TOBIT, BOOK OF tō’ bĭt (Βίβλος λόγων Τωβίτ). One of the books contained in MSS of the LXX, but is lacking in the Heb. Bible and accordingly finds a place among the books of the Apoc. In the Vul. and the Roman Catholic Bible—Tobit, Judith, and Esther form a trio that follows the last of the historical books Nehemiah.

1. Content. The book presents a charming tale in which beauty, suspense, and moral truth are interwoven in a most pleasing fashion, causing Tobit to become one of the most popular of the books of the Apoc. in the history of the Church. The story is set in the times of the Assyrian captivity and concerns the fortunes of a certain Tobit and his son Tobias. The following outline may be suggested:

Tobit was a devout Israelite of the tribe of Naphtali. He often went to Jerusalem to worship and regularly gave three tenths of his produce to the Temple and other good causes. This righteous man, however, like Job, appears to receive only misfortune in return for his piety. He and his family are deported to Nineveh as captives of the Assyrians, but unlike the other exiles they continue to adhere to the strict dietary regulations of the law. Temporarily, Tobit is the recipient of good fortune as one of Shalmaneser’s stewards. During this period, Tobit judiciously entrusted a large sum of his money to a friend in Media. Tobit continued to live a pious life, doing deeds of charity to his brethren, and particularly in giving proper burial to a number of the Jews who were slaughtered by the Assyrian kings. The latter activity of Tobit became known to Sennacherib, and Tobit was forced to flee for his life, leaving behind all his property and wealth. Tobit, however, continued in his acts of righteousness, and on one occasion buried the body of a Jewish brother only to receive a cruel reimbursement. Having become unclean through his contact with the dead body, he was forced to sleep outside where his face became accidentally dirtied by sparrow droppings, which got into his eyes and caused a blindness that physicians were powerless to cure. Like the wife of Job, Tobit’s wife ultimately cries out the complaint of her frustration, “Where are your charities and your righteous deeds?” (2:14). Thereupon Tobit prays in anguish of soul that his life might be taken, for he is convinced that it is better to die than to live under the present reproaches (3:6). At that same moment some distance away, the same prayer was being uttered by Sarah the daughter of a certain Raguel who happened to be a close kinsman of Tobit. Sarah had the misfortune of being loved by the demon Asmodeus who had slain no less than seven husbands of Sarah, each on the very night of their wedding before the marriage could be consummated. Sarah was subject to accusations and reproaches, and in her despair she even contemplated suicide (3:10). At this point the stage is set for the main action of the story. God sends his angel Raphael to answer the respective prayers of Tobit and Sarah—not by bringing death, but by bringing happiness to all concerned, thus underlining the goodness of His providence.

The denouement is initiated by Tobit’s decision to inform Tobias about the money he had deposited with his friend in Media some years earlier. Taking opportunity of the occasion to impart some very excellent instruction in righteousness (ch. 4), Tobit informs Tobias concerning the money and the decision is taken to send Tobias in quest of it. A suitable traveling companion is needed, however, and Tobias chances upon one Azarias who is well-qualified and who in reality is the disguised Raphael. Despite the protestations of Tobias’ mother, Anna, the pair set out on their adventuresome journey accompanied, as the narrator quaintly notes, by young Tobias’ dog. Camping on the banks of the Tigris that night, Tobias is nearly swallowed by a fish as he washes. Azarias directs Tobias to catch the fish, to cut out its heart, liver, and gall, and to store these safely among his gear. As they continue their journey, upon the questioning of Tobias, Azarias explains that the organs of the fish are particularly useful for two things: the smoke from the burning heart and liver will drive away evil spirits; and from the gall can be made a salve that will take away the white films from a blind man’s eyes (thus the reader is made aware of the direction the story will take). Azarias tells Tobias that he is to take Sarah as his wife. Tobias, however, has already heard of Sarah’s plight and is consequently not at all eager to follow the direction of Azarias. When Azarias reminds Tobias of the potency of the fish organs, Tobias’ mind is changed. The delightful meeting of Raguel and Tobias occurs next, and in due course the marriage is proposed and indeed, despite Raguel’s warning, takes place the same day. That night as the couple retire to their bed chamber, Sarah, Raguel, and his wife, Edna, are all seized with anxiety. Indeed, so pessimistic is the father that when all have retired he rises secretly and digs a grave for Tobias that he might be bu ried immediately. A maid is forthwith sent to see whether Tobias is alive or dead. Tobias, however, when he entered the bed chamber had, as directed, made a fire and placed the heart and liver of the fish on the fire, and the smoke that was produced drove out the demon as had been promised. Tobias and Sarah then had prayed together and had gone to sleep, voluntarily forgoing the consummation of their marriage. The maid found them asleep and reported to Raguel that Tobias was alive and well, upon which Raguel prays a prayer of thanksgiving.

