Tobit: A Comparison

  • Thread starter Thread starter patrick457
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
patrick457: which translation of Tobit do you think is best? Some people I have read think that St. Jerome just made up the part of the dog wagging his tail. Do you think that St. Jerome had a manuscript that mentioned the wagging of the tail?
All we can say is “maybe or maybe not,” because we don’t have the exact version he was translating from to check. It could be that particular version, it could be the bilingual translator, or it could be St. Jerome. In any case, that little detail about the dog is very realistic and homey image.
On thing I’ve wondered is whether the Nova Vulgata included the dog wagging his tail?
Short answer: no.
 
Is Tobit chronologically Greek 1st or Hebrew 1st or Arameic 1st?

peace
 
Is Tobit chronologically Greek 1st or Hebrew 1st or Arameic 1st?

peace
Tobit was originally written in a Semitic language. Before the Qumran fragments were discovered and published, the general idea was that the language of composition was Aramaic, either in dependence to the testimony of St. Jerome and Origen (both of whom denied the existence of a Hebrew version in their days) or on Neubauer’s publication of a medieval Aramaic Tobit or on Milik’s reports that Aramaic texts of Tobit were found in Cave 4. (Milik himself believed that the original language was Aramaic, and claimed while he was still piecing the fragments that “a preliminary investigation suggests that Aramaic was the original language of the book.”) Since their publication however, the debate about whether Tobit was written in Hebrew or Aramaic is engaged anew. The fact that there are more copies of Tobit in Aramaic, all of which are older than the one Hebrew text, might suggest that it was read more often in that language than in Hebrew, but that in itself is no sign that it was written in Aramaic. So little of the Aramaic and Hebrew forms overlap that one cannot derive any certain argument from the overlaps about which might have been the original language.

Klaus Beyer in 1984 proposed that Tobit was originally written in Hebrew, and that the Aramaic texts were popular translations (targumim), even before he saw the actual fragments. He cited the presence of five Hebrew words and what for him was a couple of ‘un-Aramaic’ features, namely the use of four dots for the Tetragrammaton (4Q196 18.15an) and the phrase הא אנה hā’-’ănâ “Here I am” (lit. “Behold I,” 4Q197, fr. 4 i, line 16 [6:11]), which he takes to be a clumsy translation of the Hebrew הנני hinnēnî, of the same meaning. This identification, however, has been questioned, citing the well-known fact that Palestinian Aramaic was influenced at times by Hebrew and thus the presence of three out of the five claimed Hebrew words, while not attested in contemporary texts, is not automatically a proof of a Hebrew original. Out of the two remaining ‘Hebraisms’, one (קרא qara’ “call!” 4Q196 12.1 [5:9]) is also a normal Aramaic word, and the other (משףחתי “my family,” from משפחה mišpaḥah, 4Q196 2.9 [3:22]) is also used in free composition in the late Aramaic form of the Testament of Levi (11th century, Bodleian Library, MS. Heb. c. 27, fol. 56) found in the Cairo Genizah. Besides, the Hebrew version itself contains Aramaic words, and itself seems to read very much (although this is far from certain) like a translation from Aramaic.

As for the expression hā’-’ănâ, this is apparently an instance of the use of a biblical expression (this is the regular translation of Hebrew hinnēnî in the later Targumim) and thus is scarcely an evidence. Identifying the use of four dots for the Tetragrammaton as evidence of a Hebrew original is also questionable, since why should not an Aramaic text of Tobit use four dots as a substitute for the writing of the Tetragrammaton? This device is well known in other texts from Qumran, and may even be evidence that the Aramaic Tobit was copied in the Qumran scrollery, although we should this is only a remote possibility, given how it seems that most of the Aramaic Qumran texts were imported from elsewhere - in fact, very few sectarian writings seem to have been composed in that language. In fact, there was tendency at Qumran to translate Aramaic works into Hebrew as part of a literary and nationalist renaissance, but not vice versa.

In conclusion, the finds at Qumran did not settle the question as to whether Tobit was originally written in Aramaic or in Hebrew, although many people still consider the earlier position (Aramaic) as being more likely. We know that it was written in a Semitic language, but which language it was is still far from certain. All it tells us is that the two languages were commonly spoken and could easily exerted influence over each other at the time Tobit was being written.

BTW, here’s a nice site showing the Greek (G2), Neubauer’s Aramaic text and Hebrew translation, and the Qumran fragments (Aramaic). A nice site for anyone who can read Greek/Hebrew/Aramaic, maybe.
 
Does the Nova Vulgata use primarily Greek II or does it simply polish up Jerome?

