St Ambrose, De Tobia, CSELCSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Vindobonae 32, 11, 517; Ven. Bede, In Librum B. Patris Tobiae allegorica interpretatio, PLPL Patrologia Latina (Migne) 91, 923 ff.; Cornelius à Lapide, Commentaria in Tobiam (Paris, 1878); E. Cosquin, Le livre de Tobie et l’histoire du Sage Ahikar, RBRB Revue Biblique 8 (1899) 50 ff., 510 ff.; P. Vetter, Das Buch Tobias und die Achikar-Sage, TQTQ Theologische Quartalschrift (Tübingen), 86 (1904) 321 ff., 512 ff., 87 (1905) 321 ff., 497 ff.; J. O’Carroll, Tobias and Achikar, DbRDbR Dublin Review 93 (1929) 252 ff.; R. Galdos, Commentarius in librum Tobit, CSSCSS Cursus Scripturae Sacrae, Paris, 1890–, 1930; M. M. Schumpp, Das Buch Tobias (München, 1933); A. Miller & J. Schildenberger, Die Bücher Tobias, Judith und Esther (Bonn, 1940); * The names of non-Catholic writers*D. C. Simpson, Tobit, in CAPCAP Charles, Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, 2 vols, Oxford, 1913 I.

§ b. The Text. It is generally acknowledged that the primitive text has not been preserved. It is important, then to bear this well in mind in any discussion of the Book of Tobias, for many of the difficulties encountered therein are fundamentally textual difficulties. At the present stage of our knowledge it is impossible to determine with certainty the language of the original form of our book. Eminent authorities have proposed in turn that it was Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. It seems probable at least that the original language was Semitic, whether Hebrew or Aramaic cannot at present be decided.

§ c. The book has been transmitted to us in several noticeably divergent forms. The Greek form of the text is represented by: (a) the Codex Sinaiticus; (b) Codices B and A; and (c) the minuscules 44, 106, 107. The Hebrew, which is certainly not primitive in its present form, is found in the edition of * The names of non-Catholic writers*S. Munster (1542), which may represent a 5th cent. text; in that of * The names of non-Catholic writers*P. Fagius, which offers perhaps a text of the 12th cent.; and in the London Hebrew MS (Brit. Mus. Add. 11639) and the Hebrew of * The names of non-Catholic writers*M. Gaster. The date of the London and Gaster Hebrew is uncertain. An Aramaic form (possibly 7th cent.) of the text was discovered at Oxford in the Bodleian Library and has been edited (1878) by * The names of non-Catholic writers*A. Neubauer. The Old Latin Version, preserved in three forms, follows quite closely the Greek recension exhibited in the Codex Sinaiticus. Most of the Greek minuscules follow the B A form of the text, as do also the Armenian and Ethiopic Versions, and the Syriac in part. VgVg Vulgate (Sixtine-Clementine Edition) is the work of St Jerome who tells us that, ‘Since the Chaldean speech is allied to the Hebrew, I found someone who spoke both languages readily, and, taking a day’s work, what he said to me in Hebrew that I rendered into Latin to a notary whom I had engaged’ (Praef. in librum Tobiae, PLPL Patrologia Latina (Migne) 29, 25 f.). The Aramaic text used by Jerome has not come down to us. The Neubauer Aramaic referred to above, although it manifests some affinity with VgVg Vulgate (Sixtine-Clementine Edition), is not its source. Jerome’s work, produced in his early days as a translator, shows that he rendered his original with considerable freedom. Frequently it is clear that he has translated the sense of a passage rather than its exact literal meaning. In general, it can be said that Tobias is less carefully done than most of his other work.