The next day a great feast of celebration that lasted fourteen days began. Tobias sends Azarias to Media to fetch his money and to bring his father’s friend to the wedding feast. At this point the narrative returns to Nineveh and to the deep concern of Tobit and Anna at the delayed return of Tobias. Tobit believes that Tobias is well; Anna, however, insists that her boy is dead and is angry with Tobit for trying to deceive her. Meanwhile Tobias and his new wife, with half of Raguel’s wealth, accompanied by Azarias and, of course, Tobias’ dog, too, finally take their leave of Raguel and Edna. Tobias and Azarias (and the dog) run ahead of the entourage in their haste to return home. At this point the narrator says “Now Anna sat looking intently down the road for her son” (Tobit 11:5). Suddenly she catches sight of them in the distance and reports to her blind husband “Behold your son is coming.” Thereupon follows one of the most delightful reunions of lit.—there is much weeping and rejoicing, and, of course, the gall salve is applied to the father’s eyes and his blindness is removed. At the gate of Nineveh they meet Sarah and the slaves and cattle that made up part of Raguel’s gift. Another week of celebration takes place. Afterward Tobit and Tobias offer half of Raguel’s gift to the good Azarias. Azarias, however, only remarks that thanksgiving is due to God for His goodness. Then he volunteers, “I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels who present the prayers of the saints and enter into the presence of the glory of the Holy One” (12:15). They fall on their faces in fear, but Raphael says not to be afraid. He adds that he was sent by God, but was really only an apparition, and when he has directed them to write what has happened in a book, he disappears. Then follows a magnificent prayer of rejoicing, which Tobit is said to have written. The final ch. of the book is rather an ticlimactic, which gives an account of Tobit’s last words that includes a warning for his descendants to leave Nineveh because Jonah’s prophecy was going to come true. The death of Tobit and then of Anna is recorded. Tobias and his family then returned to Ecbatana, where he eventually buried both Raguel and Edna. The book ends with a notice of the death of Tobias at the age of 127 years with the note that before his death he heard of the destruction of Nineveh.

2. Historical background. The story places Tobit in the days of the Assyrian captivity and thus in the 8th cent. b.c. There are, however, a number of difficulties involved in the historical and geographical details of the book. Thus Tobit says that when he was “still a young man” the tribe of Naphtali deserted Jerusalem (1:4). This rebellion, however, seems to have occurred about 931 b.c. following the death of Solomon (cf. 1 Kings 12:16, 19), long before the time of Tobit. A more significant problem lies in the statement that it was in the days of Shalmaneser (in Tobit he is designated by the Gr. equivalent Enemessar) that Naphtali was taken into captivity (1:2). In reality, it was not Shalmaneser V who did this, but rather his predecessor Tiglath-pileser III, in about 734 b.c. (cf. 2 Kings 15:29). Sennacherib is said to have been the son of Shalmaneser and to have reigned in his place after his death (Tobit 1:15). Sennacherib, however, was really the son of Sargon II, a monarch who, although he reigned for some fifteen years, is not mentioned at all in Tobit. The reference at the end of the book to the destruction of Nineveh by Nebuchadnezzar and Ahasuerus (14:15) is erroneous, since Nineveh actually fell to Nabopolassar and the Median king Cyaxares (612 b.c.).

The geographical difficulties are also striking. In particular, it is implied that the Tigris River is E of Nineveh, some distance toward Ecbatana (6:1), whereas Nineveh itself lay on the E bank of the Tigris. Further, in one of the major recensions of the book (that of Sinaiticus and the Old Lat., followed by the Vul.) it is stated that Ecbatana is in the middle of a plain, two days journey in distance from Rages (5:6). Actually Ecbatana lies high in the mountains and is some 200 m. away from Rages.

These various discrepancies have led almost all scholars to conclude that Tobit cannot derive from the historical period it purports to be from, but instead is prob. to be dated in a much later period when the historical details of the earlier period were not so well known. Indeed, it may be that the story, despite its historical setting, is entirely fictional, although a few scholars have argued for the possibility that there is a historical kernel underlying the present book.