What I’m trying to decide is who to trust more—Jerome’s translation–maybe the Knox translation–the Nova Vulgata–or other current Catholic translations of Tobit?

Which is the most accurate?
 
Does the Nova Vulgata use primarily Greek II or does it simply polish up Jerome?
This one for now. (BTW haven’t I answered this one already? :p) To summarize: the New Vulgate as far as I can tell uses Greek II. It doesn’t use Jerome’s version.
 
Which is the most accurate?
Before I answer that, let me ask you this: what do you mean by ‘accurate’? Do you mean which is the most ‘accurate’ out of all the different versions of Tobit or which is the most faithful translation of a particular version?
 
I’m probably asking an impossible to answer question.

WHOEVER wrote Tobit the FIRST time in the history of the universe was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

What did the Holy Spirit inspire them to write?

In what English translation of the Bible Is what the Holy Spirit inspired the ORIGINAL writer of Tobit to write most accurately represented?

If ALL English translations are lacking then what other language translation of Tobit is most accurate?

P.S. I DO believe what Trent said about the Vulgate is true–that it is free from error in faith and morals. I can even be persuaded that the Nova Vulgata is a more true representation of the Vulgate than the Latin translations that purport to be from Jerome’s original Vulgate.

I also have no problem with the fact that the Vulgate can be improved upon in matters not relating to doctrine and morals from original language texts. There is much of the bible that involves details that are not matters of faith or doctrine.

Having said all of that–there is no English translation bible that I can currently buy that is a translation of the Nova Vulgata.

I can buy a Douay Rheims Challoner bible that is a translation of Jerome’s Vulgate.

I can buy a Confraternity Douay bible whose Old Testament will be a translation of Jerome’s Vulgate.

But when it comes to Tobit there is a difference between Jerome’s translation and the translation of the Nova Vulgata.

If I feel that the Nova Vulgata is an improvement over Jerome’s translation IN REGARDS to the book of Tobit–which current English translation of Tobit would come CLOSEST to the Nova Vulgatga?

I firmly intend to hang on to my Douay Rheims Challoner bible because I think that OVERALL it is less INACCURATE than any bible out there.

I guess what I’m really asking is DO YOU think that there exists in English translation of the book of Tobit a translation that would be more accurate than the Douay Rheims Challoner Old Testament translation of Jerome’s Vulgate?

Convince me and I will buy it–even though I might disagree with its translation of many other parts of the bible–JUST for the sake of an accurate translation of Tobit–if its Tobit really is the best!

In that case I would use it IF ONLY for the book of Tobit!

And see all you people out there–I am not a Vulgate onlyist–like I’ve said all along–I’m for English translations of the Vulgate because up til now every English translation of the bible that I’ve ever read that was not based on the Vulgate simply wasn’t as good as an English translation based on the Vulgate!

And one last thing–if I had to bet–I don’t think that St. Jerome would MAKE UP the part about the dog wagging his tail. Whether or not the Holy Spirit inspired that detail I do not know–I just don’t believe St. Jerome would MAKE IT UP. He might have had a translation to work with that was faulty and included that detail but I do not think that St. Jerome would MAKE IT UP!

When the pope commissions you to translate the bible and when you’re a saint like Jerome–I don’t think you would just MAKE IT UP!
 
I’m probably asking an impossible to answer question.
Let me tell you something. If you’re talking with me, the last thing you should ever expect is a straight answer. Am I weird? Thank you very much.
WHOEVER wrote Tobit the FIRST time in the history of the universe was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
What did the Holy Spirit inspire them to write?
It might come as a surprise, but there was probably no original version of Tobit. Instead, we should be thinking of versions. I think I said it earlier, but the common idea today is that it is most likely that Tobit was written in Aramaic (because it was the lingua franca of the Near East at the time), with a Hebrew version being produced almost immediately afterwards (probably to give it an air of authority). These two versions were circulated simultaneously. If this scenario is really what happened, it shows that even at the beginning, you had two versions of the same text floating around at the same time. If you’ll ask me, both versions would be inspired. (But then again, I’m the type who thinks that all the different versions of the same book are inspired, in that they convey more or less the same things: I don’t hold to the idea of one version being ‘more inspired’ than the others.)
In what English translation of the Bible Is what the Holy Spirit inspired the ORIGINAL writer of Tobit to write most accurately represented?
If ALL English translations are lacking then what other language translation of Tobit is most accurate?
The question necessitates that we know what the original version(s) of Tobit was. All the Qumran fragments testify to is the very early character of the long version preserved in the Greek II and Vetus Latina versions, but not necessarily the priority of that tradition. Short of finding a text of Tobit that would even be earlier than the DSS manuscripts or building a time machine, we have no way of knowing whether the manuscripts give us the ‘original’ version of the book as published.

