Tobias
Liber TobiæIntroductions
Enciclopedia Cattolica
A pious Jew who gives his name to the deuterocanonical book of the Old Testament that narrates his story. In the Vulgate the title is Liber Tobiae, in the ancient Greek manuscripts Τοβίτ (or Τωβίτ) and in the more recent ones Βίβλος λόγων Τωβίτ, with the genealogy, the homeland and the deportation of T. In the Vulgate the father and the son are called Tobias; in Greek, on the other hand, Τωβίας is only the son, while the father is called Tobit, a form derived from a Hebrew name whose abbreviated form must have been Τόβιτ and whose full form Τόβιβήλ (Ecd. 3, 60) or Τόβιβήλ (II Par. 17, 8) = "Yahweh is good." Tob. narrates the trial of the righteous man, whom God providentially raises up and consoles. It unfolds in three parts coordinated into a harmonious whole.
Haydock
This Book takes its name from the holy man Tobias, whose wonderful virtues are herein recorded. It contains most excellent documents of great piety, extraordinary patience, and of perfect resignation to the will of God. His humble prayer was heard, and the angel Raphael was sent to relieve him: he is thankful, and praises the Lord, calling on the children of Israel to do the same. Having lived to the age of one hundred and two years, he exhorts his son and grandsons to piety, foretells the destruction of Ninive, and the rebuilding of Jerusalem: he dies happily. (Challoner) --- The Jews themselves have a great regard for the book of Tobias; (Grotius; Sixtus Senens. VIII.) which Origen (ad Afric.) says they "read in Hebrew," meaning probably the Chaldee, (Calmet) out of which language St. Jerome translated it, preferring to displease the Pharisaical Jews, rather than not to satisfy the desires of the holy bishops Chromatius and Heliodorus. (Ep. t. III.) (Worthington) --- The Greek version seems to have been taken from another copy, or it has been executed with greater liberty by the Hellenist Jews, between the times of the Septuagint and of Theodotion. (Calmet) --- Huet and Prideaux esteem it more original; and Houbigant has translated it in his Bible, as the Council of Trent only spoke of the Latin editions then extant; and St. Jerome followed in his version the Hebrew one of a Jew, as he did not understand the Chaldee. (Haydock) --- The Syriac and the modern Hebrew edition of Fagius, agree mostly with the Greek, as that of Munster and another Hebrew copy of Huet, and the Arabic version, both unpublished, are more conformable to the Vulgate. The most ancient Latin version used before St. Jerome, was taken from the Greek; and the Fathers who lived in those ages, speak of it when they call the book of Tobias canonical. St. Augustine leaves it, however, to adopt St. Jerome's version, in his Mirrour. The copies of all these versions vary greatly, (Calmet) though the substance of the history is still the same; and in all we discover the virtues of a good parent, of a dutiful son, and virtuous husband, beautifully described. (Haydock) --- "The servant of God, holy Tobias, is given to us after the law for an example, that we might know how to practise what we read; and that if temptations assail us, we may not depart from the fear of God, nor expect help from any other." (St. Augustine, q. 119. ex utroque Test.) --- The four first chapters exhibit the holy life of old Tobias, and the eight following, the journey and affairs of his son, directed by Raphael. In the two last chapters they praise God, and the elder Tobias foretells the better state of the commonwealth. (Worthington) --- It is probable that both left records, from which this work has been compiled, with a few additional observations. It was written during (Calmet) or after the captivity of Babylon. (Estius) --- The Jews had then little communication with each other, in different kingdoms. Tobias was not allowed to go into Media, under Sennacherib; and it is probable that the captives at Babylon would be under similar restrictions; so that we do not need to wonder that they were unacquainted with this history of a private family, the records of which seem to have been kept at Ecbatana. The original Chaldee is entirely lost, so that it is impossible to ascertain whether the Greek or the Vulgate be more conformable to it. The chronology of the latter seems however more accurate, as the elder Tobias foretold the destruction of Ninive, twenty-three years before the event, which his son just beheld verified, dying in the 18th year of king Josias. The accounts which appear to sectaries to be fabulous, may easily be explained. (Houbigant) --- Josephus and Philo omit this history. (Calmet)
Douay 1582/1609
BESIDES the testimonies of Councels and Fathers before mentioned, S. Other testimonies, that this Booke is canonical. Cyprian, de Oratione Dominica alleaging this booke (cap. 12.) saith: Diuine Scripture instructeth vs, that prayer is good with fasting and almes. S. Ambrose (li de Tobia, •. 1.) calleth this booke by the common name of Scripture, saying: he wil briefly gather the vertues of Tobie, which the Scripture in historical maner layeth forth at large. VVhere he also calleth this historie Prophetical, and Tobie a Prophet. And lib. 3. offic. cap. 14. alleageth this booke as he doth other holie Scriptures, to proue that the vertues of Gods seruants farre excel the Moral Philosophers. chap. 1•. S. Chrysostom ho. 15. ad Heb alleageth Tobias, as Scripture denouncing curse to contemners. S. Augustin made a special sermon of Tobias, as he did of Iob, which is the 226. sermon de tempore S. Gregorie parte. 3. pastor. curae admon. 21. alleageth it as holie Scripture. And vene able Beda expoundeth Toma 4. 〈◊〉 in •. Reg. 10. this whole booke mystically, as he doth other holy Scriptures. S. Ierom translated It was written in Chaldee. it out of the Chaldee language, wherein it was written, iudging it more •e•e to displease the Pharisaical Iewes, who reiect it, then not to satisfie the wil of holie Bishops, vrging to haue it. Epist. ad Chromat. & Heliodorum. to. 3.
The author is vncertaine: but S. Athanasius (in Synopsi) reporteth the The cōtentes. contentes at large. And S. Augustin (li. quest. ex v•roque testamento q. 119.) deliuereth both the contentes, and cause of writing it, briefly thus. The seruant of God, holie Tobias is geuen to vs after the law, for an example, that we might know how to practise the thinges, which we reade. And if tentations come vpon vs, not to depart from the feare of God, nor expect helpe from anie other then from him. Diuided into three partes. It may be diuided into three partes. The first foure chapeers shew the holie and sincere maner of life of old Tobias. The eight folowing relate the iorney, and affayres of yong Tobias, accompained and directed by the Angel Raphael. In the two last chapters, they praise God. And old Tobias prophecieth better state of the commonwealth.
Cornely
CAPUT VIII. DE LIhHO TORBIAE, S 3*. — De libri Tobiae textibus, argumento , fine 73 paragraphs
1235. — Libros, qui particularia nonnulla facta historiae isracliticae narrant, eo ordine tractabimus, quo sese in canone Tridentino et in Vulgata excipiunt, quia idem quoque est ordo chronologicus, quo res narra(ae sunt. gestae. Nam hisloria. 7o57ae ad initium captivilatis assyriacae, ad aetatem scilicet regum assyriacorum Salmanassar, Sennacherib et Asarhaddon pertinet; Jud;tÀ autem Israel defendit ab invasione exercitus regis Asurbanipal, filii Asarhaddonis; Esther uxor fuit Xerxis regis Persarum; Machabaei demum contra Seleucidas populum suum defenderunt.
A libro Tobiae igitur initium faciemus; priusquam vero de eius argumento dicemus, nonnulla de vanus rExTIBUS, quibus ad nos pervenit, sunt praemittenda!. Textum, quem in Vulgata legimus, S. Hieronymus, antequam linguae chaldaicae ipse studuerat, ex chaldaico exemplari adornavit. « Quia vicina est, inquit, Chaldacorum lingua sermoni hebraico, utriusque linguae peritissimum loquacem rcperiens unius diei laborem arripui et quidquid ille mihi hebraicis verbis expressit, hoc ego accito notario sermonibus latinis exposui »?. Textus autem ille chaldaicus, quo usus est S. Doctor, interiit; ante paucos tamen annos illius recensio quaedam reperta est in codice aliquo commentarii iudaici in Genesin (Midrasch Bereschith Rabba) at non integra. Etenim commentarii auctor, quum id solum intenderet, ut Tobiae exemplo Deum eos, qui decimas solvunt, esse remuneraturum ostenderet (in Gen. 98,922), duo ultima capita omisit et in narrationis decursu nonnulla compendiose reddidit?. Integrum igitur textum chaldaicum non amplius possidemus; iure autem supponimus S. Hieronymum eadem eum fidelitate, qua in. reliquis libris sacris transferendis excelluit, eademque quoque euin libertate, qua magis « sensum e sensu quam e verbo verbum transferre » consuevit, suum chaldaicum Tobiae exemplar latine reddidisse. Neque enim brevitas temporis, quod huic labori impendit, neque satis mirus, quem adhibuit, transferendi inodus contra versionis nostrae fidelitatem iure afferuntur; tam brevis enim est libellus, ut paucis horis peritus interpres illum absolvere possit, praesertim si exercitato nofario versionem dictat. Adde ex magna versionis Vulgatae eum Itala similitudine satis apparere, S. Doctorem librum nostrum. fere. integrum memoria tenuisse, aut. exemplar Italae prae manibus habuisse, quando suam versionem exaravit.
