tob_4:10. According to Irenaeus i. 30. 11 the Ophites included Tobias among the Old Testament prophets. Clement of Alexandria repeatedly quotes the book as γραφή (Strom. ii. 23. 139 vi. 12. 102). Hippolytus in his commentary on the story of Susannah brings in the story of Tobit by way of parallel (Hippolyt. ed. Lagarde p. 151). Origen in his Epist. ad African. refers at some length to the story of Tobias and adds quite in a general way: χρῶνται τῷ Τωβίᾳ αἱ ἐκκλησίαι. Consequently he in like manner frequently quotes it as γραφή (Comment. in epist. ad Rom. book viii. chap. xi. fin. = Lommatzsch vii. 272; De oratione chap. xi. = Lommatzsch xvii. 124; comp. besides De oratione chaps. xiv. and xxxi. = Lommatzsch xvii. 143 284; contra Cels. v. 19 = Lommatzsch xix. 196). Cyprian makes frequent use of the book (Testimon. iii. 1 6 62; Ad Fortunatum chap. xi.; De opere et eleemosynis chaps. v. and xx.). For more on this subject see the works on the history of the Canon; also Jahn’s Einleit. in die göttl. Bücher des Alten Bundes 2nd ed. vol. ii. § 3 and 4 (1803) 1st and 2nd appendices.
Of the Greek text there are three recensions in existence: (1) The one found in the majority of manuscripts and among others also in Codex Vaticanus (No. ii.) and Alexandrinus (No. iii.). To it the Syrian version adheres as far as chap. vii. 9. (2) The text of the Codex Sinaiticus (No. x.) which deviates very much from the ordinary text. To it again the old Latin version adheres though not entirely yet chiefly. (3) The text of Codices 44 106 and 107 (according to the numbering of Holmes and Parsons) which is akin to that of the Codex Sinaiticus. However this latter appears to have been adhered to by the manuscripts just mentioned only from vi. 9 to xiii. 8 while in all that precedes and follows they conform to the ordinary recension. This text again is that on which from vii. 10 onwards the Syrian version is based. Whether the ordinary text or that of the Codex Sinaiticus is the original one it is difficult to determine for the claims of both admit of being well supported. Fritzsche (Proleg. to his edition) and Nöldeke (Monatsberichte der Berliner Akademie) 1879 p. 45 sqq. decide in favour of the ordinary text while Reusch (in his separate edition; comp. also Theol. Literaturzeitung 1878 p. 333 sq.) upholds the claims of the Codex Sinaiticus. In Fritzsche’s edition of the Apocrypha the whole three texts are printed alongside of each other. The text of the Codex Sinaiticus has been published separately by Reusch (Libellus Tobit e codice Sinaitico editus et recensitus Bonnae 1870). Comp. further on the editions p. 10.
Of the early versions we may mention: (1) The Latin and that (a) the old Latin one the text of which shows very considerable variations in the four manuscripts collated by Sabatier though it substantially agrees with that of the Codex Sinaiticus (Sabatier Bibliorum sacrorum Latinae versiones antiquae vol. i.). Sabatier’s four manuscripts represent two recensions the one of which is contained in three of them and the other in the remaining one (Vat. 7).[2380] Fragments of a third recension are furnished by the quotations given in the Speculum Augustini (on which see Reusch Das Buch Tobias 1857 p. xxvi.) edited by Mai. The text of a certain Codex Ambrosianus has not yet been inspected. Ceriani contemplates preparing an edition of it for the Monum. sacra et profana but so far as I am aware it has not as yet appeared. The same may be said of a Münich codex which Ziegler purposes editing (Neubauer The Book of Tobit p. 10 note 6). See in general Ilgen Die Geschichte Tobt’s p. 183 sqq. Fritzsche Handb. p. 11 sq. Reusch Das Buch Tobias p. 25 sqq. Sengelmann Das Buch Tobit pp. 49-56. (b) Jerome’s version (= Vulgata) which was executed in circumstances similar to those under which that of Judith was prepared see Praef. in vers. libri Tob. (Vallarsi x. 1 sq.): Exigitis ut librum Chaldaeo sermone conscriptum ad Latinum stilum traham librum utique Tobiae quern Hebraei de catalogo divinarum scripturarum secantes his quae apocrypha [al. hagiographa] memorant manciparunt. Feci satis desiderio vestro.… Et quia vicina est Chaldaeorum lingua sermoni Hebraico utriusque linguae peritissimum loquacem reperiens unius diei laborem arripui et quidquid ille mihi Hebraicis verbis expressit hoc ego accito notario sermonibus Latinis exposui. A comparison of this version with the old Latin one will show that Jerome based his translation upon this latter giving a somewhat free rendering of it however much he may at the same time have kept the Chaldee text in view. Comp. Ilgen p. cxliv. sqq. Fritzsche p. xii. sq. Reusch p. xxxii. Sengelmann pp. 56-61. We have no further means of verification notwithstanding the recovery of the Chaldee text for this latter is itself simply a reproduction with greater or less accuracy of the original one. (2) The Syriac text which has come down to us (printed for the first time in the London Polyglot vol. iv.) is composed of the fragments of two different versions one of which (as far as vii. 9) followed the ordinary Greek text while the other (from vii. 10 onwards) followed the text of Codices 44 106 107. See Ilgen pp. cxxxvii. sq. clxix. sqq. Reusch p. ix. sq. Sengelmann p. 47 sq. On the editions see p. 11. The Book of Tobit is not given in the large Peschito manuscript of Milan.