You see, it’s kind of like asking which textual tradition of the New Testament is ‘most accurate’, which is also ultimately an academic question: if the critical editions of the Greek NT tells you anything it is that almost no one really believes that a single text-type is “more accurate” than the others and that all those other texts could just be discarded wholesale. All versions have their particular strengths and weaknesses. Even the Alexandrian text is not considered on its own merit, under the principle of eclecticism.
P.S. I DO believe what Trent said about the Vulgate is true–that it is free from error in faith and morals. I can even be persuaded that the Nova Vulgata is a more true representation of the Vulgate than the Latin translations that purport to be from Jerome’s original Vulgate.
I also have no problem with the fact that the Vulgate can be improved upon in matters not relating to doctrine and morals from original language texts. There is much of the bible that involves details that are not matters of faith or doctrine.
Having said all of that–there is no English translation bible that I can currently buy that is a translation of the Nova Vulgata.
I can buy a Douay Rheims Challoner bible that is a translation of Jerome’s Vulgate.
I can buy a Confraternity Douay bible whose Old Testament will be a translation of Jerome’s Vulgate.
But when it comes to Tobit there is a difference between Jerome’s translation and the translation of the Nova Vulgata.
Come to think of it, I personally think that translating the Nova Vulgata is moot. I could understand translating, say, the Septuagint or the original Vulgate because they are ancient translations with a history and distinctive characteristics of their own, but in the case of a ‘modern’ version like the New Vulgate, wouldn’t it be easier to just directly translate from whatever source texts the NV is using but use the same principles that were practiced in making it?

From Wikipedia:

The foundational text of most of the Nova Vulgata’s Old Testament is the critical edition done by the monks of the Benedictine Abbey of St. Jerome under Pope St. Pius X. The foundational text of the books of Tobit and Judith are from manuscripts of the Vetus Latina rather than the Vulgate. The New Testament was based on the 1969 edition of the Stuttgart Vulgate. All of these base texts were revised to accord with the modern critical editions in Greek, Hebrew, and Aramaic. There are also a number of changes where the modern scholars felt that Jerome had failed to grasp the meaning of the original languages, or had rendered it obscurely.
If I feel that the Nova Vulgata is an improvement over Jerome’s translation IN REGARDS to the book of Tobit–which current English translation of Tobit would come CLOSEST to the Nova Vulgatga?
There is, as of yet, still no English translation of the Vetus Latina version of Tobit (or come to think of it, of any other book). If you’re asking about the Greek texts (I and II), IMHO it would be the translation I provided here: that of the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS). Unlike modern popular translations which try to reconstruct or improve the quite-defective text of Codex Sinaiticus (= Greek II) using sources such as the VL or other Greek witnesses, thereby producing a readable translation, the translator has more or less faithfully rendered both versions, even to the point of preserving the lacunae of Greek II and some of the awkward expressions of the original language. The good thing about the NETS version is that it gives you the texts of both Greek I and II side-by-side.
 
I firmly intend to hang on to my Douay Rheims Challoner bible because I think that OVERALL it is less INACCURATE than any bible out there.
I guess what I’m really asking is DO YOU think that there exists in English translation of the book of Tobit a translation that would be more accurate than the Douay Rheims Challoner Old Testament translation of Jerome’s Vulgate?
Convince me and I will buy it–even though I might disagree with its translation of many other parts of the bible–JUST for the sake of an accurate translation of Tobit–if its Tobit really is the best!
In that case I would use it IF ONLY for the book of Tobit!
I think you’re using the wrong word, or at least a word that is too broad. Yes, the Challoner is a faithful rendering of the Vulgate version, so if you want to read the Vulgate version of Tobit in English then you’re fine. But if you’re asking for a translation of the other versions of Tobit (say, the Greek), obviously the Challoner isn’t going to help you because it’s based on a different version than the Greek.
And one last thing–if I had to bet–I don’t think that St. Jerome would MAKE UP the part about the dog wagging his tail. Whether or not the Holy Spirit inspired that detail I do not know–I just don’t believe St. Jerome would MAKE IT UP. He might have had a translation to work with that was faulty and included that detail but I do not think that St. Jerome would MAKE IT UP!
When the pope commissions you to translate the bible and when you’re a saint like Jerome–I don’t think you would just MAKE IT UP!
You want me to nitpick a totally minor and unnecessary point? What Pope Damasus ordered St. Jerome to do in 382 is to revise the Latin translation of the gospels and the Psalms then in use at Rome. The translation of different OT books from the Hebrew and Aramaic came later (390-405), when Damasus was already dead and Jerome left Rome for good because of controversies. It was originally just supposed to be a private initiative made at the request of and for the benefit of his friends (in the preface to Ezra, Jerome actually asked two friends of his to not publicize his translation), but it was somehow leaked, which caused all the public controversy and all those letters between him and St. Augustine.

