The delicate and vexatious problem here treated is concerned with the question: What type of literature are we dealing with in this book? Is the story of Tobias to be viewed as strict history or not? For, although the work is in every sense a fully inspired and canonical book, this is not the same thing as saying that it relates strict history, since any type of literature is compatible with biblical inspiration so long as it is not by its very nature unworthy of God. St Thomas Aquinas pointed out centuries ago that, ‘In Scripture divine things are presented to us in the manner which is in common use amongst men’. The determination of the type of literature, however, is not a mere literary problem for it must greatly influence the subsequent interpretation of the book. Hence this whole question must be handled with prudence and caution. Moreover, the ultimate decision must necessarily rest with the Church since she alone is the infallible interpreter of all inspired Scripture. Thus far the Church has not expressed her mind in this matter specifically. She has given general directions, but no decision. Quite recently, new impetus has been given to the study of the problem by the clear and precise directives of the Encyclical Divino Afflante Spiritu, which has an extremely valuable section on the importance of the ‘mode of writing’ or ‘literary forms’ in Sacred Scripture. These directives of Pius XII, as well as those of his Predecessors and the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, must be borne in mind by the investigator who seeks to attain the true sense of any inspired literature.

§ b. A brief glance at the history of interpretation of our book suffices to show that a definite judgement on its literary character is not easily formed. The Fathers and ancient writers have scattered references to the Book of Tobias in their works, but they have left us no full commentary. Ambrose on Tobias is really a treatise against usury. Bede’s work can scarcely be called a strict commentary, being but a brief allegorical outline. Strabo is merely a repetition of Bede. None of the ancients has left us a definite treatment of the literary character of Tobias or questioned its historicity. In a sense, then, it may be said that they presumed that the book is strictly historical since no other consideration had arisen for them. * The names of non-Catholic writers*M. Luther was one of the first to deny its historical character. For him it was a devout drama, a legend with a didactic purpose. Non-Catholic authors, for the most part, deny altogether the historicity of Tobias, viewing it as a poetic fiction, a pure fable or a fantastic fairy-tale. A few Catholic writers expressed much the same views, v.g. J. Jahn and C. Movers. Most Catholic scholars, however, consider the book historical, at least to some extent; although A. Scholz proposed the peculiar subjective theory that Tobias is an allegorical prophecy describing Israel’s return to the Church at the end of time. Among Catholic scholars who have treated the problem expressly, Gutberlet, Reusch, Vigouroux, Cornely-Merk, Galdos and others defend a strictly historical conception of the book in all its details; others, as Hummelauer, N. Peters, P. Vetter and A. Miller prefer to view the book as historical in a broader sense: there is a definite historical foundation or nucleus, but the author’s principal purpose is didactic. Vetter was one of the earliest to propose this opinion with considered argumentation; Miller has recently attracted attention by presenting the theory in a new way. Thus it can be seen that even amongst Catholic scholars there has not been uniformity of viewpoint regarding the literary form of the Book of Tobias.

§ c. It is apparent at once that there are two radically opposed views in this matter. (1) There is the opinion of those who hold that the book is strictly historical in every detail. Their reasons: the tradition of the Church; the fact that the book has every appearance of intending to relate history and nothing else–it gives us an account of real persons, in real geographical and historical circumstances. (2) Those who assert that the story of Tobias is pure fiction, and who defend their position with the following reasons: there are historical and geographical errors in the book sufficient to destroy its historicity; a good part of the narrative presumes the intervention of supernatural forces or is clearly intended to imply the working of miracles; there are several references in the book to the fables of the Grateful Dead and to the legend of Achikar.

§ d. If a solution can be given in the present state of our knowledge, it probably lies somewhere between these two extreme positions. It is quite true that an unbiased reading of the book leads one to conclude that the author’s obvious intention was to relate historical happenings, at least in a general way. This point of evidence is capital and must enter into any solution of the problem. Whether an appeal to tradition yields the conclusion that the book must be considered strict history in every detail, is questionable. As has been already pointed out, the ancients did not pose our specific problem. The fact that the Councils of Trent and the Vatican list Tobias among historical books scarcely proves that our book must be viewed in the strictest historical sense. Nor is an appeal to the § e Decree of Gelasius (EBEB Enchiridion Biblicum 19) conclusive. True, this document lists Tobias under the heading, Item ordo historiarum; but it also includes the Book of Job in the same list, and yet scarcely anyone would consider Job an historical work in all its details. A decree of the Consistorial Congregation (29 June, 1912) excluded a work of C. Holzhey from use in Seminaries for its very audacious opinions. That concerning Tobias, which holds it to be pure, poetic fiction, is mentioned among others. Still, it does not follow from this decree that Tobias must be viewed as a work strictly historical in the sense, say, of St Luke’s Gospel. It would follow, though, that to consider Tobias as altogether unhistorical and as pure fiction would be presumptuous. This is the tendency of writers of the other extreme; and their arguments are even less probative. Thus, for example, to assert that there are geographical and historical errors in Tobias and that therefore its historicity is destroyed, is to misread the evidence badly. There are historical and geographical difficulties in the current forms of the book, but these can be solved adequately as purely textual problems. Hence they need not be imputed to the original author and do not affect the literary character of the book one way or the other. Nor does the fact of supernatural intervention, or of the miraculous, in the narrative destroy its historicity. This is a purely rationalistic conception. If the fact of a miracle is firmly established exegetically it must be accepted; to reject it solely because miraculous is to proceed unscientifically. The bearing of the Achikar legend on the Book of Tobias will be discussed § 301 h–i.