Reliquae versiones antiquae et infer se eta Vulgata non in paucis tantum lectionibus, sed in multis locis quam maxime dilerunt; narralio quidem in omnibus est eadem eademque facta eodem ordine in omnibus referuntur, sed multae sunt in aliis editionibus additiones, in aliis omissiones, in aliis mutationes, ut interpretes eundem textum primigeniunm satis libere reddidisse videantur.
Tres graecae recensiones nobis sunt conservatae, quae siglis Gr. .1.. D., C. designantur. Ea, quae in plerisque codd. graecis invenitur ct in ecclesiae graecae usu quotidiano etiam hodie teritur. (Gr. A.). omnium brevissima est, atque libri primigenii compendium forte rectius, quam translatio dicitur. Eadem ab Armenzs translata est et usurpatur; prior quoque eius pars (1.1 -7,8) legitur in PescA/to atque etiam hebraica illa versio, quae Hebraeus Faqgé vocatur, ex Gr. À. est adornata *. Ab illa omnino differt recensio in codice Sinaitico nobis conservala (Gr. D.); multo enim fusior et aceuratior est, quam reliqui textus omnes?. Ex simili textu exorta est latina editio, qua ante S. Mieronymum pleraeque. ecelesiae. occidentales usae sunt (Pla, atque ad illum etiam propius accedunt versio cAa/daica, quam nonminavimus, ef altera versio hebraica, quae iam a. 1516. Constantinopoli fypisexseripta Hebraeus Mé&nster? vocatur, quippe a quo a. 1552. in 0ccidente. est edita?, Benique terlia. recensio graeca. (Gr. C.) in tribus eodd. minuiseulis, sed non integra, exstat (desunt 1,1-6.7), alque inde à 1,9 eliam in PescAito, quae in priore parte Gr. A. sequitur. Mediam quasi viam Lenet inter Gre. A. et. [., quum priore sit fusior, sed altera brevior. [Inler tres illas recensiones graecas 4. censetur fuisse prima: quia. vero non. satis accurate librum reddere. videbatur, a duohus ali: inlerpretibus B. et C; ex primigenio lextrü esl aucla et correcta,
Ut magnam illam versionum eb recenstonum differentiam explicavel. Series olim coniecit, Tobia patrem et. filium « operis velut coniunelis. ehaldaieum. eonminentarium . de. suis rebis. conseripsisse, deinde utramque sepacatim: hebraieum unum. »?, ita üt (res fexias primigenios haberemus, velut tres fontes praecipuarum rccensionum. Hodie autem ab omnibus unus solus textus primigenius recte admittitur, quem hebraicum fuisse tantum non certum est?; a variis autem interpretibus maiore minoreve cum libertate translatus et retractatus hodiernarum editionum est fundamentum. Quaecumque. autem fuit libertas, qua uti se posse interpretes putabant, eaim omnes adhibuerunt fidelitatem, ut substantiam operis non mutarent; quare quatuor illas praecipuas recensiones (Vwu/g., Gr. A., B., C.) omnes pro authenficis admittere non dubitamus. Longo enim ecclesiarum catholicarum usu omnes suntapprobatae : Vulgatam inde a saec. 6. adhibet integra ecclesia latina, Gr. A. est in continuo usu ecclesiarum graecae et armenae, Gr. B. uti ex cod. Sin. clucet in nonnullis ecclesiis graecis olim adhibita est, et latine translata per sex saecula ecclesiis occidentalibus inservivit; (zr. C. demum saltem maior pars approbatur usu ecclesiae svriacae !9, praeferendum, si dogmaticam maxime partem spectas, Gr. B., si narrationis elegantiam quaeris.
126. — Quibus praemissis ad LiBR! ARGUMENTUM íransimus, quod inscriptione consueta Bí&Xo; Aóyov ToGic (Pesch. Liber rerum Tobit), accuratius autem codicum nonnullorum titulo //ber utriusque Tobiae indicatur. Tobiae enim, pii cuiusdam Israelitae in captivitate assyriuca degentis, eiusque filii homonymi* alque nurus Sarae fata enarrantur, qui in adversa fortuna Deo fideliter adhaerentes magnis beneficiis ab eo cumulari meruerunt. [n ANALYsI nostra, quam pro more subiicimus, Vulgatae textum sequemur, iis solis adnotaüs, quae a reliquis omnibus textibus ignorantur. Tres autem partes apte nobis videmur distinguere, in quarum prima (1,1-3,25) Tobiae senioris et Sarae pietate et adversa fortuna descriptis singularis fiducia celébratur, qua a Deo solo auxilium petunt; secunda et praecipua pars (5,1-12,22) precum istarum exauditionem narrata iunioris Tobiae historia demonstrat; tertia. (13,1-15,17) epilogus quidam est, in quo senior Tobias de obtento auxilio Deo gratias agit.
l. Tosriak skNIOBIS ET SAtAU lIETAS, ADVERSA FORTUNA, SPES FIRMA IN DEUM (1,1-3,23). 4. Tobiae senioris vita pia (1,1-3,6). a.) Tobias e tribu Nephthali ortus. quamquam regnum Israel incolebat, a puero tamen Legem mosaicam fideliter observabat filiumque suum in eadem Lege educabat (1,4 -10). b.; Cuin. uxore et filio a rege Salmanassar captivus Niniven abductus a leze non defecit, sed (regis eimtor factus) eundi quocunque vellet
(4j ln tet. hebr. Fasii pater et filius eodian. nomine 65272 (bonus est Dominus) appellantur. idlenique obtinet in. Vuliala, quae diserte nonet. patrem filio stum nomen imposuisse LEO. Quo. Inonito omisso reliqui textus palris el lilii nomina dislingnunt. solumque filium vocant. Tobíiant. Patrein. vero Chold. et Hebr. Munsteri vocant YAY2 (bonum meum sc. est. Doniinus . Graeci aulem Toó6z (Sia.). To6bcit (Vat, et Pesch.), To6ic (codd. plerique; in afa alii codd, habent Thobis vel. Tobis, alii Tobi. lam Teóic el Tobis formam hebr. ZY 2*2 bonites sc. Domini) videntur supponere. Etsi igilur. formae nominum patris et lii differant, eorum significatio tamen est eadem; quare. recte. asseruil Vulgata. patre filio suum nomen. imposuisse. Eliain avi nomen. quoad. sensutn idet. fuerat Tobiel bonitas
LIBRI TOBIAE ARGUMENTUM ET ANALYSIS. 315 facullate usus est, ut concaptivos consolaretur adiuvaretque (1, 11-15); uni autem ex eis, Gabelo in Rages civitate Medorum exsu-
. lanti, quem egentem videbat, magnam pecuniae summam sub chirographo dedit (1,16. 1*7).
c.) Post Salinanassaris mortem, quuin filius eius Sennacherib Israelitas opprimere coepisset, ''obias eos consolari et adiuvare non cessavit (1,18-20); maximam autem pietatem exhibuit erga contribules suos post cladem, quam in Palaestina Sennacherib accepit; Israelitas enim, quos multos occidit tyrannus, pius vir sepelivit; quare rex eum ad morlem quaesivit, ila ut omnibus spoliatus Tobias cum uxore et filio fugere et latere deberet, donec Sennacherib a filiis suis interfectus est (4,21 -29)).
d.) Initio regni Asarhaddonis Tobias in domum suam reversus (1.23) mortuos sepelire nou destitit; sed quum seimoel bac pia occupatione defatigatus iuxta. domus parietem obdormisset, hirundinis stercore oculis privatus est (2,1-14). Quam probationem permisit Deus, ut Tobias ad instar lobi fieret exemplar patientiae invicto animo amicorum et parentum irrisiones perferens (2,12-18)*.
e.) In aerumnis quoque Deo adhaerens ab uxore ipsa opprobriis affectus (2,19-23) ad Deuin ardenti oratione sese convertit obtestalus, mortem sibi meliorem esse quam vitam (in opprobriis peractam) (3.1-6;.
a.) Eadem die, qua Tobias senior ab uxore, Sara opprobriis atfecta est ab ancilla propterea quod septem viri, quibus data erat uxor, prima nuptiarum: nocle a daemonio essent occisi (3,7 - 10).
b.) Qua de re contristata Sara quoque ardenti oratione Deum precatur, ut sibi mortem potius imrmittat, quam vitamin (in opprobriis) concedat (3,11-23)^.