Yes, I personally don’t think that the elaborated account of the dog isn’t Jerome’s doing. I’m thinking that it may be traced to the version he was working from. At least, these narrative extensions remind me of midrashim and/or the Targumim. It may also be traced to the fact that Tobit was not a protocanonical book in Judaism. While people were generally meticulous when it comes to the text of protocanonical books (say, like the Torah), they were generally more lax when it comes to other works like Tobit. You could already see this phenomenon in Qumran and the Greek versions of the deuterocanon: neither the Semitic texts nor the Greek translations display the same level of unification as do the protocanonical books. And said protocanonical books existed in different versions, at least before the proto-Masoretic text became the standard post-AD 70.

I could compare this to the Vedas and the Indian epics: while the ancient Indians took great care to preserve the ancient Vedic hymns by oral tradition alone (something in which they have succeeded), the epics like the Rāmāyaṇa and the Mahābhārata took on many versions with the passage of time, as different storytellers produced their own retellings of the same basic story: speaking of the Rāmāyaṇa alone, different versions of Rāma’s story could be found all over India, Nepal and southeast Asia.
 
Is NETS the only English translation of Greek II?

I never have been able to understand how thousands and thousands of documents that come out of the Vatican can be translated into English–but translating the Nova Vulgata–the Holy Bible is so impossible to accomplish?!

It’s not a matter of refusing to translate from ancient original language texts–it’s a matter of at least having access IN ENGLISH to what the Latin accepted as juridicial for the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church amounts to. Is that TOO MUCH to ask?

Are people who know only English forbidden to even ask for such a thing?! It is the bible you know!

Now would it be easier to translate from the source texts used by the Nova Vulgata with the translation principles that it used?

Of course!

Given the Catholic English modern translations that we now have–what FAITH should ANY Catholic have that a modern translation team would actually DO THAT?!

See what I think the REAL DEAL is is this: if basic everyday Catholics had an English translation of the Nova Vulgata they would be “in the ballpark” of an accurate bible translation.

Then with any other Catholic modern English translation of the bible your everyday Catholic would be able to COMPARE them and hear their arguments for WHY their choice of original language text varients were indeed BETTER than the Nova Vulgata’s.

You know why you won’t see that happen? Because they don’t want to have to defend their textual varient choices to everday Catholics–probably because everyday Catholics would see through their choices as agenda driven or not in the ballpark of the Nova Vulgata–not improvements at all!

People who publish the NAB wouldn’t want everyday Catholics to have access to an English translation of the Nova Vulgata for if they did the NAB wouldn’t look good.

The Latin only Vulgate crowd wouldn’t want everyday Catholics to have an English translation of the Nova Vulgata because they’re for Latin only and don’t believe in it’s Latin anyway.

So basically the translators of modern English Catholic translations are able to hide behind worn out phrases such as “original language texts” without having to defend their textual varient choices so they can push their agendas.

There are many everyday Catholics that believe this is the case but since they aren’t fluent in Greek and Latin and Hebrew they can’t prove it.

What I wish for will probably never happen and that would be the Holy See removing the episcopal bishop conferences role in bible translation–reserving it only to the holy See–select the best bible translators in the world–and come up with one text of the holy Bible for the whole world!

In other words let ONLY the Holy See come up with the premier bible translation for every language in the world!

Let the Holy See update the translation every 10 years for biblical translation can always be improved with new discoveries and lastly

have the Holy See produce an official bible commentary in every language in the whole world!

Such a course of action wouldn’t bother me because I trust more the Catholic Church’s views on the bible over any individual’s scholars or group of scholar’s views.
 
Is NETS the only English translation of Greek II?
It is the only translation of Tobit that I know of which translates Greek II from Codex Sinaiticus only, side by side, with the text of Greek I. (That in itself is something you’ll probably never see in a regular Bible.) In other words, it renders the Greek Tobit of Codex Sinaiticus as it is into English without attempting to standardize the name spelling or fix the lacunae or the now-and-again awkward language of the original text. Here is a part of the NETS preface to Tobit by the translator, the late Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M. (incidentally also an editor of the NRSV-CE and the translator of the NAB Tobit).

