4. Original language, versions, condition of the text, etc.-The whole complexion of the book shows that it is of Palestinian origin, and there can be but little doubt that the languages in which the traditional story was first written down were He brew and Aramaic. Indeed St. Jerome tells us that he made his Latin version from the Aramaic in one day, with the assistance of a Jew, who being skilled in both Hebrew and Chaldee, dictated to him the import thereof in Hebrew (` Exigitis, librum Chaldmo. sermone conscriptum ad Latinum stylum traham, librum utique Tobim quem Hehrmi de catalogo divin arum Scripturarum secantes his qum Hagiographa [Apocrypha] memorant, manciparunt. Feci satis desiderio vestro, non tamen meo studio. . . . . Et quia vicina est Chaldmorum lingua ser moni Hebraic°, utriusque ling= pertissimum lo quacem reperiens unius diei laborem arripui, et quid quid ille mihi Hebraicis verbis expressit, hoc ego accito notario sermonibus Latinis exposuP-Praef: in Tob.) This is moreover corroborated by the fact that some of the inexplicable difficulties in the Greek te.xt can only be removed satisfactorily on the supposition of a Hebrew original. Thus gICXEOV TOed tiprous crou orbv TROOP TC.i aliCatUIP (iV. 17), which has no sense, is manifestly a mistranslation of t+p+nri -p:1-6 ; the translator, by a transposition of the last two letters, having read -imp3 instead of YIP, and Inv instead of the1, as is evident from the antithetical clause, 'and give it not to the wicked,' in harmony with the traditional injunction iT1311 "I= pnrir6 110N, it is not lawfid to strengthen the hands of the transgressor. So also Kat e6X6-pure Tugias Thp -imam aierof, (ix. 6), can only be accounted for on the supposition that it is a mistranslation of the Hebrew 71421t0 111Vt: Mt The correct rendering of it requires that either Gabael should be taken as the subject i.e. 'anti he (i.e. Gabael) saluted Tobias with his wife'--or that both Tobias and his wife should be the subject-i.e. and Tobias and his wife saluted them,' i.e. the two comers, Azarias and the servant. Comp. also v. 11, 12, 18 ; vi. 9, and for the He braising style i. 13 ; 5 ; v. ; xiv. 19 ; De Wette, Einleitung, sec. 3to ; Gmetz, Geschichte, iv. 466, 2d ed.
There are extant different Greek, Latin, Syriac, and Hebrew texts of this book, differing more or less from one another in the details of the narrative. Besides the Greek text of the Sept. which was adopted into this version because it was that of the Greek Church, there is a recension, one fragment of which (i. 1-ii. 2), is contained in the Cod. Sinaiticus or Cod. Frid. Augustanus, ed. Tischen dorf, Leipzig i84.6, and another (cap. vi. 9-xiii.) in the three last MSS. (44, to6, 107), of Holmes and Parsons. Of Latin translations we have the ante-Hieronymian version, which was first pub lished by Sabatier (Bibilorum Sacrorum Latinee versiones ntiqua, 1743), from two MSS. of the fith century, and which, according to the investigations of Fritzsche (p. '0, ff.), is mostly made from the recension of the Greek text, but partly (vi. 15-17 ; vii. 15-18 ; viii. 4-17 ; 6-9 ; 11-22 ; xiii. 6-18), also from the common text, whilst cap. x. I.-xi. 19 is from a mixture of both texts. In this edition of the Vetus Latinez, Sabatier also published in the form of notes and as various readings two other Codd., one being of the same age as the MSS. of the ante-Hieronymian version, belonging to the library of St. Germanus (No. 15), and concluding, cap. xiii. 12, with 4Exfilicit Tobi justus,' and the other belonging to the Vatican (No. 7). The text of the latter differs so materially from the other MSS. that it is regarded as an independent version though emanating from the same Greek source. It is less barbarous and more fluent in style, as well as more explicit in its renderings, and it is to be re gretted that it has survived as a fragment, contain ing only i. I-Vi. 12 (Bibl. Lat. 706). There
also existed another Latin version, as is evident from the quotations of this book contained in tbe Spec-re/um of Augustine, which Angelo Alai has pub lished (Spicileg,ium Rowanorum, ix. 21-23). As to the Vulgate Latin version, Jerome tells us that he made it in one day from the Syro-Chaldaic. It differs very materially from the Greek, and is evi dently derived from a different form which this tra ditional story assumed in a different part of the country. The Syriac version is made from the two different recensions of the Greek ; cap. r-vii. 9, being a translation of the common Greek text of the Sept, whilst vii. to, etc., is from the above named three MSS. (44, 106, 107) of Holmes and Parsons, according to the marginal annotations in Ussher's MS. There are four Hebrew versions of this book, the one first published in Constan tinople t517, then with a Latin translation by Paul Fagius, and adopted in Walton's Polyglott, vol. iv. London 1657. It is a free translation of the common Greek text, made by a learned Jew in the t2th century. The second is that first published with a Latin translation by Sebas tian Munster, Basle 1542, then again in I549, 1556, 1563, and has also been inserted in Walton's Polyglott. This Hebrew version is more in har mony with the Veins Latina ; and the author of it, who was a Jew, is supposed to have flourished in the 5th century. The third Hebrew version was made from the common Greek text by J. S. Frankel, Leipzig 183o ; and the fourth is by J. Siebenberger-it was published in Warsaw 184o, with a Judaio-German translation, a Hebrew coni mentary, and an elaborate Hebrew introduction.
As to the versions of the Reformation, Luther made his translation from the Vulgate • the Swiss Zurich. Bible (1531) is also from the Vulgate. Coverdale (1535) as usual followed the Zurich ver sion [COVERDALEJ ; and he again was followed by Matthew's Bible 0537), Lord Cromwdl's Bible (1539), Cranmer's Bible (154o), and the Bishops' , Bible (1568). The Genevan version (I56o) is the ' first made from the Greek, and our present A. V. (r611), as in most cases, followed the Genevan version though this was interdicted by James I.
5, A' uthor and date.-As cap. xii. 20 tells us that Raphael, before his disappearance, commanded Tobit and his son Tobias to record the events of their lives ; and, moreover, since Tobit in the first three chapters speaks in the first person, whilst (cap. xiii.) his prayer is introduced by the statement Tw,6127. typafe irpooeuxip els lieyaXXIao-cv Kai &rev; the church universal up to the time of the Reformation believed that Tobit himself wrote this [book (circa 600B.c.), as far as cap. xiv. ; that cap. , xiv. was written by his son Tobias ; and that cap. xii. 12-15 was added by the editor of this document immediately after the death of Tobias. This opinion is shared by Bishop Gray, Prideaux, and others, who modify it by submitting that it was compiled from the memoirs of Tobit and Tobias ; whilst Ilgen 'maintains that cap. i. 7 ; xiii. 1-8, was written by Tobit in Assyria, B.C. 689 ; Cap. iii. 8-Xii. 2-22 ; XiV. 1.15, was written in Palestine circa 28o B.C., and that from these two Hebrew documents the Chaldee version was made circa 120 B.C., WhiCh St. Jerome translated into Latin. Modern critics however conclude, from the whole complexion of the book, its angelology, theology, etc., that it is a post-Babylonian produc tion, and that it was written by a Palestinian Jew. But these critics differ very materially about the precise date when the book was compiled, as will be seen from the following table : The Catholic Church- circa B.c. 689-600 Bishop Gray, Ilgen .