3. Sources. The conclusion that Tobit is a fictional rather than a historical story is confirmed to some extent by its apparent dependence upon a few well-known folk tales of the ancient world. The author of Tobit seems to have known the story of Ahikar, which recounts how Ahikar, who held office under Sennacherib and Esarhaddon, became rich only to be falsely accused by his adopted son Nadin and sentenced to death. Ahikar, however, was secretly hidden by a servant who once had also been the victim of false accusations, but who had been saved by Ahikar. Ultimately Ahikar, able to be of assistance to Esarhaddon in satisfying an unreasonable demand of Egypt, is vindicated as righteous, and avenged (see Oesterley for a fuller summary of the story). At the beginning of Tobit, Ahikar is mentioned as a very important and powerful administrator of Esarhaddon’s kingdom who happens also to be Tobit’s nephew (1:21f.). Ahikar and Nadab (one of the several slight variations of the name that occur) are said to have attended the great celebration that took place upon the return of Tobias and his new wife to Nineveh (11:18). At the end of the book, explicit allusion is made to the story of Ahikar. In his last words Tobit reminds Tobias and his grandsons about what Nadab did to Ahikar. “But Ahikar was saved, and...Nadab...perished” (14:10f.). The moral of the story as uttered by Tobit, “So now, my children, consider what almsgiving accomplishes and how righteousness delivers” (14:11), is very similar to that which concludes the story of Ahikar. In addition to the similarity of the general theme of the two books, i.e. the suffering and vindication of the righteous, there are a number of striking parallels among the wisdom sayings (see Oesterley for examples).

A second story that may have been known to the author of Tobit is that which, although occurring in a variety of forms, is known generally as the “Fable of the Grateful Dead.” The basic theme of the story concerns the return of a dead man’s spirit in human form to reward in various ways (including the bestowal of a bride) the man who had at no small sacrifice gone out of his way to give proper burial to the dead man’s corpse. In some versions of the story, the righteous man is advised by the embodied spirit to marry a certain rich young woman (sometimes said to be a princess) whose several husbands have all died on their wedding night as the result of a serpent which dwelt within her. The righteous man is aided by his benefactor in subduing the serpent and winning the woman. Usually also included in these stories is the ultimate revelation of the true identity of the benefactor. Although the actual story of Tobit is somewhat different, a number of its motifs are similar to this fable, e.g. Tobit’s concern with proper burial of the dead; the appearance of a spirit (in this case, angel) in human form; the rewarding of Tobit’s righteousness; the bestowal of a bride upon Tobias; the subjugation of the demon; the revealing of Raphael. The author of Tobit appears to have used the various motifs while transmuting the basic narrative by virtue of his own Jewish viewpoint.

One further source has been suggested as possibly drawn upon by our author. The Egyp. Tractate of Khôns speaks of the exorcism of a young demon-possessed princess by Khôns, deity of Thebes, and to that extent parallels the victory won over Sarah’s demon in Tobit. However, the parallel is too general to be impressive, and although it has been argued that Tobit was written to counteract the Egyp. story, the contention is too closely tied to an (not at all certain) Egyp. provenance to be regarded as convincing.

Further parallels to Tobit can be drawn from the vast field of folk lit. (see Zimmermann for examples), but it is unlikely that any additional dependence can be established as probable.

4. Language, place of origin and date. Prior to the discovery of the DSS, scholars tended to favor the conjecture that Tobit was written originally in Gr. Among the Dead Sea materials, however, fragments of Tobit in Heb. and Aram. have been found, arguing for the probability of a Sem. original.

No consensus exists, however, with regard to the provenance of Tobit. Three important locations have been suggested for the composition of the book: Mesopotamia, Egypt, and Palestine. The book itself naturally assumes a Mesopotamian origin. The story takes place in Mesopotamia and reveals a number of Pers. influences, esp. in the areas of angelology and demonology (cf. the demon’s name, Asmodeus [3:8], which is of Pers. origin). Even in such a minor detail as the occasional reference to Tobias’ dog, Pers. influence has been detected, since in Zoroastrianism the dog is regarded as sacred whereas in Judaism the dog is generally despised. However, because of the author’s apparent ignorance of the geography of the area (see above), some have preferred Egypt as the place of origin of the book. In addition to the possible dependence of Tobit on the Tractate of Khôns, Tobit may reflect a knowledge of Egyp. magic that was able to effect cures employing certain organs of the fish. It has even been suggested that the “fish” that nearly swallowed Tobias (6:2) was in reality a crocodile. Moreover, when the demon is finally driven out of Sarah, he is said to have fled “to the remotest parts of Egypt” (8:3), which could possibly be an unconscious indication of the book’s place of origin. Despite apparent indications that the book originated in Diaspora Judaism, this is by no means a necessary conclusion. Indeed, the discovery of Aram. and Heb. fragments of Tobit at Qumran may perhaps add some plausibility to the conjectures of a few scholars that the book originated in Pal. The religious teaching of the book might favor this viewpoint to some extent (its tenor is similar to that of Ecclesiasticus), but at the same time the exilic sympathies of the book cannot be doubted. In sum, the evidence—internal and external—is so insubstantial that although plausible arguments for several places of origin may be put forward, their truth cannot finally be determined.

