viii. 2, 3) show that belief in the activity of demons had begun to

assume a position of considerable importance in popular superstition.

This comparison between the religious standpoint of the writer of Tobit and that of Ben-Sira shows that there is much affinity between the two, and leads to the conclusion that, in the main, though not in all respects, both belong to the same school of thought. We have seen that Ben-Sira represented the point of view of those who may be regarded as the precursors of what developed into the Sadducæan party after the Maccabæan struggle. The writer of the Book of Tobit approximates to this standpoint upon the whole, though in some respects he inclines to other directions. Loyalty to the Law and belief in Providence, as we have pointed out in another chapter, are not incompatible with the Sadducæan position; the prominent stress laid on almsgiving and its efficacy (iv. 10, xii. 9) does not differ from the teaching of Ben-Sira on the subject. In his universalistic attitude, though like Ben-Sira an ardent Israelite, the writer of Tobit follows in the teaching of the greatest prophets, and in this differs fundamentally from the standpoint of those who, later, developed into the party of the Pharisees. That there is no teaching on the resurrection in passages where one would justly look for it had such a doctrine been held, points in the same direction.

On the other hand, the developed teaching on the transcendental character of God, the angelology and demonology, and the slight indications of the beginning of eschatological teaching, point away from the position indicated. This fact is full of interest as showing that prior to the Maccabæan struggle no hard and fast lines were drawn between different schools of thought, although definite tendencies were distinctly observable. We are inclined to see in the writer of the Book of Tobit a thinker whose natural tendency was to follow in the wake of the old conservative school, but who was not uninfluenced by the rising thought of the Apocalyptists (see xiii. 1-18, xiv. 3-7), and who felt that much of what was taught by the _Chassidim_ was of permanent value. In _Chassidism_ were contained the germs[387] of what before long developed into the Apocalyptic Movement and Pharisaism; as long as these only remained tendencies there was nothing fundamentally antagonistic in either, and in the writer of the Book of Tobit we see this exemplified. This helps us, by the way, to understand why we find later specifically apocalyptic _traits_ in Pharisaic teaching, and specifically Pharisaic _traits_ in Apocalyptic teaching; and this in spite of the pronounced antagonism which in course of time arose between the two. This fact is to be explained not so much on the assumption that one influenced the other, as that both descended from the same ancestor, viz. _Chassidism_.

V. THE DATE OF THE BOOK, ITS INTEGRITY, AND PLACE OF ORIGIN

From what has just been said we are led to the conclusion that our book belongs to the same period as that of Ecclesiasticus, though perhaps slightly later in that period than the latter book. Its doctrinal standpoint, like that of Ecclesiasticus, is pre-Maccabæan. That there is not the slightest reference to the Maccabæan struggle points in the same direction. Various reasons, some of them rather forced, have been put forward to show that the book is of much later date, others to prove that it is much earlier; but we feel convinced that the surest guide to the date of a Jewish book written between those two great historical landmarks, the time of Ezra and the beginning of the Christian era, is its doctrinal standpoint.[388] This, taken as a whole, can in the case of our book only point to a time previous to the Maccabæan struggle; for, after this, parties antagonistic to each other became definitely formed, and such an attitude as that of the writer of the Book of Tobit was then unthinkable; he must then have been either a Sadducee or a Pharisee or an Apocalyptist (Essenism does not come into consideration here), whereas, in point of fact, he shows a mixture of all three tendencies. The book is not necessarily later than Ecclesiasticus, for although it does in some respects show a development of doctrine it is quite possible for contemporaries to be in substantial agreement and yet for one to hold slightly more advanced views on certain points than another. Our book may thus be assigned to a date not much later than B.C. 175 and not earlier than B.C. 190.

A careful study of the book shows no reason for questioning its integrity; the author has obviously utilized different materials in composing his story, but apart from minor details, his composition has not been added to by other writers.

The place of origin of the book cannot be decided with any certainty; it lies between Palestine and Egypt, though the balance of probability points to the latter. The book was written for the Jews of the Dispersion; this is clear from such words as the following:

Give thanks unto Him before the Gentiles, ye children of Israel, For He hath scattered you among them, And there He hath shown you His greatness; And extol ye Him before all the living (xiii. 3, 4),

and the writer himself says he is in captivity in xiii. 6:

I, in the land of my captivity, give Him thanks.

That this land cannot be either the Far East, Persia, Assyria, Babylonia, or Media, as has been held by different scholars, is shown by Simpson, who says that “such surmises are, at the outset, negatived by the author’s ignorance of Eastern geography and his acceptance of the ordinary standards of Greek and Roman geographies. That the Tigris flowed between Nineveh and Media was an idea common among the Greeks; that Ecbatana was situated in a plain was a constant Western fallacy, and is repeated in Diodorus ii. 13, 6, in a passage dependent on Ctesias.”[389] Another, apparently small, point also suggests Egypt; it is said in vi. 3 that “a great fish leaped up out of the water, and would have swallowed the foot of the young man ...”; no ordinary fish would do this kind of thing, it points rather to a crocodile of the Nile, and this was probably in the writer’s mind; “this conjecture,” in the words of Robertson Smith, “is raised almost to certainty when we read in Kazwini i. 132 that the smell of the smoke of a crocodile’s liver cures epilepsy, and that its dung and gall cure leucoma, which was the cause of Tobit’s blindness. Very similar statements as to the medicinal virtues of the crocodile occur in Greek and Latin writers.”[390]

