Ewald 35o H erzfeld 3o0 Bertholdt . . . . 250-200 Eichhorn . . . . A.D. 10 Fabricius . . . . . oo Graetz . . . . . . I3o But though internal evidence leaves it beyond the shadow of a doubt that the book was compiled after the Babylonish captivity, yet the arguments adduced by Graetz (Geschichte, 466, 2c1 ed.) to prove that it was written after the destruction of the temple, and during the persecutions of Hadrian, are inconclusive. The reference to the destruction of the temple (xiii. to, 16 ; xiv. 4) is designed to refer to what took place in the reign of Zedekiah, when Nebuchadnezzar took Jerusalem and burned the sanctuary (2 Kings xxv.) The anachronism in volved in this reference is in perfect harmony with the anachronisms which are to be met vvith in the other deutero-canonical books. The other remark of this learned historian—viz. that the bread of heathens (dpros T V a VOW = nz), of which Tobit speaks (r, ro), was first interdicted shortly before the destniction of the temple by Titus—is based -upon restricting the term tipros to actual bread, whereas it signifies food generally, and this was prohibited long before the Christian era (comp. Dan. i. 5). Indeed the book is singularly devoid of the stringent Halachic expansions of the Mosaic enactments which obtained in later times, it con tains no allusion whatever to the rewards in a future life, and has no reference to the party-strifes which were so rampant at the time of Christ, traces of which might naturally be expected in it if it had been written in or after the time of Christ. It is therefore most probable that the book was written circa 250-200 B.C.
6. Canonicity and authority.—Like the other deutero-canonical books, Tobit was never included in the canon by the synagogue. This is established beyond the shadow of doubt, not only from the list of the Hebrew Scriptures given by the Jews themselves in the Talmud (Baba Bathra, 4), but from the oldest. catalogues of the canon furnished by Christian fathers, such as Melito, Origen, etc. Indeed Origen distinctly states that neither Tobit nor Judith was ever received by the Jews as Sacred Scripture cEppaior Tr? ot)xpCivraL—Ep. ad. Afric. sec. 13). It was, however, different in the Greek church, where the text of the Sept. was re ceived as canonical. Forming part of the contents of this version, Clement of Alexandria quotes Tobit iv. 15 ; xii. 8, as taken from i) ypacp7), Scripture (Strom.ii. 23, sec. 139). But though Origen himself also quoted it as Scripture, yet in consequence of his remark that the Jews had it not in their canon, that it is ranked by Christians among such as were read tr the catechumens, and that it contains a plainer and less elevated doctrine (In Niemb. Hama. xx.), the Greek fathers put it among the Apocrypha, and classed it among those books which are to be read by beginners who are desirous to be in structed in the word of piety' (o8 kavove("bileva Lay rennrcou.lva rraper varlpcov lowylvd,crxeo-9az Tois liprz rpozrepxotzevots zcal pouXopevots zarnixeicr 78v rijs dcregclas X6-yop—Athanasins, Ep. Fest. ii. 39, ed. Colon.) This distinction, however, be tween canonical and apocryphal afterwards disap peared to a great extent in the Greek Church, as is seen from the fact that Bar-Hebrxus places Tobit among the sacred books in his Nomocanon of the Antiochenian church (Mai, ScriPt. vett. nova collectio, x. 53 ; comp. Fritzsche, p. 18). In the Latin church Tobit was regarded with greater sacredness. Cyprian often quotes it as Holy Writ
(De Opere et Eleemosynis liber). St. Hilary cites it to prove the intercession of angels (In Ps. cxxix.), and tells us that some Christians added both Tobit and Judith to the other two-and-twenty canonical books to make up their canon of four-and-twenty books (Prol. in Ps.) St. Augustine includes it with the other Apocrypha of the Sept. among 'the books which the Christian church received ' (De Doctr. Christ. ii. 8). Hence the third council of Carthage (A.D. 397), Innocent I. (A.D. 405), and the councils of Florence (1439) and Trent (1546), declared it canonical. Indeed, in the old Roman Missal and in the Missal of Sarum, there is a pro per Mass of Raphael the archangel, and it is ordered in the prefatory rubric that the office be celebrated for pilgrims, travellers, sick persons, and demoniacs. This is followed by two short prayers, one addressed to God and the other to Raphael (comp. Arnald's Dissertation on Asmo. dozes). As to the Reformed Church, though Lu ther was the first who separated the deutero-can onical from the canonical books, yet Ire entertained the highest opinion of the book of Tobit. If it is history,' says this great Reformer, it is fine holy history ; but if fiction, it is indeed right beautiful, wholesome, profitable fiction, and play of an in genious poet . It is, therefore, profitable and good for us Christians to read this book as the production of an excellent Hebrew poet, who treats not on frivolous but solid matters ' ( Vorrede aufs Buck Tobia, in his tmnslation of the Bible, ed. 1534). In the Anglican Church, the book of Tobit is looked upon with still greater favour—cap. iv. 7- t6 is quoted in the Homilies as the counsel of the holy father Toby (On Alms-deeds, part i.) ; cap. iv. ro is cited as a lesson taught by the Holy Ghost in Scripture' (ibid. part ii.) ; and cap. xii. is ad duced to show that the angel Raphael told Tobias that fasting used with prayer is of great efficacy ' (Of Fasting-, part ii.) Passages of Tobit are also incorporated in the liturgy. Cap. iv. 7-9 is among the passages used at the Offertory ; cap. iii. 3, ac cording to the Latin Vulgate, isintroduced into the Litany ; cap. vi. 17, according to the Vulgate, is alluded to in the preface to the marriage service ; whilst in the prayer following immediately after the versicles and responses in the same service in the First Book of Prayer of Edward VI., the following sentence is used--` And as thou didst send the angel Raphael to Thobie and Sara, the daughter of Raguel, to their great comfort, so vouchsafe to send thy blessing upon these thy servants ' (p. 131, Parker Society's ed.) 7. Literature.—Arnald, The Book of Tobz?, in Patrick, Lowth, Whitby, and Lowman's Critical Commentary ; Ilgen, Die Geschichte Tobi's nach drei verschiedenen Originalen, Jena 1800 ; Eich holm, Bertholdt, De Wette, and Keil's Eizzleitun gen ; Gutmann, Die Apokryphen des Alten Testa ments, p. 14t, etc., Altona 1841 ; Fritzsche, Die .Biicher Tobi and Yua'ith ; Kurzgefasstes exeget. Hana'buch zu den Apokrypherz, vol. ii. Leipzig 1853 ; Davidson, The Text of the O. T. Considered, p. 996, etc., London 1856 ; Sengelmann, Das Buck Tab& erkldrt. Hamburg 1857 ; Reusch, Das Buck Tobias abersetzt erklii rt. Freiburg 1857 ; Graetz, Geschichte der ,liden, vol. iv. pp. 18o, ; 466, ff., 2c1 ed. Leipzig 1866.—C. D.' G.