3. Exauditae autem sunt preces Tobiae et. Sarae et angelus Raphael missus est , qui eis auxilium afferret (3,24-25). Hl. Quouopo ANGELUS RAPHAEL ToBIAE SENIORI ET SAnt4AE AUXILIUM ATTULERIT
4. Raphael iuniori Tobiae socium itineris sese offert (4,1 -5,33).
a.) Tobias senior, quum se brevi moriturum putaret, filio suo pietatem erga matrem, Legis observantiam, eleemosynae utilitatem commendavit (4,1-20) eumque monuil de pecuniis a Gabelo recuperandis (4.21-2:)).
b.) Interrogantem filium, quomodo eas recuperare possit, iubet socium itineris quaerere (5,4 - 4); quaerenti autem sese offert angelus Raphael (5,5 -8), qui annuente patre cum filio iter ingreditur (5,9-22), parentibus tristibus remanentibus (5,23 -28).
(a) Tota haec comparatio Tobiae et Iobi (2,12-12) in reliquis textibus desideratur. (b) Ultima orationis pars (3,19-23) omnibus aliis textibus deest, qui eodem modo, quo in. precatione Tobiae, vitam jn opprobriis peractam morte graviorem esse declarant, dum Vulgata utroque in loco de opprobriis plane silet.
3. Raphael iuniorem Tobiam in itinere custodit e[ficitque, wt Saram uxorem ducat (6,1-9,12).
a.) In itinere Tobias hortante angelo piscem invadentem in ipsum apprehendit eiusque cor et fel et iecur edoctus ab angelo ad medicamenta reservat (6,1 -9).
b.) (Appropinquantibus iis Ecbatana) angelus monet Tobiam, ut Sarun sibi uxorem petat; timentem iuvenem edocet, quid facto sit opus, ut daemonium fuget et securus virginem uxorem sumat (6, 8-33)*.
c.; Monilis angeli obsecutus Tobias a Raguele filiam Saram uxorem sibi petit (7,1-10) et impetrat (7,11-20); iecore piscis deinde daemonium fugat (8,1-3) et. pia precatione una cum uxore ad matrimonium sese praeparat (8,4-10)4.
d.. Parentes Sarae, qui timuerant ne Tobiae eadem sors, quae septem prioribus maritis, obtingeret (8,11-13), maximo gaudio repleti, quod incolumis esset servatus, gratiis Deo actis (8,16-19) magna cum sollemnitate per quindecim dies nuptias celebrant (8,20-21); angelus autem interea, rogatus a Tobia, in Rages profectus a Gabelo pecunias recuperat (8,4-7) Gabelumque ipsum ad nuptias adducit (8,8- 12) *.
3. Ruphacl Tobiam ad. parentes reducit caecogue. seni. visum restituit (10,1- 12.92).
à.) Interea 'l'obiae parentes longa filii absentia in luctu erant (10,1-7); quod. quum filius non ignoraret, a Raguele se retineri non est passus, sed accepta uxore et dote eius domum reverti properat (10, 8-13).
b.j ltclietis in via uxore et familia Tobias, ut citius parentes consoletur, cum angelo domum revertitur (11,1-4), ab illisque cum gaudio receptus! secundum monitum angeli oculos patris felle piscis sanat (11,5-17); adveniens autem Tobiae iunioris uxor gaudium auxit (11,18-91).
c.) 'atri et filio de praeinio, quod comiti nondum cognito darent, consultantibus (12,2-4) Haphael se angelum Dei esse manifestat et disparet (12,5 - 22).
4. Amin , quo Tobias senior Deo gratias agit de beneficiis a Deo acceptis futurumque Ierusalem novi splendorem praedicit (13,1 -23) et
2. brevem relationem de utriusque Tobiae morte (14,1 - 17).
£21. — « Liber saneti. Patris Tobiae, inquit Ven. Beda, in. super-
(€) Ea, quae Vulg. tradit de causa, «(ua daemonium potestatem accipit in homines (6,16. 1,7) non exhibent reliqui textus, nec quidquam habent de (rium dierum continentia (6,18. 20. 21).
(d) Quae 8. 4. 5 de tribus noctibus dicuntur, exsulant ab aliis textibus.
(f) Quae Vulg. 11.9 habet de cane, « qui praecucurrit et blandimento suae caudae gaudebat », desunt in aliis omnibus textibus.
ficie literae salubris patet legentibus, utpote qui maximis vitae moralis exemplis abundet et monitis »!. Illustrem profecto divinae providentiae exhibet demonstrationem; clavissime enim docet, Deum servos suos fideles, qui in ipsum sperant et ab ipso solo auxilium quaerunt, aerumnis quidem interdum probare, sed nunquam derelinquere, e contra vero aliquolies etiam iam his in terris exercitium virtutis remunerari, atque « diligentibus Deum omnia cooperari in. bonum ». Quac fam. aperte tota. narratione docentur, ut ea praecipue auctorem lectoribus suis inculcare voluisse plane sit evidens. Quare opus non est, ut alium LiBRI FINEM quaeramus.
Utique moderni nonnulli interpretes negata libri auctoritate historica, quam statim demonstrabimus, alios sibi fines excogitaverunt; at longa refutatione eorum sententiae non indigent. Quod si iudaicusille interpres, qui narrationem nostram in suum Midrasch Bereschith recepit, eam adhibu'!, ut fidelem decimarum redditionem et eleemosynam Deo acceptam esse demonstraret?, recte quidem haec doctrina ex libello nostro colligitur, sed integrum eius finem non constituit. — Multo minore cum iure duos modernos ralbinos seculus docet. editor lextus chaldaici, id praesertim. intendisse auctorem, ut mortuorum sepulturam commendaret?. Licet enim Tobias propter hoc caritatis opus laudetur atque sibi ipsi quoque honestum sepulcrum exoptet , seceundarium tamen locum haec omnia occupant. Longe frequentius eleemosyna commendatur, quam mortuorum sepultura, quae ipsa ideo tantum commemoratur, quia singularem viri erga proximos amorem manifestavit et proxima occasio ultimae eius calamitatis fuit. — Arctioribus quoque limitibus finem auctoris circumseribere videntur, qui eum dicunt ludaeis in dispersione degentibus inculcare voluisse fidclem Legis observationem et continuum commercium cum lerusalem eiusque templo?. De solis enim dispersis fudaeis non est sermo, sed omnibus om. nino Israelitis commendatur pietas erga Deum; neve obiiciatur Tobiam ipsum satis clare hunc finem arcliorem indicare*; nam eodem in loco primum omnes filios Israel alloquitur pius senex, ac deinde sese ad captivitatis socios convertit, qui, licet inter gentes et in aerumnis degant, etiam Deum confiteri iubentur.
6. Tob. 13,3. « Confitemini Domino filii. Israel, ct in conspectu gentium laudate cum, quoniam idco dispersit vos inter gentes « ctc. ; sed cfr v. 10. « Benedicite Dominum omnes electi eius » etc.
8 38. — De libri Tobiae origine et auctoritate.
198. — Quaestioni de libelli nostri origine praemittamus oportet alteram DE imrisTORICA AUCTORITATE eius, quippe a qua prior dependeat. Protestantes, qui librum Tobiae e canone eiectum apocryphis adnumerant, cuncti historicam fidem ei denecgant ; atque alii quidem integram narrationem existimant esse poelicam fictionem, cui nihil omnino veri subsit, alii verum factum ab auctore poetico modo exornatum esse statuunt poeticisque ornamentis omnia ea adnumerant, quae parum illis placent!. Inter catholicos quoque sunt, qui historicam narrationis auctoritatem aut historicum libri characterem addubitent?; tam pauci autem sunt, ut unanimem esse catholicorum consensum de libelli indole et fide vere historica sine ulla haesitatione asseramus. In omnibus enim catalogis catholicis librorum sacrorum medius inter historicos ponitur, atque catholici interpretes, qui librum explicarunt, difficultates ab adversariis contra narrationis veritatem allatas eadem cum diligentia solverunt, qua reliquos libros historicos vindicarunt?. Idque iure merito.
