The Catholic Church— bishop Gray, Ilgen .... B.C. 6S9-600
Ewiild " :{f)0
Her/.reld 300
Beilholdt 250-200
Eichhniii A.D. 10
Fiilnicius 100
Griitz 1^0
But though internal evidence leaves it beyond the shadow of a doubt that the book was compiled after the Babylonian captivity, yet the arguments adduced by Griitz {Geschic/ite, iii, 466, 2(1 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, 10, 16; xiv, 4) is designed to refer to what took place in the reign of Zedekiah, when Nebuchadnezzar took Jeru- salem and burned the sanctuary (2 Kings xxv). The other remark of this learned historian — viz. that the bread of heathens {dproc ratp l^i'wv = W^'^Zi rs), of which Tobit speaks (ver. 1, 10), was first interdicted shortly before the destruction of the Temple by Titus — is based upon restricting the term aprof to actual bread, whereas it signifies food generally, and this was pro- hibited long before the Christian sera (comp. Dan. i, 5). Indeed, the book is singularly devoid of the stringent Halachic expansions of the iNfosaic enactments which obtained in later times : it contains 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 tlie time of Christ. It is therefore most probable that the book was written B.C. cir. 250-200.
VI. Canonicity and Authority. — Like the other deu- tero-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, 14), but from the oldest catalogues of the canon furnished by Christian fathers, such as Melito, Origen, etc. Indeed, Origen distinctly slates that nei- ther Tobit nor Judith was ever received by the Jews as Sacred Scripture — 'Ejipaloi T(f Tojfiicf ov xpuivrai {Kp. ad Afric. § 13; comp. De Orat. i, 14).
It was, however, different in the (Jreek Church, where the text of the Sept. was received as canonical. There appears to be a clear reference to it in the Latin version of the Epistle of Polycarp (c. 10, elcemosyna de. inorte liberal ; Tobit iv, 10 ; xii, 9). In a scheme of the Ophites, if there be no corru])tion in the text, Tobias appears among the prophets (Iren. i, 30, 11). Forming part of the contents of this version, Clement of Alexandria quotes Tobit iv, 15; xii, 8, as taken from // ypacplj,
TOBIT, BOOK OF
449
TOBLER
Scripture {Slrorn. ii, 23, 139). But thou.2.h Origen him- self also quoted it as Scripture, yet it is raiikeii by Chris- liaiis amonijc such as were read to the catechumens, ami contains a plainer and less elevated doctrine {In Xiiml). Ndiiiil. xx). Even Athanasins, when writiiii; without any critical regard to the canon, (juotes Tobit as Script- ure {Apnl. c. Arian. § 11, wc ytyiiarrTin, 'I'obit xii, 7); but when he gives a formal list of the sacred books, he definitely excludes it from the canon, and places it with other Apocryphal books among tiie writings which were "to be read by those who were but just entering on Christian teacliing, and desirous to be instructed in the rides of piety" {h-p. Fest, p. 1177, ed. !Migne). This dis- tinction, however, between canonical and apocryphal afterwards disappeared, to a great extent, in the Cireek Church, as is seen from the fact that I>ar-Hebrieus places Tobit among the sacred books in his Nomocanon of the Antioclienian Church (Mai, Script. Vttt. Nova Collectio, 53; comp. Fritzsche, p. 18).
In the Latin Church Tobit was regarded with greater sacredness. Cyprian often quotes it as I/oli/ ll'rtV {I)e Opere et Kleemosynis Liber\ Hilary cites it to prove tlie intercession of angels (/« Psa. cxxix, 7), 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 Psa. xv). Lucifer (piotes it as authoritative (Pro A than, i, 871). Augustine includes it with the other Apocrypha of the Sept. among "the books which the Christian Church received" {De Doctr. Christ, ii, 8). This is expressed still more distinctly in the Specnlnm (\\. 1 127, C, ed. Par. 183G): "Non sunt omittendi et hi [libri] quos quidem ante Salvatoris adventum constat esse conscriptos, sed eos non receptos a Judsis recipit tamen ejusdem Salva- toris ecclesia." The preface from which these words are taken is followed by quotations from Wisdom, Ec- clesiasticus, and Tobit. In this Augustine was followed by the mass of the later Latin fathers. Ambrose, in especial, wrote an essay on Tobias, treating of the evils of usury, in which he speaks of the bot>k as " prophetic" in the strongest terms {l)e Tohia, I, 1; comp. I/exam. vi, 4). Jerome, however, followed by Kufinus, main- tained the purity of the Hebrew canon of the Old Test., and, as has been seen, treated it very summarily.
The third Council of Carthage (A.D. 397), Inno- cent I (105), and the councils of Florence (1439) and Trent (1546), declared it canonical. Indeed, in the old Koman JMissal and in the Missal of Sarum there is a proper mass of Raphael, tlie archangel, and it is ordered in the prefatory rubric that the office be celebrated for jiilgrims, travellers, sick persons, and diemoniacs. This is followed by two shf)rt prayers, one addressed to God and the other to Raphael (comp. Ariiald, Dissertation on Asinotkeiis).