§ 9. INTEGRITY

The integrity, unity and originality of the book as a whole have not remained unchallenged. As early as a.d. 1800 Ilgen endeavoured to prove that while 1:1–3:6 was written by Tobit himself (c. 689 b.c.) in Assyria, 3:7–12:22 were not composed till c. 280 b.c. in Palestine, and 13 was only inserted c. 10 b.c. But the book is characterized throughout by a unity of purpose well conceived in its plan and natural and simple in its development, the work in short of a single author of more than average taste and ability. In spite, however, of Plath’s unanswerable demonstration—with one possible exception—of the integrity of the book, the allusions to Aḥiḳar as well as the didactic sections (especially 4, 12), the superficial contradictions, the use of the first person in 1:1–3:6 and the supposed irrelevancy of portions of 14 have been utilized, in the most radical manner by Erbt, to prove that Tobit in its present form is the result of a lengthy process of accretion, elaboration and chance conglomeration, and that a number of interpolations must first be removed and certain further redactional features (inserted, according to Erbt, as late as the second century a.d.) must be discarded before it is possible to make a conjectural reconstruction of the original story such as he himself attempts. Others, less radical than Erbt, find difficulties in only one or two of the following problems.

Allusions to Aḥiḳar’s history. Are these original? The discovery at Elephantine of Aḥiḳar papyri earlier than 400 b.c. has removed the a priori objection that Aḥiḳar is later than Tobit. On the contrary, if our author wrote in Egypt where Aḥiḳar was so popular, even supposing it was not elsewhere quite so well known a legend as R. Harris, Cosquin and others suppose, he might even be expected to introduce some references to the fortunes of that hero and sage, especially in view of the non-Jewish background and models of his work and of the great use he has made of Aḥiḳar’s wisdom. But 1:21 f.; 2:10; 11:18; 14:10, are all rejected by Erbt, Riggs, Müller, Smend, Toy. 14:10, however, is certainly essential to the climax of the author’s argument since it serves as a celebrated example of his dictum that divine justice always triumphs. That much is admitted by Reinach, who, unlike Ilgen, regards all the other allusions as spurious and supposes that the story of Aḥiḳar was originally a Babylonian solar myth of essentially polytheistic colouring. Moreover, Müller and Smend, who like Ilgen, and in opposition to Reinach, find most difficulty in 14:10, admit that all the passages, though interpolations, were very early accretions to the text, in fact pre-Christian. It is only the earliest versions and recensions which preserve the tradition, the later ones tending more and more to misunderstand, confuse or omit the names. Thus Rs is clearest (as Erbt acknowledges more than once); Rv has partly lost the point of the references, conjectured Haman and preserved a somewhat corrupt text; Ar M. omitted it altogether; S has suffered textual corruption; F has conjectured Aaron. V, avowedly useless for textual criticism, so far supports the interpolatory theory (except in 11:181) that Erbt yields to the temptation to gain support for his hypothesis by entering a special plea on behalf of Jerome’s superiority to the uncials in this particular!

The Didactic Sections. Erbt and Riggs, consistently with their rejection of the allusions to the history of Aḥiḳar, endeavour to set aside also the allusions to the wisdom of Aḥikar, particularly 4:6b–19a. Toy holds that both 4 and 12 are the insertions of the late editor. But א’s omission of 4:6b–19a, to which Erbt appeals, does not support the interpolatory hypothesis (see note ad loc.). Moreover, the parenetic contents of these verses, to which Erbt demurs as unsuitable to and disturbing the context, are justified by the situation—Tobit believes himself to be dying and desires to communicate to his son the wisdom he himself has acquired that it may help Tobias on his journey to Media and throughout his life. Verses 12 and 13 have special reference to the immediate problems of that journey, and are therefore carefully marked off from the rest by a freer rhythm.

The Dog. That the references to this animal as the companion of the wayfarers were made by the author, not by an interpolator, is attested not simply by their presence in Rs, but also from their vicissitudes in the various recensions and versions. 6:2 (1) is possibly the allusion to which suspicion might most easily attach itself, for Rv omitted it. He did so, however, simply because the sentence seemed tautologous. He introduces it without prejudice in 5:17 (16) and 11:4. In the latter case an original kn (= κύων) preserved in L’s version of Rs has accidentally become k~ (= Κύριος) in א, whereas Semitic prejudice and Jewish legalism reasserted itself in Ar followed by M, though in F the ancient tradition returned. That Rv copied from Rs and not Rs from Rv is shown conclusively in 11:4, where the former retained the συνῆλθεν, though he omitted its complement αὐτοῖς. Rc removed the clause back to 11a (?), made the dog run before the party (cf. et quasi nuntius adveniens V), and reintroduced him, 5:9, where blandimento suae caudae gaudebat was added in V. Were Löhr2 right in regarding τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτῆς of א as a corrupt anticipatory dittography from 5:5 and in reading αὐτῶν for αὐτοῦ καί, Rs would still be prior to Rv. But even if Rv were the earlier, the dog could only be the work of the author, not an interpolator.

