Christogenea Bible Study - September 18/24 - Tobit 1:1-13

What follows are William Finck's introductory notes: 

Discussion of the Book of Tobit 

The editions of Tobit: 

Here, if we follow Brenton’s edition of Tobit, we are essentially following the King James Apocrypha, since the editors of Brenton’s Septuagint had only copied that work for its representation of the apocryphal books which Brenton had not translated. 

For the Greek text of Tobit, there are two quite different versions, and I do not know if I will ever have time to sort through them both. The differences in Tobit as it is found in the Codex Sinaiticus are significant enough that the editors of the Rahlfs-Hanhart edition of the Septuagint present the book on divided pages, with the Sinaiticus reading on the bottom half of each page, and the reading found in the Codices Vaticanus and Alexandrinus found on the top half of each page. The Greek in Brenton’s Septuagint is primarily from the Codex Vaticanus. While the texts of the Vaticanus and Alexandrinus also have differences between one another in Tobit, they are comparatively sparse enough to be represented in the traditional apparatus which is found in the footnotes. 

There is a Hebrew copy of the book of Tobit at Sefaria.org, which is presented along with an English translation. The Hebrew is credited as having come from Wikisource, and in turn, Wikisource says that it is from “a Chaldee text from a unique MS. in the Bodleian library”, without saying anything more in English. The Bodleian library was one of the many libraries associated with Oxford University. It is not the oldest, but it became the most prominent, and now the name is used to describe what has become a group of over two dozen libraries at Oxford. At least Sefaria.org provided the name of the translator, one A. Neubauer, the A standing for Adolf.

So looking into him, I found that his work was published in book form and is available as a facsimile at Google Books. It was originally published in 1878 by the Clarendon Press at Oxford under the lengthy title The Book of Tobit - A Chaldee Text from a Unique MS. in the Bodleian Library, with other Rabbinical Texts, English Translations and the Itala, edited by Ad. Neubauer, M.A., Sub-Librarian of the Bodleian Library. So while Sefaria.org states that the Hebrew copy is a translation, that is not what we read in the original source, where it is rather an edited compilation with notes from copies of the text of Tobit found in the Talmud, in Aramaic manuscripts, and the “Itala”, which is at least a reference to the Latin Vulgate since the Preface to the book begins with a citation from Jerome, who said in a preface to his own Latin translation of Tobit that it had come from the Chaldee text. Neubauer informs us, however, that his Chaldee text agrees with Rabbinical versions more than it does with Jerome’s translation. Examining the translation of this Hebrew copy of Tobit found at Sefaria.org, it is certainly not a translation from Greek, as it is incomplete, and differs in many aspects. But for the verses which it has, many of them are much longer than their counterparts in the Septuagint. 

It is not surprising that Jerome had an Aramaic copy of Tobit, since considerable portions of the same have been found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, in the scrolls labeled 4Q196 through 4Q200. So during the course of this discussion, we may sometimes consult these secondary sources, the translation of the Hebrew, or perhaps readings in the Sinaiticus, if time permits us to prepare for that. However as we also may see here, it might only be worthwhile to compare Jerome’s Vulgate, and not worry so much about the others. 

The text of Tobit:

On the name Tobit:

The author of this book calls himself Tobit, son of Tobiel or Τωβιτ τοῦ Τωβιηλ. The name is akin to the name Tobijah found in the Old Testament, which means “Yahweh is Good”. The word טוב or towb is good (# 2896). The Hebrew letter yodh as a suffix means “of me”, so Tobit seems only to mean my good, and perhaps Tobit’s father had that in mind when he had named him. His own name of Tobiel, means “God is Good”. In Hebrew the spelling for Tobit son of Tobiel is טובי בן טוביאל. So Tobit is actually just Tobi or Toby. Evidently, the King James translators added the final letter to Tobit so that the name would sound more masculine, or more distinguished, in English. 

On the name Thisbe:

However in the English, as well as the Greek, Tobit appears to have been from a town called Θίσβη or Thisbe in Naphtali, a place which is not otherwise mentioned although some commentators relate to it the word Tishbite found in the appellation Elijah the Tishbite, which appears on six occasions in the books of 1 and 2 Kings. 

The following is found in the McClintock and Strong Biblical Cyclopedia:

This'be (θίσβη v.r. θίβη), a name found only in Tob. 1, 2, as that of a city of Naphtali from which Tobit's ancestor had been carried captive by the Assyrians. The real interest of the name resides in the fact that it is maintained by some interpreters (Hiller, Ononu. p. 236, 947; Reland, Palaest. p. 1035) to be the place which had the glory of giving birth to Elijah (q.v.) the Tishbite. This, however, is, at the best, very questionable, and derives its main support from the fact that the word employed in 1Ki 17:1 to denote the relation of Elijah to Gilead, if pointed as it now stands in the received Hebrew text, signifies that he was not a native of Gilead, but merely a resident there, and came originally from a different and foreign district. But it is also possible to point the word so that the sentence shall mean "from Tishbi of Gilead," in which case all relation between the great prophet and Thisbe of Naphtali at once falls to the ground. There is, however, a truly singular variation in the texts of the passage in Tobit, a glance at which (on the following page) will show how hazardous it is to base any definite topographical conclusions upon it. 