The date of Tobit is difficult to determine. Some Rom. Catholic scholars have dated the book as early as the 7th cent. b.c., but a number of difficulties militate against this conclusion. Serious historical blunders (see above) suggest that the author was removed from this period by a considerable space of time. Further, unless we are predisposed to allow that the story is literally true or that the author had the gift of prophecy, he betrays an awareness of events (e.g. the fall of Nineveh and Jerusalem, the return from the Captivity, and the rebuilding of the Temple; cf. 14:4f.) that took place long after this time. On the other hand, there is no trace of a knowledge of the Maccabean revolt on the part of the author. These facts indicate the likelihood that the book dates from the period between the approximate beginning of the 4th cent. and approximate end of the 3rd cent. b.c. The majority of scholars favor the end of this period, a date of approximately 200 b.c. or shortly thereafter. Whereas this date cannot be established beyond question, it most successfully accounts for the various data available from internal evidence.

It goes without saying that nothing is known of the actual author of the book, except that he was certainly a devout champion of pietistic Judaism.

5. Purpose and theological teaching. If it is correct to assume that the story contained in Tobit is not historical, but rather the fictional composition of an author who made use of contemporary folk legend(s), what may be said of his purpose in publishing the book known to us as Tobit? The story indeed is only a vehicle used by the author in propagating a religious message concerning the importance of right conduct and the faithfulness of God in turn. Of central importance in the author’s world are the observance of the law and the performance of deeds of charity. Chapter 4 in its entirety is given over to ethical exhortation put in the mouth of Tobit in preparation for Tobias’ journey. This exhortation as well as the aphoristic material found throughout the book may be fairly taken as addressed by the author to his readers. This material, however, is only incidental to the actual plot of the book. Directly underlying the plot is a theme that it was also the author’s purpose to convey: Despite all appearances, in times of blackness God’s providence is at work, assuring that everything ultimately will work out to the good of the righteous involved. The righteousness of the main characters of the drama, their prayers and exhortations, were meant to serve as a pattern of conduct for the writer’s contemporaries. Second, and perhaps more important, the experience of these characters—particularly Tobit and Sarah, who are in despair at the opening of the story—is meant to serve as an impetus toward hope in the midst of trying circumstances (such as one might well expect to find in the period leading up to the revolt of the Maccabees) that faced the first readers of the story.

Tobit is important for the light it sheds on Jewish piety of the intertestamental period. The theological stance of its author is rather similar to that of the early Pharisaism of the post-Maccabean age, with the exception that Tobit knows nothing of the resurrecton of the dead (rewards and punishments are received in the present life). This is to say that Tobit presents an attractive picture of Jewish piety at its best. The author was, of course, greatly influenced by the OT. Indeed, a large number of parallels to OT passages (esp. the Pentateuch, but elsewhere as well) may be indicated, some of these being close enough to be designated paraphrase or near quotation (e.g. compare Tobit 3:10; 6:15 and Gen 42:38; 44:29, 31; Tobit 4:14 and Lev 19:13; Tobit 8:6 and Gen 2:18; Tobit 7:3f. and Gen 29:4ff.; Tobit 4:10; 12:9; and Prov 10:2; 11:4). The prayers of the book, of great devotional beauty and theological depth, are worth study in themselves. Therein God is recognized as one whose majesty and power are beyond measure. Indeed, such is His transcendence in the author’s view that the mediation of angels assumes a role of importance in the efficacy of prayers (cf. 12:15). Tobit’s concern with angels and demons is important for illustrating how belief in them flourished during the intertestamental period. The prayer by Tobit in ch. 13 refers to future (eschatological?) events that include a large-scale return to Jerusalem, the participation of Gentile nations in worship there, and a magnificent rebuilding of the Temple. The predominant emphasis is on the present fulfillment of righteousness. Temple worship and religion at the personal level are magnified. Emphasis falls upon tithing and almsgiving, but also upon care for the dead, and proper observance of food and marriage regulations. Large place is given to personal virtue, both in the story and in the accompanying exhortation. Perhaps most impressive of all in this connection is the presence of the golden rule in its negative form: “and what you hate, do not do to any one” (4:15). It has been pointed out that the book encompasses the “three Pillars of Judaism”: prayer, almsgiving, and fasting (cf. 12:8). The genius of Tobit, however, is found in the completely successful combination of the ethical teaching with the narrative of the story itself. Where there is righteousness, God will act mercifully on behalf of His servants. This truth, indeed, is uttered as the last words of the dying Tobit, a conclusion that may be regarded as the moral of the whole story: “So now, my children, consider what almsgiving accomplishes and how righteousness delivers” (14:11).