Namque veram historiam auctorem tradere voluisse, integer liber satis clare docet. Accurate enim nobis refert genus, ex quo exortus est Tobias, patriam, in qua natus est, aetatem, qua vixit; quam plurimae, praesertim in longiore textu (Gr. B., Ital., Chald.), sunt notae historicae, genealogicae, chronologicae, geographicae, quae ad finem, quem auctorem habuisse adversarii nostri supponunt, nihil prorsus conferunt, ab iis vero, qui historiam scribunt, afferri solent. Quae quum ita sint, auctorem, si narrationem integram aut ex parte finxisset, impudentein impostorem dicere cogeremur*. lam vero tam gravis criminis scriptorem qualemcunque accusare nemini licet , nisi gravia aíferat argumenta, quibus accusationem suam demonstret; atqui sola argumenta, quae adversarii afferunt, sunt miracula nonnulla, quae illis incredibilia esse videntur, et difficultates quaedam historicae, quae quid valeant statim videbimus.
Porro auctorem narrationem hanc ideo finxisse supponunt adversarii, ut aliquem finem ethicum prosequeretur; at non satis attendunt hac nostra narratione, si conficta est, nec decimarum redditionem, nec misericordiam erga pauperes, nec mortuorum sepulturam nec aliam quamcunque virlutein, quam pro fine libri statuunt, commendari potuisse. Si enim verum non. est, Deum angelum suum inisisse, ut Tobiae seniori et Sarae auxilium afferret, Tobiam iuniorem in itinere custodiret etc., immo si secundum rationalisticos nostros adversarios illa omnia vera esse nulla ratione possunt, profecto nemo ficto illo atque impossibili miraculo ad bonam aliquam actionem permovetur. Quem unquam prudentem fabula mythologica ad agendum impulit? At si ex vera hac narratione didicerimus Deum, ut fideles suos servos adiuvaret, etiam unum ex principibus coeleslibus in hanc terram misisse, ad maiorem eius fiduciam excitamur, certissime sperantes eum nos quoque non esse derelicturum, dummodo eum ne relinquamus?.
Tota igitur libri indoles historicum eius characterem. demonstrat. Quod si quis vero obiiceret, librum lob etiam esse fictionem poeticam, neque tamen quemquam dubitare, quin aptissimus sit ad nos docendos, exhortandos, consolandos, praeprimis negaremus historiam Iobi esse meram fictionem*, atque secundo loco magnam intercedere differentiam inter libellum nostrum et librum lob moneremus. Qui, quum maiorem partem dialogis constet, quibus divina providentia in permittendis aerumnis iustorum vindicatur, aptissime finem suum didaclicum assequeretur, etsi quis lobum fuisse personam historicam negaret. Tota autem doctrina libelli nostri in ipsa narratione continetur, nec quidquam tibi remanet, si eam veram esse negaveris. Itaque in libro Iob poetici illi dialogi simili quadam ratione, qua parabolae Domini , nos instruunt et exhortantur; verum si aut integram nostram narrationem aut miracula, quibus Deus Tobiam et Saram adiuvat, inter fabulas amandas , ipsum didacticum quoque libri characterem una cum historico destruis.
cone pro apocalypsibus habet, quum non describant praeteritorum hostium pugnas contra Israel sed futuram pugnam finalem diaboli contra regnum Dei. (4. Scholz Comm. z. B. Tob. 1889; cr eiusdem Comm. z. B. Iud. Ed. 2. p. XXXVIIT).
$. Recte monet Reusch 1. c. p. VII auctorem, si ficta historia finem suum assequi voluisset, eiusmodi res narrare debuisse, quae secundum ordinarium providentiae ordinem contingere possint atque contingant. Cfr etiam Gutberlet.1. c. p. 33.
1299. — Quod si cui argumenta nostra dubitationi cuidam locum relinquere videantur, is dubitare, opinor, desinet, quamprimum difficultates, quibus historicus libelli character impugnatur, examini subiecerit. Illas merito silentio praetermittimus, quae utpote leviores & modernis adversariis ipsis spernuntur. Olim quidem nomina propria omnia fictionem iam probare dicebantur, quippe quae studiose sint excogitata et efformata, ut etymologica sua significatione mores et fata exprimerent personarum , quibus attribuebantur!; sed argumento hoc non minus erroneo quam ridiculo nihil effici omnibus est persuasum. Paucissimi quoque hodie sunt, «qui ex similitudine, quae inter Iobum et inter Tobiam invenitur, concludunt nostram narrationem ex illis, quae de lobo narrantur, esse effictam, aut qui tantam esse similitudinem asserunt inter Tobiae senioris et Sarae casus, ut in rerum veritate non inveniatur *. Procul enim dubio similitudo quaédam quum inter Iobi et Tobiae tum inter Tobiae et nurus eius sortem invenitur; omnes enim tres non obstante sua pictate non paucis malis a Deo sunt afflictati el postquam in adversa quoque fortuna fideles Deo adhaeserunt, praemia virtutis iam his in terris sunt adepti. Sed num haec tam rara sunt, ut auctor libelli nostri ea ex solo libro Iob discere potuerit? Ubinam autem remanet similitudo, si singula examinas, si mala ipsa trium istarum personarum, causas calamitatum , modum, quo eas pertulerunt, rei exitum etc. inter se comparas? Si adversariorum argumentum valeret, neminem unquam praeter lobum diceremus a Deo calamitatibus esse afflictum etin adversa fortuna fidelem esse inventum. Neque magis opus est, ut tertio argumento inhaereamus, quod aliqui proferunt; scilicet rei, quae in libello nostro narratur, alium testem nos non habere nisi librum nostrum ipsum; a nullo iuniore scriptore eam commemorari; id autem valde esse mirum, quum res iam antiquitus accidisse dicatur et digna sit, quae memoriae prodatur?. Valde mirum profecto est, quod hodie omnia inter fabulas amandare iubeamur, quorum non duos saltem vel tres testes antiquos citare possumus. Ruthae historia, opinor, etiam est antiqua et éerte etiam digna, quae memoriae prodatur; attamen eam prorsus ignoraremus, nisi in unico libro Ruth nobis esset conservata ; quid quod nomen eius, quamvis esset ex maioribus David, in reliquis V. T. libris ne semel quidem inveniatur, in N. T. autem semel tantum in genealogia Domini repetatur (MattÀ. 1,5)? Quot alia facta, sive sacra sive profana, historici nostri ex operibus suis eradere cogerentur, si novum istud et mirum argumentum inter eos invaleret! Sed his et similibus nugis potius quam argumentis praetermissis difficultates illas proponemus, quibus alii in nostro libello veram quandam historiam poetice exornatam esse, alii integram narrationem confictam esse demonstrare volunt.
filium suum educavit, Gabeli nomen (l'a6a5À, 5u23, tergum Dei! !) indicat illum vírum fuisse, cui Tobias pecuniam suam concredere potuerit; filius fratris Tobiae vocatur 'Ay iiy gos (1,21 sq. Gr.), quia erat « secundus post regem » ponens « frater meus est secundus »; at TN non est secundus, sed ultimus) etc. Cfr ctiam Davidson Introd. III. p. 369, qui tamen non affert, nisi nomina Tobi, Tobiac, Iaphacl.
130. — Nonnulla dicimt narrari, quae fieri non. potuerint et a vera religione absona sint. Elenim « vera esse non possunt, inquiunt, quae deangelo ltaphaele Tobiae iunioris in itinere comite narrantur, nain similia nec in V. nev in N. T. libris leguntur, etsi in illis sermo sit de apparitionibus angelorum. Neque ea defendi possunt, quae de Asmodaeo referuntur (3,8. 17; 6,7. 15.16 $q.; 8,2 sq., Gr.). Etsi non impossibile, parum tamen credibile est, utrumque oculum Tobiae senioris laesum esse stercore cadente (2,10), et quis ea crediderit, quae de pisce dicuntur (6,2-5)? Tota demum agendi, loquendi, orandi ratio Tobiae ad. Iudaismum iuniorem, qui totus in operibus legalibus gaudebat, est efformata » !.