APPROACH TO THE GREEK TEXT

Synoptic Rendering
In accord with the general principles of NETS concerning books that have two Greek forms, I have rendered the exact synoptic parallels between the two versions of Tobit in the same way. These synoptic parallels within their contexts provide a further opportunity for the reader to see how G[sup]I[/sup] was indeed based upon G[sup]II[/sup] and not the other way around. In any case, I hope that the reader will be able to follow more easily, with the aid of my translations, the two Greek forms of the book as we now have them. Since these Greek forms are themselves translations of a Semitic original, in my translations I have attempted to reproduce in English the flavor of these two Greek forms.

Recent Translations
The recent translations of the book of Tobit are based, as I mentioned above, on G[sup]II[/sup], and these make a serious effort to reconstruct or correct the defective text of Sinaiticus on the basis of Greek witnesses, whenever possible, and also on the basis of the critically essential Old Latin witnesses. See, for example, the critical footnotes the translators of Tobit supplied in the New Revised Standard Version, and especially the extensive critical notes I provided for my translation of Tobit in the New American Bible. [11: *Textual Notes on the New American Bible (Paterson, NJ: St. Anthony’s Guild, 1970) 366-369.] The forthcoming revision of Tobit in the New American Bible, revised edition, by Joseph A. Fitzmyer who, as noted above, edited the Qumran fragments of Tobit, also will contain readings from these fragments.

The NETS Translations of Tobit
My translation of G[sup]II[/sup], however, is different from any of these other translations. What I give is a translation of G[sup]II[/sup] alone, warts and all. In those places where Codex Sinaiticus has lacunae, as noted above, Hanhart does not supply a text, but only an apparatus. These lacunae, therefore, are represented also in my translation; to see what essentially would have been in these lacunae the reader should to the translation of G[sup]I[/sup]. In rare cases when a passage of G[sup]II[/sup] is awkward, I render it into English without attempting to improve on the Greek. In 11.11-13, for instance, I give the following translation: “Then he lay he medicine on him, and [sup]a[/sup]it worked[sup]a[/sup].” And he scaled it off with both his hands from the corners of his eyes.” Note [sup]a[/sup] then states: “Gk uncertain.” Thus readers can see for themselves what the Greek text says. I followed the same procedure in my translation of GI.
If the translation of a Greek expression needs clarification, I have appended a note. The translation of 1.2 in GII, for example, states, “This which is to the right[sup]a[/sup] of Kydios … above Asser[sup]b[/sup] to the west, left[sup]c[/sup] of Phogor. My note [sup]a[/sup] reads: “Aram/Heb = south,” and note [sup]c[/sup] reads “Aram/Heb = north.”

And since you’re asking for an English translation of the New Vulgate, I might as well ask for an English translation of the Vetus Latina Tobit.
 
I think it would be great if we had an English translation of the Vetus Latina Tobit!

I think it would be great if we had accurate English translations of every biblical fragment known to man!

patrick457: Learning about Codex Sinaticus tends to make me like parts of it. Do you think it gets some parts of the bible better than other translations.

After reading some of the NETS translation of Tobit it does seem to me to be great–I don’t agree with all of NETS translation when it comes to New Testament books but it seems like it does a good job with Tobit.
 
I think it would be great if we had an English translation of the Vetus Latina Tobit!

I think it would be great if we had accurate English translations of every biblical fragment known to man!
Considering the huge number of fragments I think it would really be a work of epic proportions. 😉
patrick457: Learning about Codex Sinaticus tends to make me like parts of it. Do you think it gets some parts of the bible better than other translations.
To put it simply, Sinaiticus (it now has a website of its own BTW) is a Greek uncial manuscript of the Septuagint and the NT. It is the only uncial manuscript with the complete text of the New Testament surviving (something which not even its contemporary Codex Vaticanus could rival - Vaticanus lacking part of Hebrews, and the whole of 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation), and is generally valued as one of the most valuable manuscripts of the Greek New Testament. But even then, the quality of its witness differs from book to book: in the gospels Sinaiticus is the second best witness after Vaticanus; in Acts Sinaiticus is equal to Vaticanus; in the Epistles Sinaiticus is the most reliable witness of the text; in Revelation Sinaiticus is considered to be corrupt and of poor quality.
After reading some of the NETS translation of Tobit it does seem to me to be great–I don’t agree with all of NETS translation when it comes to New Testament books but it seems like it does a good job with Tobit.
You might be thinking of a different translation here. NETS = New English Translation of the Septuagint.
 
You’re right–I’m sorry–I didn’t realize that NETS only involved the Old Testament.

I was thinking of another translation from the Greek of the new Testament which in 2 Corinthains 2:10 translated the Greek word “prosopon” as “presence” instead of “person”.