§ f. By way of summary, the following points can be made. The Church has not yet given a definite decision concerning the literary form of the Book of Tobias. However, since traditionally the book has always been considered historical in some way, and since the author’s obvious intention is to give a real, historical setting to his story, the exegete should consider that at least the substantial framework is historical. Since, on the other hand, the story is related with perceptible artistry and to inculcate a moral, its didactic purpose must be considered the principal intention of the author. This didactic purpose does not destroy the historical foundation of the book. The decree of the Biblical Commission (June 23, 1905) concerning those books of Holy Scripture which are regarded as historical, either wholly or in part, should be recalled here; cf. § 52j. If such books are to be considered to give at times only the appearance of history, then this viewpoint must be proven by solid arguments and subject to the ultimate decision of the Church. The view, then, that the story of Tobias relates real historical facts is in possession, and the opposite must be proved in each case. On account of the doubtful state of the text of this book it is next to impossible at the present time to be more determinate or to say with certainty that this or that section of the narrative is, or is not, strict history.

§ g. The connexion of several widely-known legends or fables with the Tobias story is a question of some importance since it has a bearing on the literary character of our book. Some of these, such as the legend of the Grateful Dead and the Egyptian Khonsu legend, can be dismissed almost at once. The Grateful Dead story has a rather grotesque similarity to Tobias, but since it does not pre-date Christian times there can be no question of literary relationship to our book unless, perhaps, it is a pure distortion of Tobias. The Khonsu fable (cf. * The names of non-Catholic writers*J. H. Breasted, Ancient Records of Egypt, 3 (1906) 188 ff.) was composed earlier, but its only similarity to Tobias is in the account of the king’s daughter who was tormented by a spirit or demon–a very narrow basis on which to establish any sort of dependence.

§ h. The story of Achikar deserves more attention. This tale, widely read in antiquity, was certainly known to the Jews and apparently treasured by them even though its setting was pagan. It has come down to us in a great variety of forms in many languages; cf. * The names of non-Catholic writers*F. C. Conybeare, Harris, Lewis, The Story of Aḥiḳar (19132 The number of the edition.). In brief, it relates the story of Achikar, the grand chancellor of king Sennacherib of Assyria, and his wicked nephew, Nadan. Achikar had brought up the nephew as his own son, and yet the ungrateful youth, who had not absorbed the piety and wisdom of the uncle, managed successfully, by very devious methods, to have the aged Achikar accused before the king of treason and condemned to prison. Later the evil was discovered and Nadan paid for his treachery with his life. The tale is embellished with a host of proverbs or maxims of Achikar, but the most surprising thing about it all is that the story of Achikar is quoted in the present form of the Book of Tobias. For some this fact alone has been sufficient proof that Tobias is not intended as history in any sense. It clearly shows, they claim, that the story of Tobias is a legend or fable similar to that of Achikar, and that the author of Tobias simply incorporated parts of the Achikar legend in his own fictitious narrative. The whole question is involved and is beset with many uncertainties.

§ i. VgVg Vulgate (Sixtine-Clementine Edition) and DVDV Douay Version have only one citation (11:20) from Achikar; in this passage Achikar and Nadan are found rejoicing with Tobias and his son over their good fortune. The other forms of the Book of Tobias give also at least three further citations from Achikar; 1:21, 22; 2:10; 14:10. These places are so well attested by textual evidence that (except perhaps for the citation in 14:10) they must be considered as probably part of the text of Tobias. Furthermore, on account of recent findings in connexion with the Achikar story, it is now generally admitted that the story of Achikar was in existence before the composition of the Book of Tobias. This is not enough in itself, however, to establish a certain literary dependence of Tobias on Achikar. The two narratives are quite dissimilar and independent, although both have an obvious didactic purpose. Moreover, the brief sections cited in Tobias are so very loosely bound in with the Tobias story that they can be omitted without affecting it in the least. The Achikar text like that of Tobias has been only imperfectly transmitted, and we are no more certain of the original form and language of the Achikar legend than we are of the Tobias story. Some evidence has been produced to show that Achikar was a real, historical personage, and that at least the outline of his story is historical, but it is not altogether conclusive. At any rate, before making definite judgements on the relation of Achikar, and his story and sayings, to Tobias, we need much more evidence than we now possess. It would seem best to conclude at the present time that even if the Achikar citations in Tobias are certainly authentic, and this can still be questioned, we can deduce nothing from this to prove or reject the historicity of the Book of Tobias.