Facile quidem concedimus in reliquis libris sacris non narrari, angelum aliquem homini per multos dies socium se adiunxisse; at num omnia miracula bis terve accidere debent, antequam credibilia flant? Adversarii, quos hoc loco impugnamus, nobiscum veras angelorum apparitiones admittunt; non negant Abrahamum tres angelos in convalle Mambre hospites recepisse eosque versus Sodomam euntes esse comitatum (Gen. 18); neque negant Lotum per angelos, quos hospites receperat et contra Sodomitas defenderat, ex civitate esse eductum (Gen. 19) etc. lam vero haec exempla certe sunt similia iis, quae de Raphaele et Tobia narrantur, atque unica fere differentia in diuturnitate apparitionis sita est. Si vero ex diuturnitate possibilitatem miraculorum diiudicemus oportet, concedamus Deum semel vel bis Israelitis in deserto peregrinantibus aquam ex rupe dedisse, sed negemus eundem Deum per quadraginta annos quotidie manna dare potuisse. Ceterum haec diuturna angeli cum iuvene conversatio et continua eius in toto itinere protectio et salutaria monita , quae iuveni tradit etc, tain ad vivum nobis repraesentant munus illud, quod Angeli Custodes erga homines exercent, ut mirari nemo possit, Deum in Raphaele, Tobiae comite et custode, nobis ob oculos voluisse ponere, quanta sit cura, qua nos per angelos ducit et protegit.
Illa, quae de Asinodaeo referuntur, nullam creant difficultatem, dummodo eaveamus, ne iuniorum rabbinorum commenta et fabulas in textum nostrum ingeramus. Asmodaeus? enim, daemon impurus, septem priores maritos ob eorum, ut videtur, libidinem occiderat (6,16 Vulg.), unde fama exorta est, illum Saram diligere, « quia non nocebat cuiquam nisi accedentibus ad eam » (6,14 Gr.). Ab angelo autem edoctus Tobias Saram uxorem duxit, atque (triduana continentia el) oratione ad matrimonium consummandum sese praeparavit (5,18; 8,4 Vulg.), simulque iecore piscis incenso daemonem fugavit (6,7. 4G sq.; 8,2), quem angelus in superiore Aegypto ligavit (8,3). Daemonem Saram revera dilexisse, auctor libri non asserit, sed Tobias iunior id concludit ex eo, quod audierat aliquos dicentes daemonem occidisse viros illos?. Quaerenti autem quomodo fieri potuerit, ut iecore piscis incenso daemon fügaretur, respondemus cum stio « ita placuisse Deo, ut per haec corporalia tamquam per instrumenta quaedam supranaturaliter operaretur in fugandum daemonem, quemadmodum per sacramenta Ecclesiae daemoniorum cohibetur potestas, et maxime per baptismum »; atque addemus cum. Corn. & Lapide : « Completa causa abigens daemonem fuit Raphael angelus, qui ad sutfitum iecoris propter merita et orationem Tobiae fugabat daemonein » *. Quod autem Asmodacus in deserto Aegypti ligatus dicitur, id nihil est aliud, nisi « eius potestatem nocendi ab angelo esse cohibitam atque frenatain », uti S. Augustinus. explicat, eique longe a populo clecto certum locum ita esse assignatum, ut extra eum potestatem suam non amplius exerceret ».
Quaenam difficultas in eo sit, quod wuerque Tobiae oculus stercore eadente laesus esse dicatur, non intelligimus, neque magis, cur creditu sit difficile, piscem praegrandem pedi iuvenis inhiasse, ila ut subito terrore perculsus iuvenis timuerit, ne ipsum devorare vellet*, ab angelo autem confortatus eum apprehenderit et in terram traxerit. Cuiusnam speciei fuerit ille piscis et cuius generis, num naturales an supranaturales virtutes cordis, iecoris, fellis eius, inquirunt interpretes; sed nihil profecto in tola hac narratione de pisce legitur, quod respui possit ab eo, qui miraculorum possibilitatem admittit. :
Ultima demum obiectio refutatione non indiget; tota enim Tobiae agendi loquendi orandi ratio ea est, quae ab omnibus non approbari nequeat; operibus enim mere externis Tobiam pharisaico modo non esse gavisum intcgrum opusculum docet.
2. Nomen Asmodaci, YOUR (in text. chald. NBN? aptissime a rad. Biebr. 750
(perdidit) derivatur; perditor cnim aeque apta, ac Satan (adrersarius), est mali daemonis appellatio. Similis radix (aschmud) eadem sisnilicatione invenitur in lingua assyriaca (Schrader Kceilinschr. u. A. T. Ed. 2. p. 234. 236). Superfluum igitur fuil explicationem nominis in lingua zendica quaerere : Aésclhima daéva — « cupidus daemon » (Windischmann Zoroastr. Studien ed. Spiegel. Berlin 1863. p. 141), quae explicatio etiam parum est apta; etsi enim unus ex daemonibus vocatur Aéschma (cupidus), compositio tamen Aéschma da(va (cupidus daemon) non invenitur, et vocabulum daéra non potest abbreviari — dai. Ineptiur autem est altera etymologia proposita : Aéschma daó (cupidus sciens, vel uti arbitrario explicant : sciens cupienda vel creans cupienda). Quid iuniores rabbini de Asmodaco fabulentur cfr in Eisenmenger Entdecktes Iudenthum I. p. 351 sqq. etc.
3. Tob. 6,11 (Gr. B. consentiente A. et 1t.) : xal xovax Ae v 6v toy ztviov, Bzt Gatpóvtoy dzoxévvtt adizoue* xal vüv zo6odpat Oyóy t6 Oxtaóvtov, btt st ajzv , «a aotjy ox. donet, 44X' ó; iv O0rhájsn iylsat alis droxifvwet aüróv. Sed Vulg., Chald., Hebr. ne de hoc quidem rurore vel de hac iuvenis opinione loquuntur.
ex supposita lectione primitiva "y33 513 anb5 ANT", quam lectionem. exprimit
Gr. B., dum Gr. A. vocabulum o3 omisit, eoque oimnisso Chald. alio modo vocabula dislinxit. (l'urte pro a0», quum kal Dnb ab Hebraeis non usurpetur, melius lezitur an», quae vox versionem chald. mclius explicat).
Cum profana historia pugnare aiunt alii, quod Tobias a Salmanasar (1,2. Vulg. Ital. et Chald.) vel ab. Enemessar (4,2 Gr. A. et B) in captivitatem abductus dicatur, quia tribus Nephthali, ex qua erat oriundus, iam a Teglathphalasar in Assyriam translata sit (4 Heg. 15,29); item quod Sennacherib vocetur tilius Salmanasar (1,48 Vulg. etc.) vel Enemessar (1,18. Gr.), quia eum Sargonis filium fuisse constet; item quod Ninive a Nabuchodonosor et Assuero (14,13 Gr. A.) vel Achiacharo (Gr. B; Achicar I/al.) capta narretur, siquidem a Cyaxare deleta sit; demuimn quod Rages urbs Mediae iam assyriaca aetale exslitisse supponatur, licet teste Strabone a Seleuco Nicatore sit aedificata *.
Quibus diflicultatibus solvendis inservíet praenotasse, in nominibus propriis libelli nostri transcribendis librarios sive satis magnae oscitantiae et negligentiae sive praepropero cuidam corrigendi pruritui indulsisse atque nominibus parum cognitis magis cognita substituisse. Quae merito asseri elucet ex nominum diversitate in omnibus textibus. Ipsius Tobiae senioris nomen tribus vel quatuor diversis modis redditur; ltaguelis uxor in 4t. et Vulg. vocalur Auua, in aliis textibus Edna; in Vulgata nostra (3,7) sine ullo dubio legendum est Ecbatana pro Ragzes ctc. Ita etiam. pro Salmanasaris nomine, quod in plerisque textibus legimus, cum graecis recensionibus restituendum censemus Eaemnesar, quod nomen idem esse atque Sargon Bickell probabiliter exposuit*. Sarzon autem bellum contra regnum Israel a Salmanasare inchoatum terminavit, etsi Samaria ipsa, id quod 4 /leg. 11,6; 18,10 insinuant, iam sit capta ante Salmanasaris mortein?. Quibus suppositis due primae difficultates disparent. Etenim quamquam Teglathpbalasar tribum Nephtbali in captivitatem abduxerat, nemo prudens tamen admittere recusabit , nonnullos Nephthalitas ab eo in terra esse relictos aut transportationem sublterfugisse, quos post integram regni Israel destructionem Sargon (Eneinesar), quum colonos Cuthaeos in Israel vellet adducere, in Assyriam et civitales Mediae transtulit (4 Heg. 17,6); inter hos autem, qui priorem transportationem effugerant, Tobias fuit, qui iure igitur ab Enemesar (Sargon* in Assyriam translatus dicitur. Sargonis autem (Enemasaris) filius erat Sennacherib.