Assuming that Thisbe, and not Thibe, is the correct reading of the name, it has been conjectured (apparently for the first time by Keil, Comm. über die Konige, p. 247) that it originated in an erroneous rendering of the Hebrew word מַתַּשׁבּי, which word, in fact, occurs in the Hebrew version of the passage, and may be pointed in two ways, so as to mean either "from the inhabitants of" or "from Tishbi," i.e. Thisbe. The reverse suggestion, in respect of the same word in 1Ki 17:1, has also been made. SEE TISHBITE. But this, though very ingenious, and quite within the bounds of possibility, is at present a mere conjecture, since none of the texts support it, and there is no other evidence in its favor.

No name resembling Thisbe or Thibe has been yet encountered in the neighborhood of Kedes or Safed, but it seems impossible to suppose that the minute definition of the Latin and Revised Greek texts-equaled in the sacred books only by the well-known description of the position of Shiloh in Jg 21:19-can be mere invention.

I do not know why that article mentioned Thibe as an alternative reading, since I have not seen that in any Greek manuscript, and in the Vulgate references to either Thisbe or Thibe are wanting. But in the translation of the Hebrew Tobit taken from Neubauer, rather than reading that Tobit “was led captive out of Thisbe, which is at the right hand of that city, which is called properly Nephthali in Galilee above Aser”, as it is in the Septuagint, we read that Tobit “was led captive in the days of Shalmaneser, king of Assyria. And he was of the inhabitants of a city of Naphthali, which is in Galilee, on the western boundary.” So it does seem as if those who had translated Tobit into Greek had indeed taken a word which means “of the inhabitants of” and mistakenly translated it into a place name, Thisbe, which does not otherwise exist in Naphtali. 

This also leads us to mention another significant variation among the various copies of Tobit, because in the Septuagint Tobit refers to himself in the first person in the opening chapters, but in the other versions, he is referred to in the third person. For that, in the Preface to Neubauer’s edition we read: “The text which we now publish agrees in one important point with the version of the Vulgate, in representing Tobit in the first chapters in the third person, whilst in all other old versions he speaks in the first person.”

A significant anachronism:

There is another reference in verse 2 to Ἐνεμέσσαρος or “Enemessar king of the Assyrians”, which must be a reference to to Shalmaneser V, who ruled Assyria from about 727 to 722 BC, and whose name is typically spelled Σαλαμανασαρ in Greek, or שׁלמנאסר in Hebrew, as it also is in the Hebrew or Aramaic copies of Tobit.

However the Scriptures credit the taking of all of Naphtali to Shalmaneser’s predecessor, Tiglath-Pileser III, who ruled Assyria from 745 to 727 BC, in 2 Kings chapter 15: “29 In the days of Pekah king of Israel came Tiglathpileser king of Assyria, and took Ijon, and Abelbethmaachah, and Janoah, and Kedesh, and Hazor, and Gilead, and Galilee, all the land of Naphtali, and carried them captive to Assyria. 30 And Hoshea the son of Elah made a conspiracy against Pekah the son of Remaliah, and smote him, and slew him, and reigned in his stead, in the twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah.”

The Assyrian king Shalmaneser V first appears in Scripture in 2 Kings chapter 17, where he appeared in Samaria and Hoshea submitted to him. But Hoshea revolted, and in chapter 18 we read the account of the resulting siege of Samaria, the conquest of which was completed by his successor, Sargon II, in 722-721 BC.

The name Shalmaneser is actually an anglicized version of the Hebrew שׁלמנאסר, or shalmaneser, which is said to have been derived from the Akkadian phrase Šulmānu-ašarēdu which is said to mean “Shulmanu is preeminent”, Shulmanu having been the name of an idol peculiar to the Assyrians. 

It is remotely possible that something else was intended with the spelling of Ἐνεμέσσαρος. But it seems more than likely to have been a corruption of Shalmaneser, because that is the name which appears in the Aramaic or Hebrew copies. Moreover, the anachronism is exacerbated later in this chapter, where in verse 15 we read: “15 Now when Enemessar was dead, Sennacherib his son reigned in his stead; whose estate was troubled, that I could not go into Media.” However the reign of Sennacherib did not begin until after the 17-year reign of Sargon II, and the inscriptions inform us that Sennacherib was the son of Sargon II, and certainly not of Shalmaneser V. Only having just noticed these anachronisms, they have greatly diminished my esteem for the historical accuracy of Tobit, at least as Tobit is found in the Greek texts, and would they force me to be at least somewhat skeptical of its authorship. 