§ d. Although it is true that the various forms of the book just mentioned differ noticeably one from the other, still substantially the book is the same in all forms. They all show the same simple story throughout, the same characters, the same events in the same order. The differences, though striking at times, are mainly in unimportant details, proper names, discourses, and the like. Nevertheless, the work of the text-critic who seeks to restore the original form of the book is not easy. He will sense at once that the present Hebrew and Aramaic forms, although worthy of consideration, cannot be looked upon as primitive. Approaching the Greek, he will notice that B and its affiliates present a shorter text of Hellenistic character, while Sinaiticus is Hebraistic and longer. He will remark the striking similarity between the Old Latin and Sinaiticus, and will not overlook the influence of the Old Latin on VgVg Vulgate (Sixtine-Clementine Edition). What then should be his choice of method? Various replies would undoubtedly be given to this question. Without being dogmatic we would suggest cautiously that the primitive text could best be restored by taking Sinaiticus, rigorously compared with the Old Latin, as a groundwork, and collating this basic text with the other known forms of the book. In this task a careful workman will not overlook the ancient VgVg Vulgate (Sixtine-Clementine Edition), for even though it was done in a day by St Jerome, it does not follow, as suggested in some circles, that it is altogether devoid of critical value. In the commentary to follow, the Bible-text to be used is the current DV; however the preferences just indicated will exercise some influence, especially in passages where the difficulty is mainly textual.

§ e. Title and Author of the Book. In VgVg Vulgate (Sixtine-Clementine Edition) and DVDV Douay Version both father and son are called Tobias (1:9). However, in the other forms of the book the father’s name is Tobit and his son’s Tobias. This latter designation is the correct one. However, both names are of Hebrew derivation and are closely related. They have the meaning, ‘Yahweh is my good’, or ‘my good is Yahweh’. The ancient forms of the book bear a variety of titles. It is probable that the most ancient title was simply, ‘The Words of Tobit’. If the words ‘publish (other texts, “write”) all his wonderful works’ (12:20) are authentic, the title would indicate that Tobit and Tobias were the authors of the book. It is quite possible that these main characters were the first to put the narrative in form and that the original story stems from them. It could easily have been handed down orally or in a very simple written form, until at a much later date it was composed under inspiration by the actual author who would have used the earlier written or oral sources. Nothing, however, has come down to us concerning the actual author of the book.

§ f. Date of the Book. From several indications in the book itself, as well as from a comparison of the various forms in which it appears at present, it seems fairly certain that the narrative went through several stages over a fairly long period of time. There is a marked personal tone throughout, and so, it is quite possible that the story was first related in a simple form by the principal characters, Tobias and his son, and was then handed down orally in the family. Later this simple outline would have been transferred to writing, and at some still later date it would have received substantially the common form in which we read it today. At best, however, this viewpoint is conjectural, since, as already stated, the original text of the work has not been preserved, At any rate it is beyond question that one or all of the unnamed authors of the written work wrote the story down under divine Inspiration.

§ g. In view of the uncertainty surrounding the history of the text of Tobias it is not strange that we find wide disagreement among authorities as to the actual time of composition of the written work. Some non-Catholic authors (v.g. * The names of non-Catholic writers*Schürer, * The names of non-Catholic writers*Lohr) assign the book to the 2nd cent. and Simpson to a date nearer 170 than 350 b.c.; while others put it as late as the 2nd cent. a.d. Several Catholic scholars (v.g. Vetter), influenced by the fact that certain customs are alluded to in some forms of the book (the threefold tithes, the levirate duty, etc.) have argued that this definitely assigns the book to a period roughly from 250 b.c. to 150 b.c. Although these reasons are not altogether convincing, it seems clear, on the one hand, that the book was composed after Assyrian times. Otherwise it is difficult to see why it was not accepted into the Palestinian Canon. Furthermore, intrinsic reasons point to an author who held views on the future life prevalent in the post-exilic period. Much of the doctrine and counsel of Tobias would sound well on the lips of a contemporary of the author of Ecclus. On the other hand, the author gives no sign that he knows of the great national upheavals of Maccabean times nor is he aware of the penetrating influence of Pharisaism. Convincing arguments have not yet been advanced to date the written composition of Tobias.

§ h. Uncertainty also surrounds the question as to the country of composition. Several have been suggested with some probability–Palestine, Egypt, Babylonia and Persia. Palestine has been excluded since, it is alleged, it is difficult to see why the book was not added to the Palestinian Canon if composed in that country. However, this reasoning is not convincing. The work is thoroughly Palestinian in its whole conception, and its origin in Palestine is a possibility. Some scholars favour Egypt, but if the book originated in the Jewish colony there, we should expect to find traces of Hellenistic influence. Further, it is unlikely that an author writing in Egypt would relegate the demon to his own country (8:3). Both Babylonia and Persia are attractive suggestions, but there is no conclusive evidence that the author of the written work resided in those countries. It is prudent to withhold judgement until more convincing evidence has been adduced.