[2380] The text of Vaticanus 7 has (according to Reusch Libellus Tobit 1870 p. 4) been more carefully edited by Bianchini Vindiciae canonicarum scripturarum Romae 1740 p. cccl. than by Sabatier. On this text comp. also Bickell Zeitschr. für kathol. Theol. 1878 p. 218.
(3) The Chaldee text (see p. 40 above) edited by Neubauer agrees substantially with the Greek recension of the Codex Sinaiticus on which it was probably based. But the text as we now have it is in all likelihood only an abridged and modified form of an older Chaldee text. See besides Neubauer’s edition Bickell Zeitschr. für kathol. Theol. 1878 pp. 216-222 and especially Nöldeke Monatsberichte der Berliner Akademie 1879 pp. 45-69.
(4) Lastly we have further to mention two Hebrew versions which have been frequently printed since the sixteenth century namely: (a) The so-called Hebraeus Fagii a Hebrew version based upon the ordinary Greek text published first of all at Constantinople in 1517 and then by Fagius in 1542. On this see Ilgen p. cxxxviii. sqq. Fritzsche p. 9 sq. Reusch p. xlvii. Sengelmann p. 63 sq. (b) The Codex Hebraeus Münsteri a free Hebrew version which (according to Neubauer p. 12) was published first at Constantinople in 1516 and then by Sebastian Münster in 1542. Until the discovery of the Chaldee text it was supposed that the old Latin version was based upon it (so Ilgen p. ccxvii. sqq.; Fritzsche p. 14; Reusch p. xlvii. eq.; Sengelmann p. 61 sqq.). After seeing the Chaldee text we cannot but regard it as certain that the Codex Hebraeus Münsteri is based upon it though not on that text as it has come down to us but on an older form of it. See especially Nöldeke as above; also Bickell as above. As in the Greek text so also in this older form the first person was made use of in the first three chapters and this has also been retained in the Codex Heb. Münst. Neubauer has published an excellent edition of this codex based upon a collation of two manuscripts and accompanied with an English translation (The Book of Tobit a Chaldee text etc. ed. by Neubauer Oxford 1878). Both the Hebrew texts along with a Latin translation have also found a place in the London Polyglot vol. iv. On the earlier editions comp. Wolf Bibliotheca Hebraea i. 391 sqq. ii. 413 sq. iii. 275 iv. 154. Fabricius-Harles Biblioth. graec. iii. 738 sq. Steinschneider Catalogus librorum Hebraeorum in Bibliotheca Bodleiana (1852-1860) cols. 200-202. Fürst Biblioth. Judaica iii. 425.
For the exegetical aids generally see p. 11 above. Commentaries: Ilgen Die Geschichte Tobi’s nach drei verschieden Originalen dem Griechischen dem Lateinischen des Hieronymus und einem Syrischen übersetzt und mit Anmerkungen exegetischen und kritischen Inhalts auch einer Einleitung versehen Jena 1800. Fritzsche Die Bücher Tobi und Judith erklärt (Exeget. Handb. su den Apokryphen vol. ii.) Leipzig 1853. Reusch Das Buch Tobias übersetzt und erklärt Freiburg 1857. Sengelmann Das Buch Tobit erklärt Münster 1877. For the older literature consult Fabricius-Harles iii. 738 sq. Fürst Bibl. Jud. iii. 425 sq. Fritzsche p. 20. Herzog’s Real-Enc. 2nd ed. i. 496.
Special disquisitions: [Eichhorn] “Ueber das Buch Tobias” (Allgem. Biblioth. der bibl. Literatur ii. 410 sqq.) Reusch. “Der Dämon Asmodäus im B. Tobias” (Theol. Quartalschr. 1856 pp. 422-445). Idem Review of Sengelmann in the Theol. Quartalschr. 1858 pp. 318-332. Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record iv. 1857 pp. 59-71 vi. 1858 pp. 373-382. Hitzig Zeitschr. für wissenschaftl. Theol. 1860 pp. 250-261. Hilgenfeld ibid. 1862 pp. 181-198. Ewald Gesch. des Volkes Israel vol. iv. (3rd ed.) p. 269 sqq. Grätz Gesch. der Juden vol. iv. (2nd ed.) p. 466 sq. note 17. Kohut “Etwas über die Moral und die Abfassungszeit d. B. Tobias” (Geiger’s Jüdische Zeitschr. für Wissenschaft u. Leben x. 1872 pp. 49-73; also in a separate form). Fritzsche in Schenkel’s Bibellex. v. 540 sqq. Renan L’église chrétienne (1879) pp. 554-561. Gräte Monatsschr. f. Gesch. und Wissensch. des Judenth. 1879 pp. 145 sqq. 385 sqq. 433 sqq. 509 sqq. Grimm Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. Theol. 1881 pp. 33-56. Preiss Zeitschr. f. wissenschaftl. Theol. 1885 pp. 24-51. The introductions of Jahn Eichhorn Bertholdt Welte Scholz Nöldeke De Wette-Schrader Reusch Keil Kaulen Kleinert Reuse (see p. 12).