The heifer Baal: 

Ugaritic texts tell of other fertility aspects of Baal, such as his relations with Anath, his consort and sister, and also his siring a divine bull calf from a heifer. All this was part of his fertility role, which, when fulfilled, meant an abundance of crops and fertility for animals and mankind. - Britannica

This is the story of the Minotaur found in ancient Greek writings.

Further anachronisms in verses 4 and 5:

From the King James Apocrypha:

4 And when I was in mine own country, in the land of Israel being but young, all the tribe of Nephthali my father fell from the house of Jerusalem, which was chosen out of all the tribes of Israel, that all the tribes should sacrifice there, where the temple of the habitation of the most High was consecrated and built for all ages. 5 Now all the tribes which together revolted, and the house of my father Nephthali, sacrificed unto the heifer Baal.

When Tobit was young, if he actually lived in the days of Shalmaneser, or even in the earlier time of Tiglath-pileser III, then he could not have been born much before 760 BC or thereabouts. That would make him about seventeen to twenty years old when he was taken captive around 743 BC, which is about the time when Naphtali went into captivity. But according to Scripture, the tribes of Galilee fell away in the days of Jeroboam I, who ruled in Judah after the death of Solomon from about 931 to 910 BC. So Naphtali fell away from the temple in Jerusalem along with the rest of Israel about a hundred and seventy years before Tobit could have been born.

Even worse, the English translation of Neubauer’s Hebrew manuscript has a long and convoluted version of verses 4 and 5:

4 And it came to pass when I was but young in the land of Israel, that all the tribe of Naphthali rebelled against the house of David, and refused to go to Jerusalem, the city which the Lord chose out of all the tribes of Israel, wherein was the altar of the Lord that was sanctified for all the tribes of Israel, and the temple of the Lord was built in the midst thereof for offering up the burnt-offerings and the thank-offerings to the Lord three times a year. And all the brethren of the tribe of Naphthali offered sacrifices and burnt-offerings to the golden calves, which Jeroboam, the son of Nebat, king of Israel, had made in Bethel and Dan. But I went to Jerusalem at the feasts, according as it is written in the law of the Lord for Israel, with the first fruits and the tithes and the firstlings for the priests, the sons of Aaron; and corn and new wine and oil and figs and pomegranates and of every fruit of the land for the sons of Levi that ministered before the Lord in Jerusalem; and the second tithe and the third tithe for the stranger, the orphan, and the widow; and I went every year with all these things to Jerusalem, according to the commandment of the Lord, and as Deborah, my father’s mother, commanded me, for I was left an orphan by my father and my mother.

5 And it came to pass, when Shalmaneser, king of Assyria, died, that Sennacherib his son reigned in his stead, and the highways of Media were closed because of the wars which were in the land, and I could not go to the land of Media to receive my money. And after this I gave many alms to the poor of my nation, who were orphans and widows, and when I saw the slain of my nation cast forth outside the wall of Nineveh, I kept not quiet, and rested not until I had buried them.

But the Douay-Rheims translation of the Vulgate has no anachronisms in these verses. In fact, the first 5 verses of the Vulgate have no explicit anachronisms at all where we read:

1 Tobias of the tribe and city of Nephtali, (which is in the upper parts of Galilee above Naasson, beyond the way that leadeth to the west, having on the right hand the city of Sephet,) 2 When he was made captive in the days of Salmanasar king of the Assyrians, even in his captivity, forsook not the way of truth, 3 But every day gave all he could get to his brethren his fellow captives, that were of his kindred. 4 And when he was younger than any of the tribe of Nephtali, yet did he no childish thing in his work. 5 Moreover when all went to the golden calves which Jeroboam king of Israel had made, he alone fled the company of all, 6 And went to Jerusalem to the temple of the Lord, and there adored the Lord God of Israel, offering faithfully all his firstfruits, and his tithes, 7 So that in the third year he gave all his tithes to the proselytes, and strangers.

Even the later anachronism in verse 18 seems to be indefinite in the Vulgate:

18 But after a long time, Salmanasar the king being dead, when Sennacherib his son, who reigned in his place, had a hatred for the children of Israel:

So in the reading of the Vulgate a possibility becomes evident, that where Tobit was taken into captivity in the days of Shalmaneser, perhaps it was not in the time of Tiglath-pileser when the entire tribe of Naphtali was taken, but perhaps at some later time. Then, where he refers to Sennacherib, in the Vulgate it is not evident that he meant to say that Sennacherib followed him immediately, but only “when Sennacherib … reigned in his place”, which could describe an event in a period 17 or so years after Shalmaneser’s death.

With this, it seems that the Greek texts of the Codices have embellishments on the Aramaic text which Jerome had used, and the Hebrew text of Neubauer has much greater embellishments. Fragments of verses 17 and 19 are found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, but none of verse 18.

So I would say that up to this point, on account of the text of the Vulgate, I cannot dismiss Tobit completely, but I must distrust the other texts because of the many obvious embellishments.