Joseph A. Fitzmyer Tobit w DE G Commentaries on Early Jewish Literature (CEJL) Edited by Loren T. Stuckenbruck and Pieter W. van der Horst • Hermann Lichtenberger Doron Mendels · James R. Mueller Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York 2003 Joseph A. Fitzmyer Tobit Walter de Gruyter · Berlin · New York 2003 Θ Printed on acid-free paper which falls within the guidelines of the ANSI to ensure permanence and durability Library of Congress — Cataloging-in-Publication Data Fitzmyer, Joseph A. Tobit / Joseph A. Fitzmyer. p. cm. — (Commentaries on early Jewish literature) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 3-11-017574-6 1. Bible. O.T. Apocrypha. Tobit—Commentaries. I. Title. II. Series. BS1725.53 .F58 2003 229'.22077-dc21 2002151347 ISBN 3-11-017574-6 Bibliographic information published by Die Deutsche Bibliothek Die Deutsche Bibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data is available in the Internet at < http://dnb.ddb.de > © Copyright 2003 by Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co. KG, 10785 Berlin, Germany All rights reserved, including those of translation into foreign languages. No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Printed in Germany Cover Design: Christopher Schneider, Berlin Typesetting: Readymade, Berlin Printing and binding: Hubert &C Co, Göttingen Preface A modern commentary on the Book of Tobit must take on a different shape in view of the discovery of the fragmentary Aramaic and Hebrew texts of it among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Prior to that discovery the relation of the different forms of the story of Tobit found in various ancient versions was the subject of much debate, and even more of speculation. Such debate and speculation were spurred in the nineteenth century, when Constantin von Tischendorf discovered the manuscript Sinaiticus in the library of St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai in 1844. In it a form of the story of Tobit was recovered that was considerably longer than the Greek text of Vaticanus and Alexandrinus or the Latin Vulgate text, which the Christian Church of East and West had read for centuries. In 1913, D. C. Simpson opened the introduction of his commentary on "The Book of Tobit" with the following remarks: This book, composed, possibly in Aramaic, in the last quarter of the third century B.C., probably emanated from orthodox circles in Egypt. It therefore throws considerable light upon the religious and ethical conditions of the Diaspora in that country some 150 years after the date of the recently discovered Aramaic papyri [meaning those of Elephantine]. The evidence of its popularity, almost from the moment of its composition until the eighteenth or nineteenth century of our era, in themselves constitute a long and interesting history. Its influence is apparent alike in Jewish writings, in the New Testament, in the early Church and in mediaeval art. Carefully revised by A.D. 150 in Jewish circles into the form most common today, but almost immediately translated into Aramaic from the first Greek version and later, and more than once, into Hebrew, and yet again revised in Greek in Christian circles, it remained on the one hand a favourite Jewish work, and on the other hand, translated into various languages, it followed the spread of the Christian religion to Edessa in the East, to Rome and Africa in the West, and Ethiopia in the South. (APOT, 1. 174) Much of such speculation about the origin, development, and growth of the story, the value of its different ancient versions, and the date and place of its composition now has to be seen in a new light because of the recovery of the ancient Aramaic and Hebrew forms of the book among the fragments of Qumran Cave 4, discovered in 1952. VI Preface Simpson's own commentary presented a detailed apparatus criticus based on the various versions of the Book of Tobit known prior to the Qumran discoveries. It is still of great value today, even though it lacks the information from the Qumran texts; and I have no intention of trying to supplant his critical work. Simpson rightly favored the Greek Long Recension, and my commentary goes along with that preference, because the Qumran texts support it. Ideally, this commentary should be based on the Aramaic and Hebrew texts from Qumran, but because they are fragmentary and hardly represent a fifth of the Book of Tobit, one still has to have recourse to the Greek Long Recension, known to us mainly from Codex Sinaiticus. In the commentary that follows I shall concentrate on the Greek Long Recension, giving in parallel columns its text along with that of the Greek Short Recension. In the notes on each verse, the lemma on which the remarks are made will be that of this Greek Long Recension. It will be followed by the evidence from the Aramaic and Hebrew fragments from Qumran, when available, and then from the Greek Short Recension, the Vetus Latina, and the Vulgate. Details from the Syriac and the medieval Aramaic and Hebrew versions