2 Corinthians 2:10 is my LITMUS TEST for “Protestant bias” and for “modern Catholic ecumenical bias”.

Even the KJV agrees with the translation of “person” by the D\ouay Rheims which proves ABSOLUTION by St. Paul of the incestuous Corinthian.

the only way out of this PROOF TEST is to translate “Presence” instead of “person” which is PPART OF THE TRUTH since Jesus is God and is omnipresent–that way you or me or anyone can forgive in Christ’s “presence”

Only a priest can forgive in Christ’s “person”!

Knox and the Confraternity version also use “person”

Even John Wesley’s version used “person”!
 
You’re right–I’m sorry–I didn’t realize that NETS only involved the Old Testament.

I was thinking of another translation from the Greek of the new Testament which in 2 Corinthains 2:10 translated the Greek word “prosopon” as “presence” instead of “person”.

2 Corinthians 2:10 is my LITMUS TEST for “Protestant bias” and for “modern Catholic ecumenical bias”.

Even the KJV agrees with the translation of “person” by the D\ouay Rheims which proves ABSOLUTION by St. Paul of the incestuous Corinthian.

the only way out of this PROOF TEST is to translate “Presence” instead of “person” which is PPART OF THE TRUTH since Jesus is God and is omnipresent–that way you or me or anyone can forgive in Christ’s “presence”

Only a priest can forgive in Christ’s “person”!

Knox and the Confraternity version also use “person”

Even John Wesley’s version used “person”!
You mean the NET? The funny thing about it is that I actually think its footnotes are more informative than certain modern Catholic translations out there, not to mention that they (the footnotes) are at times more ‘Catholic-sounding’ than any of them.
 
I did it earlier, but here’s a listing of differences between the versions, this time in order. Note that this is not a comprehensive list, but we’ll just note some of the noteworthy ones.

Names

The Qumran fragments give the father’s name as טובי (Tobi ‘my good’) and that of the son as טוביה (Tobiyah ‘Yah is my good’). Greek I spells the father’s name consistently as Τωβίτ (Tōbit), while in Greek II (Codex Sinaiticus), the name is found as both Τωβίθ (Tōbith; twenty-two times) and Τωβίς (Tōbis; eight times in an inflected form). Both texts agree in spelling the son’s name as Τωβίας (Tōbias). The Vetus Latina texts gives the name of father and son as T(h)obis and T(h)obias, respectively. The Vulgate normally employs T(h)obias as the name of both father and son, with a few exceptions.

Chapter 1

1:3-3:1


This section is narrated in the first person in Greek I and Greek II (cf. also the Aramaic).

1:1-2

Greek II:
“The book of the words of Tobith son of Tobiel son of Hananiel son of Adouel son of Gabael son of Raphael son of Ragouel of the descendants of Asiel, of the tribe of Nephtaleim, who in the days of Enemessaros, the king of the Assyrians, was taken into captivity from Thisbe which is to the right of Kydios Nephthaleim in Upper Galilee, above Asser to the west, left of Phogor.”

(Βίβλος λόγων Τωβιθ τοῦ Τωβιηλ τοῦ Ανανιηλ τοῦ Αδουηλ τοῦ Γαβαηλ τοῦ Ραφαηλ τοῦ Ραγουηλ ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος Ασιηλ ἐκ φυλῆς Νεφθαλιμ, ὃς ᾐχμαλωτεύθη ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις Ενεμεσσαρου τοῦ βασιλέως τῶν Ἀσσυρίων ἐκ Θισβης, ἥ ἐστιν ἐκ δεξιῶν Κυδιως τῆς Νεφθαλιμ ἐν τῇ ἄνω Γαλιλαίᾳ ὑπεράνω Ασσηρ ὀπίσω ὁδοῦ] δυσμῶν ἡλίου ἐξ ἀριστερῶν Φογωρ.)

Greek I: “The book of the words of Tobit son of Tobiel son of Hananiel son of Adouel son of Gabael of the descendants of Asiel, of the tribe of Nephtaleim, who was taken into captivity in the days of Enemessaros, the king of the Assyrians, from Thisbe which is to the right of Kydios Nephthaleim in Galilee, above Aser.”

(Βίβλος λόγων Τωβιτ τοῦ Τωβιηλ τοῦ Ανανιηλ τοῦ Αδουηλ τοῦ Γαβαηλ ἐκ τοῦ σπέρματος Ασιηλ ἐκ τῆς φυλῆς Νεφθαλιμ, ὃς ᾐχμαλωτεύθη ἐν ἡμέραις Ενεμεσσαρου τοῦ βασιλέως Ἀσσυρίων ἐκ Θισβης, ἥ ἐστιν ἐκ δεξιῶν Κυδιως τῆς Νεφθαλιμ ἐν τῇ Γαλιλαίᾳ ὑπεράνω Ασηρ.)