Neque maiorem difficultatem creant duae reliquae obiectiones. Ninive enim capta est et deleta a Medorum rege Cyaxare, quein. solum nominant Gr. B. (Ay ix, azoc 6 faakete zi Mz3ixci ot. Hula (Achicar rex Medorum). Una cum Cyaxare autem. Assyriam. impugznavit et. destruxit Nabopalasar, rex Babyloniae, pater Nabuchodonosoris. Verum librariis, qui Gr. A. transcripserunt, nomina ista erant incognita, quare illis alia magis cognita substituerunt : Assuerus et Nabuchodonosor. /lages, urbs Mediae, demum iam in inscriptione quadam Darii Hystaspis nominatur; Seleucidis ergo multo antiquior est, ac revera Strabo urbem istam non a Nicatore aediticatam, sed reaedificalum et novo nomine Europi donatum scribit.
131. — Historico libelli charactere demonstrato sua sponte multae evanescunt hypotheses, quae hac nostra aetate pk kivs ORIGINE sunt propositae. Erronee enim supponentes narrationem arbitrario esse confictam , ut aut solutio decimarum aut misericordia erga pauperes &ut, mortuorum sepultura aut nescio quac alia virtus lectoribus commendetur. et inculcetur, interpretes nonnulli uagna cum diligentia inquisiverunt, cuinam aetati finis ille, quem libello nffinxerant, aptius conveniret; atque mirabile dictu nonnemo eum non nisi 3. saeculo post Chr. compositum dicere non dubitavit, eo sc. tempore, quo primus Sasanidarum, Ardeschir I., occupato throno persico lege lata prohibuit, quominus mortui sepelirentur. Vix minus absurde alter libelli originem aetati Hadriani attribuit, nullo alio argumento nixus, nisi quod imperator ille post occupationem civitatis Betar Iudaeos, qui in defendendo suo Pseudo Messia Bar Cocheba ceciderant, sepeliri vetuerat (135 p. Chr.)!. Similibus argumentis alii utuntur, qui eum aut 1. aut 2. aut 3. saec. a. Chr. exortum putant?,
Quibus omissis ea statuemus, quae probabiliora esse censemus; certi enim nihil traditum nobis est. lam vero in omnibus relationibus, Vulgata et Chaldaea exceptis, Tobias senior in primis capitibus (1,1- 3,6) vitam suam narrans prima utitur persona; quapropter, quoniam veram historiam narrari demonstravimus, priorem banc partem Tobiae ipsi auctori attribuamus oportet. Nec obstat, quod in Vulg. et Chald. tertia persona sit adhibita; concinnitatis cnim cuiusdam studio ductos S. Hieronymum et chaldaicum interpretem, qui in altera parte tertiam personam de patre adhiberi viderunt, etiam in priore parte eam adhibere voluisse, satis clarum est. Vix enim quisquam concedet, reliquos interpretes, si in toto libro tertiam personam adhibitam vidissent, concinnitate neglecta in solis tribus capitibus terliam personam in primam proprio Marte mutasse. lllud quoque animadvertas velim, utriusque Tobiae multa facta intima et particularia referri, quae iis solis eognita erant. Atque accedit, quod uterque hanc historiam scribereab angelo ssit iussus (12,90 Gr., [tal., Hebr. Münst. et Fagi), nec ullo pacto ercdere licet, eos huic mandato non obtemperasse. Si vero immediate postea. Tobias senior hymnum suum actionis gratiarum scripsisse dicitur (13,1. Gr.,. Ia/.), id sane non probat, eum reliqua non scripsisse; Hebr. enim eum omnia seripsisse dicit. Quibus omnibus id demonstrari. arbitramur, Tobiam seniorem ipsum commentarios de suis ipsius filiique fatis reliquisse, qui forte ab uno ex eius posteris in istam formam , quam hodie possidemus sunt redacti. Integrum utique librum, qui. patris et filii mortem in fine commemorat, ab iis ipsis non esse conscriptum, manifestum est. Nihil vero impedit, quominus eum ante exsilium babylonieum prodisse dicamus. Neve obiiciatur, Esdáram libellum nostrum, si ante eius aetatem esset conscriptus, procul dubio in canonem recepisse. Quoniam Tobias enim eiusque posteri in Assyria essulabant, facile fieri potuit, ut Esdrae in Babylonia et in Palaestina degenti non innotuerit libellus ideoque non nisi post. eius mortem a ludaeis sit receptus ?.
|. Kohut in Geiger's Iüdische Zeitschrift 1872. p. 20 sqq. --- Graetz Gesch. der Iuden. Ed. 2. 1V. p. i66; Neubauer 'The book. of Tobit p. XVII. — Etiam Hitzig (in MHilgenicli's Zeitschr. 1560. p. 253 sq.) ex 14,3 cfr 13,10 sq. 16 sq. concludit, leroso- ]yma eo teinpore, quo liber scriptus est, fuisse deserta; ideo eius originem ponit post a. 10. p. Chr. ; scd cfr de istis textibus Gutberlet Das B. Tobias p. 333 sqq.
132. — Liber nosler a ludaeis palaestinensibus in canonem non est teeeptus, licel non. parva. auctoritate apud eos sit gavisus, id quod duplex eius hebraica versio et usus chaldaicae versionis in Midrasch Beresclith demonstrant!. A Protestantibus quoque inter « apocryphos » recensetur; at in Ecclesia catholica semper pro canonico est habitus, quare iure merito Tridentini Patres illum inter canonicos enumeraverunt. Quoniam in historia canonis V. T. narranda Tridentini Concilii decretum iam vindicavimus?, vix opus est, ut. posifivis argumentis PININAM. AUCTORITATEM. libri Tobiae demonstremus; ne vero. offieio nostro deesse videamur, saltem primorum Patrum testimonia praecipua hoc quoque loco afferemus, atque deinde difficultates, quae ex libri argumento. contra eius canonicifatlem. desumuntfur, brevissime tractabimus.
Inter Patres apostolicos nostro libello cerlissime usus est. S. Polycarpus in sua ad Philipp. epistola, quae haud diu post S. Ignatii martyrium conscripta anno 120. non est recentior?. Ad eandem saltem aetalem alterum ascendit testimonium, quod in homilia illa legitur, quae vulgo sub titulo S. C/ementis Hom. 2 Cor. allegari solet; si vero epistolae de Virgin. zenuinae sunt, id quod multi non spernendis rationibus nisi tenent, jam 1. saec. libellus noster in. ecelesia romana adhibitus esse demonstratur *. Exeunte saec. 2. in Oriente pro divina Scriptura a Patribus adhibebatur; in ecclesia alexandrina Clemens Alex. diserte eum Scripturam vocat, eodemque titulo eum saepius allegat. Or/genes?, quorum exemplum secuti sunt $. Athanasius M. aliique iuniores Patres alexandrini?. In Occidente S. Cyprianus satis frequenter eum una eum aliis libris sacris velut divinam auctoritatem affert; S. Harrius de angelis disserens post Apoc., Deut., Evang. eliam nostri libelli testimonium citat; S. Amórosius integrum tractatum de eo habuit etc. *. Ceterum saeculis primis inter Christianos tam vulgatus erat, ut in hypogaeis aliisque antiquitatis christianae monumentis imago Tobiae sit una ex illis, quae frequentiores inveniantur?. Immo teste S. Irenaeo etiam gnostica Sethitarum secta librum nostrum inter propheticos habuit?,
3. S. Polyc. ad Philipp. 10 : « Quum possitis benefacere, nolite differre, quia eleemosyna de morte liberat (Tob. 4,10; 12,9); c[r ctiam Doctr. duodec. Apost. 4,6, ubi de eleemosynarum ad redimenda peccata utilitate agitur.
