P
patrick457
Guest
The thing about the book of Tobit is that it exists in different versions.
Fragments of Tobit were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Cave 4 in Qumran yielded remains of four Aramaic (4Q196-99) and one Hebrew (4Q200) manuscripts of the book, of which two scrolls - the papyrus Tob[sup]a[/sup] (196) and the leather Tob[sup]b[/sup] - have yielded copious extracts. Tob[sup]a[/sup], Tob[sup]c[/sup], and Tob[sup]d[/sup] are paleographically dated to the 1st century BC, with Tob[sup]b[/sup] and the Hebrew Tob[sup]e[/sup] dating from the turn of the era (30 BC-AD 20). The translation of a composite Aramaic text is followed separately by that of the Hebrew fragments. The Aramaic and the Hebrew overlap only in 14:1-2. Of the two, the Aramaic, represented by older and more numerous manuscripts, is likely to be the original language of composition.
There are in total two Greek recensions: the shorter form, called Greek I (G1) by Robert Hanhart in his edition of the Septuagint and found in Codex Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Venetus, Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1594 and most cursive manuscripts, is the preferred text before the mid-20th century and thus was the source text for most older English translations of Tobit such as in the KJV and the RSV. The Greek II (G2) version, which is 1700 words longer, is found in Codex Sinaiticus and partially in cursive manuscript 319 and the 6th-century Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1076[sup]3[/sup], as well as being the source for Vetus Latina translations. The text of G2 closely aligns with the Hebrew and Aramaic fragments from Qumran, and thus, is presently deemed by most scholars to be the more original of the two Greek texts. It is the version used by most modern English translations since 1966 (for example, the NAB).
A secondary version of note is the Vulgate Tobit. The Latin text by St. Jerome is essentially a translation (or to be more exact, a paraphrase) of a translation: this particular version was famously made from an Aramaic text which St. Jerome had translated into Hebrew first before it was translated into Latin, because he did not know Aramaic. It goes without saying that this is the source text of the Douai-Rheims Tobit.
Here we’ll compare these four texts via translations, mostly just for fun, although from time and again we’ll stumble upon some interesting differences between these four texts. So to give credit where credit is due, the translation of DSS Tobit derives from Geza Vermes’ The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, the translations for Greek I and II are that of the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS), and the Vulgate version is from the Douai-Rheims Challoner.
Fragments of Tobit were found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. Cave 4 in Qumran yielded remains of four Aramaic (4Q196-99) and one Hebrew (4Q200) manuscripts of the book, of which two scrolls - the papyrus Tob[sup]a[/sup] (196) and the leather Tob[sup]b[/sup] - have yielded copious extracts. Tob[sup]a[/sup], Tob[sup]c[/sup], and Tob[sup]d[/sup] are paleographically dated to the 1st century BC, with Tob[sup]b[/sup] and the Hebrew Tob[sup]e[/sup] dating from the turn of the era (30 BC-AD 20). The translation of a composite Aramaic text is followed separately by that of the Hebrew fragments. The Aramaic and the Hebrew overlap only in 14:1-2. Of the two, the Aramaic, represented by older and more numerous manuscripts, is likely to be the original language of composition.
There are in total two Greek recensions: the shorter form, called Greek I (G1) by Robert Hanhart in his edition of the Septuagint and found in Codex Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, Venetus, Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1594 and most cursive manuscripts, is the preferred text before the mid-20th century and thus was the source text for most older English translations of Tobit such as in the KJV and the RSV. The Greek II (G2) version, which is 1700 words longer, is found in Codex Sinaiticus and partially in cursive manuscript 319 and the 6th-century Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 1076[sup]3[/sup], as well as being the source for Vetus Latina translations. The text of G2 closely aligns with the Hebrew and Aramaic fragments from Qumran, and thus, is presently deemed by most scholars to be the more original of the two Greek texts. It is the version used by most modern English translations since 1966 (for example, the NAB).
A secondary version of note is the Vulgate Tobit. The Latin text by St. Jerome is essentially a translation (or to be more exact, a paraphrase) of a translation: this particular version was famously made from an Aramaic text which St. Jerome had translated into Hebrew first before it was translated into Latin, because he did not know Aramaic. It goes without saying that this is the source text of the Douai-Rheims Tobit.
Here we’ll compare these four texts via translations, mostly just for fun, although from time and again we’ll stumble upon some interesting differences between these four texts. So to give credit where credit is due, the translation of DSS Tobit derives from Geza Vermes’ The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English, the translations for Greek I and II are that of the New English Translation of the Septuagint (NETS), and the Vulgate version is from the Douai-Rheims Challoner.