VL (Sabatier = MS Regius 3564): “The book of the words of Thobis, son of Thobiel, son of Ananihel, son of Gabahel, son of Asihel, son of Gadalel, son of Arabei, of the tribe of Nepthalim; who was abducted into captivity in the days of Salmanassar king of the Assyrians from the city of Bihel which is to the right of Edisse, a city of Nephthalim in Upper Galilee over against Naason, beyond the road which leads to the west on the left of Raphain.”

(Liber sermonum Thobi, filii Thobiel, filii Ananihel, filii Gabahel, filii Asihel, filii Gadalel, filii Arabei, ex tribu Nepthalim; qui captiuus abductus est in diebus Salmannassar regis Assyriorum, ex Bihel ciuitate, quae est in dextera parte Edisse ciuitatis Nephtalim, in superioribus Galilaeae, contra Naasson, post uiam quae ducit in occidentem, ex sinistra parte Raphain.)

VL (Codex Complutensis I): “The beginning of the book of Tobis, son of Ananiel son of Gabi, from the tribe of Neptalim, who was led into captivity in the days of Salmanassar king of the Assyrians from the city of Biel which is to the right of Edisse, a city of Nephthalim in Upper Galilee above Naason, on the left beyond the road which leads to the west.”

(Incipit liber Tobi fili Ananiel fili Gabi ex tribu Neptalim qui captivus ductus est in diebus Salmanassar regis Assyriorum ex Biel ciuitate que est in dextera parte citiis ciuitatis Neptalim in superiora Galilee supra Naasson ex sinistra parte post uiam que ducit ad occidentem.)

VL (Codex Reginensis 7): “Tobis, son of Tobiel, son of Naniel, son of Gabiel, son of Siel, son of Gabaliel, of the tribe of Neptalim, who was led into captivity in the days of Salmanassar king of the Assyrians from the city of Gebuel which is to the right of Cydissi, a city of Nephthalim, which is above Galilee, located above Naasor, which is toward the setting sun, to the left of Raphain.”

(Tobis filii Tobiel, filii Naniel, filli Gabiel, filii Siel, filii Gabaliel, ex tribu Neptalim, qui captiuus ductus est in diebus Salmanassar regis Assyriorum ex Gebuel ciuitate, quae est a dextera parte Cydissi ciuitate ex Neptalim, quae est super Galilaeam, super Naasor posita, quae est ad occidentem solem, a sinistra parte Raphain.)

VL (Bible de Rosas): “The book of the words of Thobis, son of Ananiel (?), son of Gabel, of the tribe of Neptalim, who was led into captivity in the days of Salmanassar king of the Assyrians from the city of Abiel which is to the right of Cades, a city of Neptalim in Upper Galilee above Ramessom, beyond the road which leads to the west on the left of Niphsaim.”

(Liber sermonum Tobi filii Ananie. filii Gabel, ex tribu Neptalim, qui captiuus ductus est in diebus Salmanassar regis Assiriorum ex Abiel ciuitate quae est in dextera partes Cades ciuitatis Neptalim, in superiori Galileae, super Ramessom post uiam quae ducit in occidentem, ad sinistram partem Niphsaim.)

Vulgate (Codex Amiatinus): “Thobias (Tobias) of the tribe and city of Nepthalim, which is in the upper parts of Galilee above Naasson, beyond the road which leads to the west, having on the left the city of Sephec (Sephet), when he was made captive in the days of Salmanassar king of the Assyrians…”

(Thobias ex tribu et ciuitate Nepthalim quae est in superiorib(us) Galilaeae supra Naasson, post uiam quae ducit ad occidentem in sinistro habens civitatem Sephec cum captus esset in diebus Salmanassar regis Assyrioru(m).)​
 
Chapter 1 (continued)

1:21
Aramaic (4Q196, fragment 2, 3-6):
“But not f[orty] days passed * [before two of] his (Sennacherib’s) [sons killed him] and they fled to the mountains of Ararat. Then [Esarhaddo]n became king [and he] appointed Ahikar, the son of my brother Anael, over all the ac[count]s [of the kingdom. And he was in ch]arge of all the royal treasury accounts.”

ולא הוה יומין ארבעין עד קטלונה תרי בנו י]הי ואנון ערקו לטורי אררט ומלך אסרדו]ן ברי תחתיהו והוא] אשלט לאחיקר בר ענאל אחי על כל שיזפנו]ת מלכותה ולה הוה שלטן על כ]ל המרכלות מלכא​

Greek II: “But forty days did not pass before two of his sons killed him, and they fled into the mountains of Ararat. Then Sacherdonos his son became king after him. And he appointed Achicharos son of Hanael my brother over all the accounts of his kingdom, and he had authority over all the administration.”

