IV. Ori'/iiKil Language, Versions, Condition of the Text, etc. — 1. The whole complexion of the book shows that it is of Palestinian origin, and hence many have as- sumed that the languages in which the traditional story was first written down were Hebrew and Aramaic. In- deed, 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 ("Exigi- tis, ut librum Chaldi^o sermone conscriptum ad Lati- num stylum traham, librimi utiipie Tobisequem Hebraji de catalogo divinarum Scripturarum secantes his qua3 Hagiographa [Apocrypha] memorant, manciparunt. Feci satis desiderio vestro, non tamen meo studio. . . . Et quia vicina est Chaldieorum lingua sermoni Hebra- ico, utriusque linguaj pertissimum loquacem reperiens unius diei laborem arripui, et qnidcpiid ille milii Hebra- icis verbis expressit, hoc ego accito notario sermonibus Latinis exposui" \^Pr(ef. in Tob.~\). This has been thought to be corroborated by the fact that some of the difficulties in the Greek text can be removed on the supposition of a Hebrew original. Thus tKxenv roi'g dprovQ (Tov irri rbv rcKpov moi' Sucaiuii' (iv, 17), which has no sense, seems to be a mistranslation of PiPilJ n^P'^TUn D"ip3 "TSnii; the translator, by a transpo- sition of the last two letters, having read "i~p3 instead of 2"ip3. and ~Z'^ instead of HbTlJ, as is evident from the antithetical clause, "and give it not to the wick- ed," in harmony with the tra<litional injunction "ilDX n-3r 1^21" ■^1"' p"'Tnnb,z7 is not lav-ful to strength- en the hands of the transgressor. So also Ka'i iuXoyijat Tujfiiag rijv yvvalKa avrov (ix, 6) may be accounted for on the supposition that it is a mistranslation of the Hebrew IPTTN PX n^^VJi ""iS'^l. The correct ren- dering of it requires that either Gabael should be taken
as the subject — i. e. " and he (i. e. (iabael) saluted Tobias ■icith 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. See also v, 11, 12, 18; vi, 9; and for the Hebraizing style, i, 1, 13; iii, 5; v, 14; xiv, 19; De Wette, i,"i«/f-«V. §310; (iriitz, Geschichte, iv, 46(1 ("id ed.).
On the other hand, superior clearness, simplicity, and accuracy of the Sept. text prove conclusively that this is nearer the original than any other text wliich is known, if it be not, as some have suppose<l (Jahn and Fritzsche doul)tfidly), the original itself. Indeed, the arguments which have been brought forward to show that it is a translation are far from conclusive. The supposed contradictions between different parts of the book, especially the change from the first (i-iii, 6) to the third person (iii, 7-xiv), from which IJgen endeav- ored to prove that the narrative was made up of dis- tinct Hebrew documents, carelessly put together, and afterwards rendered by one Greek translator, are ex- plicable on other grounds; and the alleged mistransla- tions (iii, 6 ; iv, 19, etc.) depend rather on errors in in- terpreting the Greek text than on errors in the text it- self. The style, again, though harsh in parts, and far from the classical standard, is not more so than some books which were undoubtedly written in Greek (e. g. the Apocalypse); and there is little, if anything, in it which points certainly to the immediate influence of an Aramaic text, (i, 4, eiq Tracrac; tu(; ytvktg tov alai- vog; comp. Eph. iii, 21; i, 22, Ik Stvrs/jag; iii, 15, h>a Ti fioi Zr]v ; V, 15, rii'a croi taojiai f.u(Tbov Si^oi'ai ; xiv, 3, TTpoasBtTO (pofSHd^ai, etc.) To this it may be add- ed that Origen was not acquainted with any Hebrew original {-t'p. ad Afric. 13) ; antl the Chaldee cojiy which Jerome used, as far as its character can be ascertained, was evidently a later version of the story. On the oth- er hand, there is no internal evidence against the sup- position that the Greek text is a translation. The Greek offers some peculiarities in vocabulary : i, 6, irpw- TOKOvpla, i. e. »'/ d-rrapxH twJ' Kovpwv, Deut. xviii, 4; i, 7, cnTOTTpaTiL,of.iai ; i, 21, tKkoyinTia ; ii, 3, arpayya- Xoio, etc. : and in construction, xiii, 7, dyaXXiaaiai Ti]v lityaXaxTvi'iji' ; xii, 4, ciicaiovaBai rivi ; vi, 19, Trpona- yuv Twi (intrans.) ; ver. 6, tyyi^en' tv, etc. But these furnish no argument on either side.
2. 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; but yet, on the whole, so far alike that it is reasonable to suppose that all were derived from one written original, which was modified in the course of translation or tran- scription.
Besides the Greek text of the Sept. which was adopt- ed into this version because it was that of the (Jreek Church, there is a recension, one fragment of which (i, 1-ii, 2) is contained in the Cod. Sinailicvs (or Cod. Frid. A iigiistanus, ed. Tischendorf [Leips. 1846]), and another (vi, 9-xiii) in the last three MSS. (44, 106, 107) of Holmes and Parsons.
Of Latin translations we have the ante-Hieronyniian version, which was first published by Sabatier (Biblio- rum Sacrorvm Latince Versiones Antiqvm, 1743) from two MSS.of the 8th century, and which, according to the investigations of Fritzsche (p. lOsq.), is mostly made from the recension of the Greek text, but partly (vi, 15-17; vii, 15-18; viii, 14-17; xii, 6-9, 11-22; xiii, 6-18) also from the common text, while x, 1-xi, 19 is from a mixt- ure of both texts. In this edition of the Vetiis Latina, Sabatier also published, in the form of notes and as vari- ous 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 (xiii, \'I)-w\i\\ Exjilidt Tobijiistns; and the other belimg- ing to the Vatican (No. 7). The text of the latter dif- fers so materially from the other jMSS. that it is re- garded as an independent version, though emanating from the same Greek source. It is less barbarous and