4. Ad eandem quoque doctrinam de eleemosynarum utilitate (Tob, 12,8. 9) rcspicit S. Clem. Ron. 2. Cor. 16.
Ka35v o5» D.zvuo29or 6o; uttvotx ápgapzlas "Ayafoy rpcatuy3) uszX vrozilasz xal Üenxpilasew wxnacila zpostvy7e. ÜAtnuosóvs 9i pocovn; xal Onatogüves. "Aqx0cw tb ALiyov dugotipew Mp4 ài xalónts nAqnÓoq ánap- — uilà OuatosUvrg 7| noÀo giià XAwx;. RaAov tty, 7002:957, 0b ix xaAZ; Guvioó(stee ix — zoujsat DXenposiémw P Ünsxopioxt jpvsiov. 6avázos $ista:. Maxdptog rdg 6 tüpsÓsig iv — "EXenuocóvo yàp ix 0avátou [orat xoi atn toótot zJxjong OLenposóvr) Xp xobptopxápop- — droxaflaotet n3oav &gaprlav. Ot zotoovtto Dentlag vivezat, goadvag xa Gxatogóvas zJnsüraovzat Coi.
$. Clem. de Virg. 1,10 « superbia, quae vocatur mors » Tob. 4,14 (13) ev zi Uzipngavla drxoAeta, velut verba dominica. — S. Chrysost. sine ulla haesitatione librum nostrum in sua Synopsi refert (M. 56,360 sq.).
modo digessit latius, nos strictius comprehendamus ». Reliquorum Patrum graec. et latin. testimonia cfr in Introd. gen.
Difficultates, quae contra libri nostri canonicitatem afferuntur, nec multae sunt nec magni momenti. Operae pretium vix est, ut angelum Raphaelem, quum se Azariam, Ananiae magni filium, ex filiis Israel diceret, mentitum non esse demonstremus !?. Quia enim angelus speciem externam viri alicuius assumserat eumque proin repraesentavit, iure sibi eius nomina attribuere potuit; idque eo magis, quoniam nomina haec etiam ipsi angelo, si ad eorum significationem attendimus, quam oplime conveniunt. Azariam enim, i. e. « auxilium Domini » ("vwy) utrique Tobiae et Sarae sese exhibere debuit et exhibuit; filius autem fuit « bonitatis Domini » (3211), atque utpote filius Dei adoptivus etiam frater fuit reliquorum filiorum Dei adoptivorum, i. e. filiorum Israel, el cum iis, quorum cura ei erat commissa, tam arcto caritatis vinculo coniunctus, ut cum iis unam familiam constitueret (« ex filiis Israel » vel « ex fratribus tuis ») !!.
Ea, quae de Asmodeo traduntur, nullo modo aut cum sana ratione aut cum revelata doctrina pugnare, supra (199 p. 382) iam ostendimus; at integram libelli nostri angelologiam reliquis V. et N. T. libris contradicere atque originem suam ex Parsisino traxisse nonnulli heterodoxi asserunt ?, Qua in obiectione nihil aliud verum est, nisi nonnulla de angelis ex libro Tobiae nos discere, quae ex aliis libris, praesertim antiquioribus, auf non cum eadem claritate aut omnino non cognoscuntur. Quam apte vero haec. nostri libri doctrina de angelis cum priore ista cohaereat, ut eam elucidet augeatque atque novas de eadem revelationes in N. T. tradendas praeparet, Patres iam viderunt et theologi exponunt, qui omnes nova illa, quae sacer noster auctor affert, velut pretiosissimas revelationes gratissimo animo receperunt. Sin. gula evolvere nec huius loci est nec nostri muneris; id unum inquiremus, quid Parsismi accusalio coutra libri nostri doctrinam prolata valeat. lam quicunque sinceri sunt. adversarii, fateantur oportet eam unico textus nostri vocabulo inniti, nec quemquam de Parsismo locuturum fuisse, nisi vocabulum illud legeretur; reliqua. enim levissime proferuntur eumque solum in finem studiose sunt quaesita, ut argumentum ex illo vocabulo desumtum utcunque confirmaretur. Scilicet angelus Raphael se « unum esse ex sep/em, qui adstant ante. Dominum » asserit ^, in Parsismo nutem eliam inveniuntur. sep/em Amschaspand seu maiores spiritus. Perbelle profecto arzumentum? Adversarios interrogare quidem possumus, quomodo demonstrent, auctorem nostrum ex l'arsismo potius quam fandatorem Parsismi ex nostro libro suam doctrinam hausisse; omnes enim libri, qui in Parsismo sacri habentur, satis recentis sunt originis; illa vero, quae maxime cognita est, Parsismi forma aetate Sasanidarum i. e. 3. p. Chr. saec. non est antiquior, nec ullum Parsismi documentum ultra Darii Hystaspis actatem ascendit. Interrogare quoque possumus, quomodo probent lectionem septem esse genuinam, quippe qua careant Gr. C., Syr., Hebr. Münst. Sed omissis illis effugiis negare malumus practensam illam doctrinae nostrae cum Parsismo similitudinem. Septem quidem Amschaspand agnoscit Parsismus; septenarium. aulem numerum efficit bono suo principio (Ormazd) sex spiritus ab illo creatos adnumerans; non septem igitur, sed sex maiores spiritus ministri sunt. Ormazdi. Adde sex illorum spirituum munera ita esse distincta, ut unus igni, alter aquae, tertius terrae, quartus metallis, quintus plantis, sextus animantibus (hominibus et animalibus) sit praepositus; quid igitur simile habet eorum munus cum munere septem anzelorum, qui adstant ante Dominum » (Vulg.) vel « qui offerunt sanctorum preces. et ingrediuntur in conspectu gloriae sancti » (Gr. 4.), vel « qui adstant ef ingrediuntur ante gloriam Domini » (Gr. B.) ^? Sed pauca haec sufficiunt; satis enim demonstrasse nobis videmur nihil in libello nostro legi, quod divinitus revelatum esse non possit; omnia autem revelata esse constat ex canonicitate libri, quam Ecclesia. traditione divina et apostolica nixa nos docet.
14. Tob. 12,15 Vulg. — Gr. A. « unus ex septem sanctis angelis, qui offerimus orationes sanctorum et ingredimur in conspectu gloriae sancti »; Gr. B. et ital. « unus ex septem sanctis angelis qui assistimus et conversamur (Gr. ingredimur) ante claritatem Dei (Gr. gloriam Domini) »; Gr. C. et Syr. « unus ex lis (Syr. angelis) qui adstamus coram Deo »; Hebr. Münst. « unus ex principibus, qui ministramus coram throno gloriae ».
Cornelius a Lapide
It is asked first whether this Book is canonical, as infallible and of divine truth? I answer that formerly some of the Fathers did not hold it to be canonical, because it does not exist in the canon of the Hebrews. The same is thought concerning the books of Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus and Maccabees. Thus St. Jerome in the Galeatine Prologue, St. Athanasius in the Synopsis, Nazianzenus in his poem On the Sacred Books, Lyra and Abulensis.
But now it is of faith that it, equally with the others already named, is canonical; for thus the Council of Carthage III defined it, Canon xlvii, the Council of Florence and Trent, session IV, and Gelasius the First in his decree on divine books, and such it was held by St. Irenaeus, St. Chrysostom, St. Augustine, Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil, Clement of Alexandria, Rabanus, Cassiodorus, Isidore, and others whom Bellarmine cites, book I On the Word of God, chapter xi, Serarius here, and Sixtus Senensis, book VIII of the Library, heresy 11.
Continue reading 19 paragraphs
It is asked secondly, what is its Argument? I answer, to describe the life, deeds, and character of Tobias both, namely of the father and of the son, who were a mirror of uprightness, and therefore to be imitated by all spouses. For this book is wholly moral and pious, and exhibits to young people, especially to those about to be married, an example of an honest and holy life, likewise a living example of the guardianship of Angels. It teaches moreover how great is the power and virtue of prayer, what ought to be the use and end of marriage, and what the life of the married ought to be. Tobias therefore is an economic work, and far surpasses the economic treatises of Aristotle and Xenophon. Finally, how great is God's providence toward his faithful, and how much care he takes for them, that he may direct them in all things to their desired end.
To be avoided here is the error of Paul Fagius, who in his Latin version of Tobias from the Hebrew text, in the preface asserts that this book is not a history, but a comedy composed in the manner of comedy, so that the author might set before the eyes in it the type of a good father of a family, and therefore aptly gave it the name Tobias. For Tobias signifies goodness and uprightness: whence another Tobias, the son, is brought forth and born similar to his father. Thus Xenophon wrote the Cyropaedia, so that in Cyrus he might give an idea of a good prince, and the Economic treatise, so that in it he might describe a true father of a family.