6. Text and canonicity. The textual history of Tobit is very complex and reflects what must have been an early and widespread popularity. The Gr. text of the book has survived in no less than three distinct recensions, although the third finds only partial witness. These are (1) Codex Aleph (2) Codices B and A, and (3) a few minuscule MSS (44, 106, 107, according to the numbering of Holmes and Parsons) in 6:8-13:8, but which otherwise reflect the text of recension (2). A large number of VSS are extant, representing each of the three recensions, and in more than one instance VSS in the same language reflect different recensions. For recension (1) Old Lat., the Vul., Aram., and Heb. VSS are available. Recension (2) is represented by Syriac, Coptic (Sahidic), Hebrew, Ethiopic, and Armenian VSS. The third recension is not available in its entirety, either in its “major” Gr. witnesses or in the VSS. It is clear, however, that a full third recension existed from its presence in a Syriac VS from 7:9 to the end of the book, and also from a papyrus fragment in Gr. from Oxyrhynchus that contains a portion of 2:2-8. The third recension seems clearly to be the latest of the three, often combining the readings of the two earlier recensions by way of mediation. It is interesting, however, that a reading of this recension (12:8) appears to be quoted in that writing of the apostolic fathers known as 2 Clement (16:4), although this cannot be taken as evidence for an early date of the recension as a whole. More interesting is the relationship between the first two recensions. The numerous similarities may possibly be the result of interdependence, but a number of conspicuous differences seem to suggest that the similarities may instead be due to the common use of a prior (original?) ed. The first recension as found in Aleph is considerably longer than the second recension, yet omits two important sections (4:1b-18; 13:8-11a) as well as several lesser ones that are preserved in the latter. These omissions in Aleph, however, are prob. fortuitous since other early witnesses to the same recension, notably the Old Lat. and one of the Qumran fragments, contain the missing material. Since the first recension is so much longer than the second, it is arguable that it is a later expansion of the latter. Nevertheless, it is also possible that the second recension (i.e., that found in B and A) is a later reduction of the first recension. This conclusion finds support, for many of the differences of the second recension are accountable as improvements and alterations incorporating or reflecting a later viewpoint. Indeed, it is generally conceded that the first recension (Aleph) is the earliest of the two, since its style is clearly more Sem., and thus presumably closer to the original. This is confirmed to a considerable extent by the fact that the Aram. and Heb. fragments found at Qumran reflect the text of the first recension. The two main recensions of the Gr. text are generally both available in the standard printed edd. of the LXX.

Tobit is received as canonical in the Roman Catholic Church following the decision concerning apocryphal books taken at the Council of Trent in the 16th cent. Consequently Tobit and Judith take their place beside the OT book of Esther in the Rom. Catholic Bible. Despite its popularity in Jewish circles, the book was never included in the Heb. Bible. Finding a place in the LXX, however, the book was known and used by the Early Church. Eventually, it became clear that the book was inferior in status compared to those of the Heb. canon. Jerome’s view was that the book was valuable to read, but was not to be reckoned as a part of the canonical Scriptures. In the Protestant Bible, Tobit is relegated to the Apocrypha where it follows 1 and 2 Esdras. The Eng. VSS generally follow the recension represented by B and A rather than that of Aleph and the Vulgate.

Bibliography D. C. Simpson in R. H. Charles, APOT, I (1913), 174-241; W. O. E. Oesterley, The Books of the Apocrypha (1915), 349-371; C. C. Torrey, “‘Nineveh’ in the Book of Tobit” JBL XLI (1922), 237-245; M. Bévenot, “The Primitive Book of Tobit” BS LXXXIII (1926) 55-84; E. J. Goodspeed, The Story of the Apocrypha (1939), 13-19; R. H. Pfeiffer, History of New Testament Times with an Introduction to the Apocrypha (1949), 258-284; B. M. Metzger, An Introduction to the Apocrypha (1957), 31-41; F. Zimmermann, The Book of Tobit (1958); J. T. Milik, Ten Years of Discovery in the Wilderness of Judaea (1959), 31; T. F. Glasson, “The Main Source of Tobit” ZAW LXXI (1959), 275-277; L. H. Brockington, A Critical Introduction to the Apocrypha (1961), 33-39; O. Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (1965), 583-585; R. K. Harrison, Introduction to the Old Testament (1969), 1208-1213.