will be offered from time to time, as they are appropriate, but it should be recalled that the comparison of Qumran texts with the Greek and Latin forms is now of far greater importance than any comparison with texts that are of later usually secondary derivation, such as the Syriac, the medieval Aramaic and Hebrew forms, etc. My aim in this approach is to highlight the effect of the discovery of the Qumran forms of the Book of Tobit and consequently to emphasize the importance of the Long Recension in Greek, and especially its form in the Vetus Latina for all present and future study of Tobit. I shall give a translation of all passages of the Vetus Latina that are quoted, except when it agrees in wording with the lemma from the Greek Long Recension. So wherever the translation of the quoted Vetus Latina is lacking, it is to be assumed to be the same as the Greek in the lemma. If it agrees only in part, that too will be indicated by ..., and the differences. One will note how the comparison of the different versions sometimes aids in the comprehension of the Greek Long Recension, which is not without its own deficiencies. The other versions often help the reader understand the basic text being quoted, but sometimes they can be a distraction or be in conflict with the Greek Long Recension or the Vetus Latina, which are usually to be regarded as the form closest to the original text of the Book of Tobit, unless parts of the Qumran Aramaic and Hebrew forms are quoted. I have usually quoted the Latin Vulgate too. It can never be regarded as an important witness to the original, even though Jerome Preface vu claimed that his version was based on an Aramaic form of the book, which must have been considerably different from the Qumran Aramaic form, if Jerome's version accurately reflects his Aramaic Vorlage. It remains, however, a good example of how a later form of the Tobit story developed. At times the testimony of the Syriac and the medieval Aramaic and Hebrew forms will also be cited, when their differences are instructive or noteworthy. The reader of this commentary will find footnotes that explain or document assertions in the text. When a short title is used there or in the particular bibliographies, the full data on the book or article will be found in the general bibliography at the end of the introduction. Finally, a word of thanks has to be expressed to a number of persons who have helped me in the composition of this book. First of all, I must express once again my grateful dependence on the work of J. T. Milik, who originally pieced together the Aramaic and Hebrew Tobit fragments found in Qumran Cave 4. This new commentary would not have been written without the pioneering work that he did in establishing the texts of those fragments. Second, I am indebted to Dom P.-M. Bogaert, O.S.B., who put at my disposal the readings that he had made of several manuscripts of the Vetus Latina of the Book of Tobit, a critical text of which is not yet available. Third, I have profited greatly from the work of my former student, V. T. M. Skemp, who wrote a dissertation on the Vulgate form of the Book of Tobit under my direction; I have cited his book at a number of places in the course of the commentary. Fourth, I owe thanks to the director and staff of the Woodstock Theological Center Library at Georgetown University, who assisted me in many ways in my research for this commentary. Lastly, I am indebted to Dr. Loren T. Stuckenbruck, an editor of the CEJL series, who has provided guidance and assistance with his comments and technical skills. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. Contents Preface ν Abbreviations xi INTRODUCTION I. Title and Manuscript Evidence of the Text 3 II. Original Language 18 III. Subject Matter and Literary Genre 29 IV. Style and Sources of the Book 34 V. Integrity of the Book 42 VI. The Teaching of the Book 46 VII. Date and Place of Composition 50 VIII. Canonicity 55 IX. Structure and Outline 58 X. General Bibliography 59 COMMENTARY TRANSLATION, GENERAL COMMENTS, AND NOTES I. Prologue (1:1-2) 91 II. The Double Situation in Nineveh and Ecbatana (1:3-3:17) . . 98 A. Tobit's Background (1:3-22) 98 B. Tobit's Troubles and Prayer (2:1-3:6) 127 C. Sarah's Troubles and Prayer (3:7-15) 147 D. God's Commission of Raphael to Go to Their Aid (3:16-17) 159 III. Tobiah's Journey (4:1-12:22) 163 A. Preparation for the Journey and Tobit's Speech (4:1-21) .. 163 B. Raphael Engaged to Accompany Tobiah to Media (5:1-6:1) 181 C. Tobiah's Journey to Media (6:2-18) 200 D. Tobiah Arrives at Raguel's House and Marries Sarah (7:1-17) 222 E. Sarah Is Cured of the Demon (8:1-21) 238 χ Contents F. Raphael is Sent to Get Tobit's Money (9:1-6) 253 G.Tobiah Prepares to Return to Nineveh (10:1-13) 259 H.Homecoming of Tobiah and Cure of Tobit's Eyes (11:1-19) 271 I. Revelation of Raphael's Identity (12:1-22) 285 IV. Tobit's Song of Praise and His Death (13:1-14:2) 301 V. Epilogue (14:3-15) 321 Index of References 339 Index of Names and Subjects 362 Index of Modern Authors 367