(καὶ οὐ διῆλθον ἡμέραι τεσσαράκοντα ἕως οὗ ἀπέκτειναν αὐτὸν οἱ δύο υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔφυγον εἰς τὰ ὄρη Αραρατ, καὶ ἐβασίλευσεν Σαχερδονος υἱὸς αὐτοῦ μετ᾽ αὐτόν, καὶ ἔταξεν Αχιχαρον τὸν Αναηλ τὸν τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ μου υἱὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν ἐκλογιστίαν τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ, καὶ αὐτὸς εἶχεν τὴν ἐξουσίαν ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν διοίκησιν.)

Greek I: “But fifty days did not pass before two of his sons killed him, and they fled into the mountains of Ararat. Then Sacherdonos his son became king in place of him. And he appointed Achiacharos son of Hanael my brother over all the accounts of his kingdom and over all the administration.”

(καὶ οὐ διῆλθον ἡμέραι πεντήκοντα ἕως οὗ ἀπέκτειναν αὐτὸν οἱ δύο υἱοὶ αὐτοῦ· καὶ ἔφυγον εἰς τὰ ὄρη Αραρατ, καὶ ἐβασίλευσεν Σαχερδονος ὁ υἱὸς αὐτοῦ ἀντ᾽ αὐτοῦ. καὶ ἔταξεν Αχιαχαρον τὸν Αναηλ υἱὸν τοῦ ἀδελφοῦ μου ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν ἐκλογιστίαν τῆς βασιλείας αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐπὶ πᾶσαν τὴν διοίκησιν.)

VL (Sabatier = MS Regius 3564): “And it happened while I was in hiding, after forty-five days the king was killed by his two sons, and they fled into the mountain of Ararath. Then Archedonassar his son reigned after him in his stead, and he appointed Achicharus, son of my brother Annanihel, over all the administration of the kingdom; and he was having power over all the regions.”

(Et contigit dum laterem, post dies quadraginta quinque occiderunt regem illum duo filii sui, et fugerunt in montem Ararath. et regnauit post eum Archedonassar filius eius pro illo, et constituit Achicarum filium fratris mei Annanihel, super omnem curam regni; et ipse habebat potestatem super omnem regionem.)

VL (Codex Complutensis I): “And the judging just justice of God made it happen that after 45 days the king Sennacerib would be killed by his sons and his son Natordan will reign in his stead.”

(Et iudicante iuste iustitie Deo contigit ut post dies xlv occideretur rex Sennacerib a filiis suis et regnabit Natordan filius eius pro eo.)

VL (Codex Reginensis 7): And I hid forty-five days until when his (Senacherim’s) sons would have killed him, and would have fled into the mountain of Arath. And Achenossar reigned after him in his stead, and he appointed Achicharus, son of Annanihel my brother, over the impost of the kingdom; and he was having power from all the regions."

(Et latui diebus quadraginta quinque, quousque filii illius occidissent illum, et fugissent in montem Arath. et regnauit Achenossar filius illius pro illo, et constituit Achicarum filium Anael fratris mei super exactionem regni; et ipse habebat potestatem ex omnem regionem.)

VL (Bible de Rosas): “And it happened that after forty and five days the king was killed by his sons. And under the king Archedonasa I came to my house, and my wife Anna and Thobis my son was returned to me.”

(Et contigit ut post quadraginta et quinque dies occiderent regem illum filii eius. (2:1) Et cum sub Archedonasa rege peruenissem in domum meam et reddita mihi esset uxor mea Anna et Thobi filius meus.)

Vulgate (Amiatinus): “(1:24) But after forty-five days, the king was killed by his own sons. (1:25) And Tobias returned to his house, and all his substance was restored to him.”

((1:24) Post dies vero quadraginta quinq(ue) occiderunt regem filii suis [Clementine: *ipsius], (1:25) et reuersus est Thobias in domum suam, omnisq(ue) facultas eius restituta est illi. [Clementine: ei]*)
  • Fitzmyer notes: “The fragmentary text of 4Q196 has a doubtfully read aleph, which is all that remains of the number of the days; it seems to support the reading of G[sup]II[/sup] τεσσαράκοντα = ארבעין “forty,” but there is room in the lacuna for ארבעין חמשה, “forty-five,” so that it would agree with VL, Vg, and Neubauer’s Aramaic.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top