But it is certain that this is a true history, as all the orthodox hold; for in it are named times, persons, years, and the deeds both of Tobias and of the Angel Raphael, of Sarah, etc., as of a true history: for if all these were comic and fictitious, not true and actual, this book could not be excused from falsehood, nor indeed from lying.
The difficulties, contradictions, and even falsehoods which are found in this book, and which would prove, according to some, that it is not the work of the Holy Spirit, shall be explained each in its own place.
It is asked thirdly, in what language was this book composed? Paul Fagius, a German by nation, a Lutheran by sect, following his Luther, thinks it was originally composed in Hebrew, and that it is the one which he asserts was brought to him at Constantinople, which he himself translated from Hebrew into Latin, and published in print, and argues this from the purity of style, solidity, and correspondence with other Hebrew books; and that it was then translated from Hebrew into the Greek language, and from Greek into Chaldean, and finally from Chaldean by St. Jerome translated into Latin.
But that Hebrew original text of Tobias, published by Fagius, appears to be spurious. For it is remarkable that it was not seen by St. Jerome, who expressly testifies here in the preface that this book was composed not in Hebrew, but in the Chaldean language. Moreover the phraseology of the Hebrew text published by Fagius plainly appears to be that of some Jewish mime, who puerile translated Tobias word for word from Greek into Hebrew. For it often corresponds word for word to the Greek: whence it appears to have been translated from it, with some things cut out which displeased Fagius or the translator. He adds some ridiculous things, such as that Tobias, when he could not be cured, went to Alemannia, or Germany, that he gave tithes for the restoration of the house, according to the law of the Lord. For there is no mention of these tithes in the law.
Let it be fixed therefore from St. Jerome that this book was originally composed not in the Hebrew language, but in the Chaldean, from which then, as from a source, various translations, both Greek and Hebrew, and Syriac, flowed forth, concerning which Serarius here, Prolegomena IV.
Hence it appears that this book was composed in the Assyrian captivity: for there the Chaldean language was in use, but in Judaea the Hebrew. Serarius adds that besides the Hebrew and that Greek which corresponds to our Latin version, there exists another Hebrew and Greek somewhat fuller and more diffuse, in which Tobias always speaks in the first person; whence some rightly think that Tobias wrote the same history twice, once briefly, which we have here; and again more fully, which still exists in Greek, as I have said. This latter exists in St. Ambrose and in the Complutensian Bibles. Moreover these versions often disagree with one another. For us, by the decree of the Council of Trent, session iv, the Latin Vulgate is to be followed rather than the Hebrew and Greek, when it differs from them.
It is asked fourth, who is the author of the book? I answer: Sixtus Senensis and Serarius hold that it is Tobias, both of them: for the former part was written by Tobias the father, but the latter part by Tobias the son; for he narrates those things which happened after the death of his father. They prove this from chapter xii, verse 25, where for "narrate all," the Hebrew and Greek have: Write all these things which have happened in the book: it appears therefore that Tobias the father wrote this book up to chapter xiii by the command of the Archangel Raphael; but the son brought that chapter to the aforesaid verse 16. For indeed in its beginning it is written thus in Hebrew: In this time Tobias wrote these last words in joy. Tobias, I say, the son; for the father, as was said above, that Hebrew text is accustomed to call not Tobias, but Tobi, just as immediately, when it adds: And I said to Tobi: Blessed be the Lord God. But who that third person is who added the last two verses, is not known to me, just as it is not established who imposed the final hand upon Deuteronomy, although some hold the opinion that it was Joshua.
Others hold that some scribe of that age, and perhaps Esdras, as Sanchez thinks, wrote the book of Tobias; for in the Greek codex Jeremiah is cited, whom both Tobias preceded by a long time in age, unless someone should say that the name of Jeremiah crept from the margin into the text.
It is asked fifth, who and what sort of person was Tobias? I answer that he was a Galilean, sprung from the tribe and city of Naphtali, as is clear from chapter i, verse 1. That he was a Prophet is evident from chapter xiv, verses 6 and following, where he prophesies the impending destruction of Nineveh and the happiness and glory of Jerusalem: whence Bede in chapter xiii: "Tobias," he says, "filled with the prophetic spirit, sings many things concerning the heavenly Jerusalem." The same teaches St. Irenaeus, book I, verse 34, Hugh of St. Victor, Dionysius, Vatablus and others. Moreover he was a man of extraordinary patience, charity and zeal: whence Tobias is aptly called. For Tobias in Hebrew is the same as good God, or good of God, or goodness of God, says Serarius: or strictly, my good is God, says Pagninus in the Hebrew Names. For Tobias placed all things and all his hopes and his riches in one God alone, so that he might say with the Psalmist: "What have I for myself in heaven, and besides thee what do I desire upon earth? God of my heart, and God my portion forever." Psalm lxxii, 25, and with St. Francis: "My God, my love, and all things."
Tropologically St. Ambrose wrote the book concerning Tobias against usurers and avarice. Again, teachings pertaining to good morals, Peter Berchorius of Poitiers collected from this book, book XVII of the Moralities. Bede transmitted an allegory concerning Tobias, tome IV.
Chronology
Tobias the elder was led captive from Chaldaea into Assyria by King Salmanasar, being in the thirty-ninth year of his age, as Serarius and Salianus gather from the Hebrew text; he lived in captivity sixty-three years; he lived therefore in all one hundred and two years. He was blinded in the fifty-sixth year of his age, he lived blind four years, he recovered his sight in the sixtieth year, then he lived still forty-two years more. This is according to the Latin text of the vulgate edition, chapter xiv, verse 1, which is to be followed by us. For according to the Greek text, Tobias came into captivity in the thirty-seventh year of his age, he lived in it one hundred and twenty-five years, he died in the one hundred and fifty-eighth year. He was blinded in the fifty-eighth year of his age, he lived blind eight years, he recovered his sight in the sixty-sixth year, then he lived still ninety-two years more.
Tobias the younger, says Serarius, at the end of the book, when he was two years old, was led with his father into Assyria. He went into Media, and there he took Sarah as his wife, in the twenty-third or twenty-fourth year of his age; he lived with his father alive sixty-five or sixty-six years, he lived after his father's death ninety-nine years; that is in all one hundred and sixty-four or one hundred and sixty-five years. These last three are true, according to the Greek text, which St. Ambrose follows, not the Latin vulgate, which is to be followed by us, as I shall say presently.
Again, both Tobias were led into Assyria in the sixth year of Hezekiah king of Judah: for in that year Salmanasar, having conquered Samaria, led away the ten tribes into Assyria, where on account of his virtue and probity he was dear to King Salmanasar; but by his son Sennacherib, pursuing the Jews after the defeat received in Judaea, he was sought unto death, fleeing he hid himself, until after forty-five days Sennacherib was slain by his sons, as is clear from chapter i, verse 24.
Since therefore Tobias the elder, in the sixth year of Hezekiah, in which year he was led into Assyria, was thirty-nine years old, as has been said, from this it necessarily follows that he was born in the fifty-first year of Oziah king of Judah, since in the following year Isaiah, chapter vi, saw that august vision of the Holy Trinity, and the Seraphim acclaiming him: "Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of Sabaoth." At the same time the Olympiads began, and Romulus and Remus, the founders of Rome, were born.
But Tobias the elder died in the fortieth year of Manasseh; for if you count from the fifty-first year of Oziah one hundred and two years (which is how long Tobias lived), you will arrive at the fortieth year of Manasseh. Thus Salianus, Serarius and Sanchez.
But Tobias the younger was born in the fourth year of Hezekiah king of Judah, at the beginning of the founding of the city of Rome; and he died in the sixteenth year of Josiah king of Judah, when he was 99 years old, for the Vulgate Latin edition gives him so many years, cap. xiv, vers. 16, for from the fourth year of Hezekiah to the sixteenth year of Josiah there elapsed 99 years. Thus Salianus and Sanchez. But according to the Greek edition, Tobias the younger died at the age of 127 years: wherefore according to this reckoning he died at the beginning of the reign of Sedeciah, the last king of Judah, shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple by the Chaldeans. Thus Serarius. But we must follow the Latin Vulgate edition according to the decree of the Council of Trent.
Machine translation from the Latin, not reviewed.