Internal Contradictions and Signs of Non-unity. (1) In the Introduction (1:3–3:17) and Conclusion certain difficulties of this nature have led to the denial of the originality or genuineness of these sections either as a whole or in part. The change, however, from the narration in the first person in 1:1–3:6 to that in the third in the subsequent chapters is not inexplicable. It was necessitated by the summary of Sarah’s previous history (3:7–15) and the author’s desire to paint in his own inimitable manner the contrast between the reader on the one hand, who has been initiated into the intentions of the merciful Providence (3:16 f.), and the heroes of the story on the other hand, who can only ‘walk by faith’. The author has lessened the harshness of the transition by the insertion of Tobit’s preparatory prayer (3:1–6). Moreover, Plath quite pertinently3 points to similar alternations of third and first persons in the Aramaic Aḥiḳar and the Acts of the Apostles. Again, if 1:6 seems to contradict 1:14 it is only because ‘the individual interest is stronger than the interest in the harmony of the parts’ (Plath), while the contradictions between 1:20 and 2:1 f. are merely superficial. Nor is there any internal contradiction in either Rs or Rv as to the duration of Tobit’s blindness.4 Finally, the style of 14 is in no way different from that of the preceding chapters, and its thought and contents (including v. 10) are sufficiently akin to the rest of the book to allow of its originality, unless indeed a priori presuppositions of the way in which the book should end are allowed undue weight. From the fact that two proper names of an Aramaic form (14:10) point to an Aramaic original, it cannot be logically argued, as is done in the Ency. Brit.11, that the chapter is later than the rest of the book! True, Ar. and M betray no knowledge of it, but that is due to intentional and conscious omission in their common ancestor, the purpose of which is as clear as their dogmatic modifications of ch. 13.

(2) In the central portion of the book. The inconsistency of 6:17 (16) and 5:13 (12) is due to Raphael’s increasing anxiety for the consummation of the marriage in reaction from Tobit’s disinclination to espouse Sarah. Müller, who supposes that the exorcism of the demon by prayer (8:4–8) is a later feature of the story than that by magic, has examined the alleged contradictions involved in the various references to the fatal results of Sarah’s previous espousals. If Raguel had acted illegally in giving his daughter successively to seven men on whom he had no right to bestow her, Raguel himself should have paid the penalty, 6:13 (12), whereas Raguel himself survived, but the seven were slain in satisfaction not of Jahveh’s just wrath but of a demon’s lust. Raguel anticipated that the same fate awaited Tobias, though he was confessedly the preordained husband for Sarah. Raphael, like Tobias, foresaw danger only to Tobias, not to Raguel, since if the latter alone had been expected to suffer, Sarah and Tobias would have escaped and inherited Raguel’s fortune at once. These inconsistencies after all are only superficial and result from the author’s attempt—on the whole admirably carried out—to utilize demon-possession, like other ideas he had derived from his sources, in order to inculcate the importance of obeying the law and preserving the purity of Jewish marriages. It is in this connexion, however, that Müller1 discusses another problem which has a more serious bearing upon the purpose and date of the book (see pp. 183 f.) as well as upon its integrity. In 3:17 Sarah states that her father has no near relative whose offspring she is bound to marry, but in 7:2–9 her parents have not forgotten Tobit’s existence. Tobit has no premonition of the happy duty of marrying his relative Sarah in store for Tobias, contenting himself with the general statement of 4:12, whereas in 6:10(9)–18(17) Raphael is aware not only of the relationship but of Sarah’s legal obligations to marry Tobias, and the latter shows no surprise, if he is not in fact already as well aware of it as Raphael, and only shrinks from the dangers it involves to his own person. There is the further difficulty that, in spite of 6:13 (12), 7:12 (13), Holy Writ nowhere commands ‘agnatic’ marriages, i.e. marriages within the particular family or tribe of the contracting parties as opposed to inter-tribal unions. The case is not covered by Num. 27:1–11, 23, which at the best was only theoretical and dealt only with the case of heiresses owning landed property in Palestine. Even Tobit’s reference to the patriarch’s action (4:12) rests not upon Genesis but on traditions in vogue in the earlier post-exilic period such as Jubilees has preserved. Müller therefore supposes—and it is an exceedingly happy supposition—that the author sought to inculcate not tribal as opposed to inter-tribal, but Jewish as opposed to Jewish-pagan marriages. Sarah’s seven former husbands were slain because they were pagans, but Tobias had a right superior to that of any other possible suitor at the moment, because he was the only Jew in the neighbourhood. Thus ἀδελφός in this book properly means a brother Jew, ἀδελφή = a term of endearment for the only legal wife a Jew may have, i.e. a Jewess,2 7:15 (16), 8:4, γένος = kindred, not in the narrower sense of tribal relationship but with the wider connotation of the Jewish nation, e.g. in 1:17, τινὰ τῶν ἐκ τοῦ ἔθνους μου can only be intended as a synonym for, not as an antithesis to, τοῖς ἐκ τοῦ γένους μου in 5:16. The example of the patriarchs is quoted in 4:12 not to inculcate their marriage with near relatives as such, but to exemplify by the fact that their wives were near relatives how careful to avoid marriage with non-Jewesses were these patriarchs, the ‘fathers of old time’ (4:12) of the whole Hebrew race. Attractive as Müller’s theory is, and though successfully explaining the apparent contradictions of the story, it is not entirely supported by any version or recension. Müller falls back on an eclectic text, the result of the rejection of all readings of Rs, Rv, and Rc which militate against his theory. This procedure presupposes that each and all of these revisions embodies an attempt (only partially successful in each case) to transform a story, originally inculcating only Jewish marriages, into one advocating agnatic marriages. But could all these revisions possibly have shared this purpose in common? Certainly they could have done if—an impossible condition—they could all be proved to have been made before the irksome duty of agnatic marriage was annulled in the first century b.c. Whereas those revisions which were made after that date—i.e. at least two of them (irrespective of the rival merits of Rs and Rv)—if they made any alterations at all, would tend to obscure and remove the agnatic motif; Müller (p. 7, note 4) admits that Rc actually did so in 6:16 in deference to Rs. Hence the agnatic interest must have figured to some extent in the original story, probably, however, only in the half-hearted way in which it appears in Rs. The author’s advice might be summed up: At all costs marry Jewesses of the purest possible descent, like the patriarchs; marry your own sisters or cousins, if no other Jewesses are available.