Further, the sources utilized by the writer of the book suggest Egypt as the place of its origin; “only Egyptian Jews could need an antidote to the _Tractate of Khons_,” and this seems to have been one main purpose of the book.[391] Finally, if, as seems upon the whole probable, the book was originally written in Greek, a further reason for regarding Egypt as its original home is offered. Some scholars are strong advocates of a Semitic (Hebrew or Aramaic) original, but to give details of the reasons for either contention would involve technicalities which would be inappropriate here. It must suffice to say that the Greek as a whole does not read like a translation, whatever may be the case in isolated instances. If one reads the Greek of Ecclesiasticus, which is admittedly a translation, and compares it with that of the Book of Tobit, the difference is enormous, and forces one to believe that if Tobit was originally written in Hebrew or Aramaic, its Greek form must be not a translation, but a paraphrase.[392]

It is, however, quite possible that the home of the writer was Palestine, and that for some reason or other he was compelled to spend some considerable time in Egypt. Ben-Sira’s grandson, who was evidently a native of Palestine, came into Egypt and continued there and issued his grandfather’s book in a Greek form while living there. On the supposition that the writer of Tobit was a native of Palestine sojourning in Egypt the Aramaic traits in his book could be explained in a quite natural way.

VI. THE VALUE OF THE BOOK FOR NEW TESTAMENT STUDY

There are a few passages in the Book of Tobit which, on being compared with similar ones in the Gospels, illustrate the truth that Christ inculcated much of the teaching of Judaism with which His hearers were already familiar, and which therefore had His approval. In iv. 8, 9 we read: “As thy substance is, give alms of it according to thine abundance; if thou have much, according to the abundance therefore give alms; if thou have little, bestow it, and be not afraid to give alms according to that little; for thou layest up a good treasure for thyself against the day of necessity.” The spirit of this teaching is endorsed, but made more spiritual, in the familiar words of Matthew vi. 19-21: “Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the earth ... but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven ... for where thy treasure is, there will thy heart be also.” An even more pointed illustration is seen on comparing Tobit xii. 8-10 with Matthew vi. 1-6; the former runs: “Better is prayer with truth, and alms with righteousness, than riches with unrighteousness; it is better to give alms than to lay up gold ...”; in Matthew vi. 1-6 almsgiving and prayer are likewise placed together, only here again the teaching is fuller and deeper. Again, in Tobit iv. 15 it is said: “What thou thyself hatest, do to no man”; this negative injunction is put positively in Matthew vii. 12: “All things therefore whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them” (cp. Luke vi. 31). Once more, in Tobit iv. 16 the command is given: “Give of thy bread to the hungry, and of thy garments to them that are naked”; this reminds one irresistibly of Matthew xxv. 35, 36: “I was an hungred, and ye gave me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took me in; naked, and ye clothed me....”

That St. Paul was well acquainted with the Book of Tobit, and was influenced by it, seems to come out clearly in some passages in his epistles; thus the words in 2 Corinthians ix. 9, “Let each man do according as he hath purposed in his heart; not grudgingly or of necessity,” echo what is said in Tobit iv. 7, 16, “As thy substance is ...” (quoted above) and in verse 16: “Let not thine eye be grudging when thou givest alms” (cp. 1 Cor. xvi. 2, 2 Cor. viii. 12). Although the identical injunction is given in Tobit iv. 12_a_ and 1 Thessalonians iv. 3, and in Tobit iv. 15_b_ and Ephesians v. 18, they do not necessarily imply that St. Paul was indebted to this book for them because they are so general in character. On the other hand, the thought in Romans vi. 23, “For the wages of sin is death,” seems to be derived from Tobit xii. 10: “They that commit sin and unrighteousness are enemies to their own life.” In the first epistle to Timothy the influence of our book may also be discerned in a few cases; thus, in vi. 6 the words, “But godliness with contentment is great gain,” are in their essence closely analogous to what is written in Tobit iv. 21: “And fear not, my child, because we have become poor; thou hast much wealth, if thou fear God and avoid every kind of sin, and do the things which are good in the sight of the Lord thy God.” In the same way, the passage already quoted, Tobit iv. 9, “... for thou layest up a good treasure for thyself against the day of necessity,” is spiritualized in 1 Timothy vi. 19: “... laying up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on the life which is life indeed.” It is also worth mentioning that the expression “King eternal” in 1 Timothy i. 17 occurs also in Tobit xiii. 6.

In a few other passages identity of thought and verbal similarities are of interest: the combination of good works and almsdeeds is found in Tobit i. 3 and Acts ix. 36; in Tobit xii. 12 the words, “I did bring the memorial of your prayer before the glory of the Lord,” reminds one forcibly of Acts x. 4: “Thy prayers and thine alms are gone up for a memorial before God.” The idea of binding the devil occurs both in Tobit viii. 3 and Revelation xx. 2, and the description of the new Jerusalem in Tobit xiii. 16-18 has some distinct points of similarity with the fuller picture given in Revelation xxi. 10-21.

In most of the cases given above the verbal similarity is more striking when read in the original Greek.